Upchurch said:
"SARS to control YOU"
"baseball bat to control the poor guy getting beat"
Interesting.
So, on a small scale, you agree that the less conscious (SARS, baseball bat) can control the more conscious (YOU, poor guy)?
But in the SARS example, you are litterally begging the question. That is, you must assume that TLOP is conscious in order for this to show that TLOP is conscious. In other words, you must assume that TLOP is more conscious than YOU in order for the statement "TLOP is controlling SARS to control YOU" to show that TLOP is more conscious than YOU. It's "Begging the question".
Actually, now that I think about it, the same can be said of the second example. You must assume that the guy in a gang is more conscious than the poor guy in order for "a guy in a gang of tuffs controls a baseball bat to control the poor guy getting beat" to show that the guy in a gang is more conscious than the poor guy.
Even the classic TLOP > YOU > CAR would fit under begging the question fallacy, really. It only shows that TLOP is more conscious than YOU (or anyone else) if you assume (1) only the more conscious can control the less conscious and/or (2) TLOP is conscious. Which are the two points that TLOP > YOU > CAR is meant to show. You can't use your conclusions as premises, aith.
Regardless, the middle player (SARS and baseball bat) in the examples are less conscious than the any of the end players. How does this not defeat the purpose of showing that only that which is more conscious can control that which is less conscious since you specifically state that SARS controls YOU and baseball bat controls poor guy?
EVERYTHING is under the control of TLOP. SARS to Humans. Do you agree?
So you have the most complex being that TLOP controls (humans) to the
simple (single celled organism) with the
mediocre i (dogs, bears).
When a human controls a car, the car obeys the will of the human. This doesnt mean that you can will the car to go 300km/h if it's a '88 datsun because that's outside its ability. You and the car are based on "rules" that TLOP lay out.
What about when a human controls a dog? We can smack it when its bad, pat it when its good. Basically we tell the dog what we expect of it. This doesnt mean that we can tap into its mind and make it walk, or make it feel fear. But we can make it feel
fear.
This
control that we have on other consciousnesses/objects indicates our
rank of our sense of awareness.
How would you rate the level of consciousness of an ape to a snail? Have you seen an ape
control a snail or v/v? In a sense it does. It can pick it up and toy with it a bit. But this doesnt mean that it can control the snail's movements in the same way that the ape can control it's arm.
What if the snail was poisoness and the ape ate it and it got sick? Is the snail controlling the ape? In a sense, it is. But is the snail really thinking to itself "yeah ok, I have this ape under control."? Does it control the ape in the same way that it
controls its movements across the ground?
So how would you work out which entity was more conscious? I would look at it's behaviour and see if it showed any emotions or logic.
To control something, (ME > Car) is one indication of one's sense of awareness. Thats what the whole "control" issue is about. Another one is one's sense of emotion. Hit a snail, it probably couldnt even perceive pain? Hit a human, and you have something else...
Same deal with a human and SARS.
Tell me, just how can non-conscious TLOP create conscious entities. Where's the logic?
Thats like saying that a charater in Doom can become self-aware. And thats not mentioning how it got there in the first place!
