</yawn>
Yet another exercise in pedantic tedium from none other than the PixyMisa. Lets see if I can do it nearly as well...
You're not actually reading anything anyone writes, are you?
No, but I'm mistaken. Sorry, yes,
you highlited
Pure Argent's comments.
That said, you are still and always have been wrong in your interpretation of what Argent said.
So you're making a red-herring of a moot point.
No; you've spent considerable time attacking Pure Argent based on your misinterpretation of what he said. Did he ask you for details? No. Therefore your statement was false.
Equivocation and more strawmanning.
What is the difference between non-existent impossible magic elves and non-existent impossible non-corporeal minds, exactly? And how do you know this?
If you want to claim that my reference to "magic elves" is a strawman of your claim to "non-corporeal minds", then you have to have both a coherent definition of your "non-corporeal minds" and a better supported mechanism than your usual argument from asserted ignorance.
This coming from a person who's argued that consciousness is not medium dependent...?
Information is medium-independent. That's simply a fact.
That means that it doesn't matter what the medium is. It does not mean that it doesn't matter whether there's a medium.
This has, of course, been explained to you dozens of times.
By "we" I assume you're referring to yourself and the voices in your head.
Try reading the thread for once, rather than devoting all your efforts to inane ad hominems.
Funny how anything that directly contradicts your tripe is "irrelevant".
It doesn't contradict anything I said.
You try to lecture us on set theory, and then claim that one of a pair of
by defintion disjoint sets can be a subset of the other?
No. No, I don't think so.
You are a very, very confused man.
I've just argued it and it's what I've been arguing. Ergo, contrary to your boneheaded counter-assertions, its what I'm arguing.
No, in fact. I mean, if it
were you'd still be wrong, because your premises are false, but at least you'd be logically consistent.
But no; your usual arguments (as opposed to this meta-argument) are just collections of logical fallacies.
Nope. We've already established this; your assertions of universal ignorance on whatever subject may be convenient are simply baseless - and in many cases, actually impossible.
I see you're even more confused that I thought.
I really don't think you do.
More baldfaced lies on your part. I suppose if you make a concentrated effort to disregard your blatant disconnect with reality it really isn't there, huh?
You're actually denying that those questions have been answered, rather than asserting you reject the answers?
Since you have, in the past, responded to and rejected those same answers, there's a serious disconnect there.
Reference to self.
Of the system.
I'm looking for something better than your regurgitated brain-farts.
You're looking for magic. That's your problem; it's always your problem.
What's the difference between the biochemistry or physics of a neuron involved in consciousness and one that's not?
Nothing. There's no difference whatsoever.
Consciousness is a property of the system, not the neuron. You're looking for an emergent property at the wrong level, and you're never going to understand anything until you give that up.
It's like looking for the wetness of water in hydrogen or oxygen themselves. You just ain't gonna find it there, 'cause that's the wrong level.
Misrepresentation, and also wrong.
No, it's not a misrepresentation. You might not like the word when I use it, but it's entirely appropriate, and it's entirely accurate.
You want consciousness to be something special. It's not. It's just a computer circuit with a particular kind of feedback loop.
All the questions have been answered, and the mistakes you made in asking them have been explained.
Again. Not that anything changed after the last time this was all explained to you.
You want magic.
There is no magic.
Making an utter hash out of set theory doesn't mean you can argue for the existence of magic; it just means you've based your entire worldview on an error a bright twelve-year-old could straighten out for you if you would just
listen.
Try that, for once. Rather than deciding that everyone who disagrees with you (and face it, you're outnumbered) has to be both dishonest and stupid, try examining your premises. Because they're very badly broken.
