Fore Will (origin at its finest)

Half the human species ... of superior nature.

Easy to provide your answer with no philosophy.

Only if we want it to be.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Ideal for what? And what does it matter if it is not ideal?

Schroedinger's cat has a proof, yet we don't prove it. Review my two threads about conspiracy against metaphysics and the 3rd eye.

Then consider you as a parent and your child tries to give you a gift. With your attitude here, we can expect you to tell your child: prove what is inside the gift. In other words, you defeat the purpose of a gift if you don't let your child surprise you with a gift.

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer out of you? What is it ideal for? What does it matter? Your analogy doesn't answer these questions, or if it does, it does so only for you. Again, dzonatas, no one can read your mind. Please, try to post things that others will be capable of understanding.

Not evidence.

Because you are no surprise.

Again you fail to make sense.

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Again, we have evidence that the chemical reactions are the source and the recipient.

No evidence suggests that.

Yes, it does. Again, we have seen that the consciousness can be directly altered by the introduction of chemicals into the brain.

Because that alters the message that the consciousness interrupts…

Originally posted by Golden Boy
You are asserting that it is correlation rather than causation, with absolutely no backing for this. All of our evidence points to the fact that the reactions and consciousness are one and the same. Again, if you posit the existence of some third entity which regulates both, present your evidence.

Because scientifically we observe correlation, period.

Your idea of causation is nothing but speculation based on assumptions.

The entity is consciousness. The reactions are simply the message that goes to and from consciousness.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
No, it is a matter of evidence. If you claim that the fundamental nature of consciousness is as you say it is, then you should be able to prove it. In the end, it comes back to evidence.

The proof is the conscious experience itself. The fact that humans have consciousness instead of just being reactive biological robots is the evidence.

Electrochemical reactions are nothing but moving pieces; patterns of information.

You are looking at the closest part of the message and confusing it for that which interrupts and feels the message.

Physically you may find something more basic and you will then assert that those moving pieces are consciousness.

Consciousness is not a moving piece, that is a robot.

Consciousness is what feels the moving pieces.


[edit on 1-3-2010 by Jezus]

Originally posted by Golden Boy
However, yes, we should in future (and in theory) be capable of creating androids with consciousness.

It would be easier to just sculpt them out of natural resources based on the science of evolution alone. No need for creationism just to test the theory itself.

Bones from ground... etc etc.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Again, we have evidence that the chemical reactions are the source and the recipient.

No evidence suggests that.

Yes, it does. Again, we have seen that the consciousness can be directly altered by the introduction of chemicals into the brain.

Because that alters the message that the consciousness interrupts.

Okay. We are getting nowhere here. The two of us are simply running around in circles, chasing one another. So here's the final question:

My idea of consciousness requires nothing that has not already been established as fact. Yours requires the existence of another entity that controls the others. Where is the evidence for the existence of this entity?

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Please, try to post things that others will be capable of understanding.

You are incapable of being able to put yourself in a child's mind that tries to give a gift to their parent.

Not evidence.

Because you are no surprise.

Again you fail to make sense.

Then you proved me, yet it your burden of proof to explain comprehensively with the truth the complete truth and nothing but the truth.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
My idea of consciousness requires nothing that has not already been established as fact. Yours requires the existence of another entity that controls the others. Where is the evidence for the existence of this entity?

Larger than your life.

How can you see something that surrounds you everywhere.

You have no evidence of the difference.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Please, try to post things that others will be capable of understanding.

You are incapable of being able to put yourself in a child's mind that tries to give a gift to their parent.

Then explain to me what I would see if I were that child.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
My idea of consciousness requires nothing that has not already been established as fact. Yours requires the existence of another entity that controls the others. Where is the evidence for the existence of this entity?

Larger than your life.

How can you see something that surrounds you everywhere.

You have no evidence of the difference.

Okay, so you have no evidence. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Then explain to me what I would see if I were that child.

If you forgotten what it is like to be a child, then a present awaits you if you can hang onto it.

Maybe if you prove life after death or infinite life or how you want a new body, like to create an android and put your consciousness inside it.

You bother people with too many questions for them to help you it do it. Maybe next lifetime.

Okay, so you have no evidence. Thanks for clearing that up.

I know the difference. You proved it.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
My idea of consciousness requires nothing that has not already been established as fact. Yours requires the existence of another entity that controls the others. Where is the evidence for the existence of this entity?

Like I said this isn't a matter of evidence, this is a matter of understanding; 1 + 1 = 2.

You never really discussed consciousness. You discussed biological chemistry and physiological psychology. Consciousness is fundamentally abstract, it is the other side of the equation. We can only study correlations between our interpretations of consciousness and observed moving pieces. We cannot study consciousness directly in a scientific way.

Look into neurolinguistic brain damage studies. This is the best way to see the relationship between the meaning perceived by consciousness and the physical knowledge within the brain.

When you comprehend the difference between abstract and physical you will understand the difference between mind and brain.

Consciousness is fundamentally abstract; it is a feeling.
The brain creates a sensation; the mind perceives it.

--

Also, two things you wrote "control and "entity"

Don't think of consciousness as the controller, it is the responder/observer. It is the source of decisions but it is only able to express what it receives from the brain.

Also, entity seems like it suggests inherent characteristics. It could simply be a raw energy.


[edit on 1-3-2010 by Jezus]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Then explain to me what I would see if I were that child.

If you forgotten what it is like to be a child, then a present awaits you if you can hang onto it.

Maybe if you prove life after death or infinite life or how you want a new body, like to create an android and put your consciousness inside it.

You bother people with too many questions for them to help you it do it. Maybe next lifetime.

*shrugs*

Fine. If you're not even going to bother to elaborate on your meaning, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
My idea of consciousness requires nothing that has not already been established as fact. Yours requires the existence of another entity that controls the others. Where is the evidence for the existence of this entity?

Like I said this isn't a matter of evidence

You keep saying this, and you refuse to be educated. Evidence is needed. You need to prove that consciousness is fundamentally abstract before you can claim that no evidence is needed.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
You keep saying this, and you refuse to be educated. Evidence is needed. You need to prove that consciousness is fundamentally abstract before you can claim that no evidence is needed.

Refuse to be educated?

You're the one ignored the rest of my post explaining exactly why this is not a matter of evidence.

Some issues are logical and about comprehension. (1 + 1 = 2)

Originally posted by Jezus
Look into neurolinguistic brain damage studies. This is the best way to see the relationship between the meaning perceived by consciousness and the physical knowledge within the brain.

When you comprehend the difference between abstract and physical you will understand the difference between mind and brain.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
You keep saying this, and you refuse to be educated. Evidence is needed. You need to prove that consciousness is fundamentally abstract before you can claim that no evidence is needed.

Refuse to be educated?

You're the one ignored the rest of my post explaining exactly why this is not a matter of evidence.

Some issues are logical and about comprehension. (1 + 1 = 2)

Even this is a matter of evidence. The proof for 1 + 1 = 2 can be found here.

reply to post by Golden Boy


What you really want then is to say that you only accept proof when it is stated in the language of mathematics.

Now it makes sense why you don't accept proof when it is stated in any natural language.

Of course, we considered such possibilities yet it would be helpful if you just state your affinity.

reply to post by Golden Boy


Looks Like we All have yet a lot to learn.... still ???

At this stage in history, all is subjective and is only, the bipedal primates (belonging to the species Homo sapiens) of the great ape families interpretation of All... according to the Laws laid down by the bipedal primate.

So really humankind... is rather lost the caves.. still.

Perhaps one day, we may venture outside our caves, and discover reality ???

Well I hope so anyway.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Perhaps one day, we may venture outside our caves, and discover reality ???

There seems to be a reason why particular members of the broader population have become comfortable to stay in our caves more often. Usually we all just want to get out and play with the real world. When the real world seems to end with no light at the tunnel everyday, then we seem to survive in internet concentration camps.

On this planet here... camp has been setup... ( in comparison to the larger experience of reality if we include outside the solar system and all the unmentionable realities )... got roof, stove, trees, fireplace, stars, nature,

[edit on 1-3-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

What you really want then is to say that you only accept proof when it is stated in the language of mathematics.

Complete and utter bollocks. I accept proof whatever the language it is presented in. You, however, have presented nothing but bare assertion.

reply to post by Golden Boy


You proved assertion exists.

Another questionable will, however.

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
You keep saying this, and you refuse to be educated. Evidence is needed. You need to prove that consciousness is fundamentally abstract before you can claim that no evidence is needed.

Refuse to be educated?

You're the one ignored the rest of my post explaining exactly why this is not a matter of evidence.

Some issues are logical and about comprehension. (1 + 1 = 2)

Even this is a matter of evidence. The proof for 1 + 1 = 2 can be found here.

Exactly, that is the explanation. It is just a matter of comprehending it.

Originally posted by Jezus
You never really discussed consciousness. You discussed biological chemistry and physiological psychology. Consciousness is fundamentally abstract, it is the other side of the equation. We can only study correlations between our interpretations of consciousness and observed moving pieces. We cannot study consciousness directly in a scientific way.

Look into neurolinguistic brain damage studies. This is the best way to see the relationship between the meaning perceived by consciousness and the physical knowledge within the brain.

When you comprehend the difference between abstract and physical you will understand the difference between mind and brain.

Consciousness is fundamentally abstract; it is a feeling.
The brain creates a sensation; the mind perceives it.

The fundamental nature of consciousness is directly observable to you.

You are confusing the synthesis of information (the brain) for the perceiver of information (the mind).