Franko Memorial thread!

[hammegk]

Tricky et al; yes I believe I understand both your arguments for and your belief in "matter makes consciousness (after life, mm-kay?)".

I only state, again, that this question had not been of particular interest to me before joining the discussions here. What materialist thinking as I now understand it has accomplished is to move me from a position -- had I thought about it -- of Dualism, through the question, "which holds primacy, non-life (matter) or life itself (including HPC)" to strongly considering Idealism in some form. Idealism and logic leave science intact (at the 99.999% level anyway) as well providing potential answers to all the questions I've considered as posed by "why and how the universe?".

Matter pre-exists consciousness

Matter can exist without consciousness

Consciousness cannot exist without matter

These anthropomorphic positions ignore the fact that we cannot define "life", let alone "consciousness" in any universal way.

As such I find them meaningless in defense of your "matter makes life" assertion. And I've yet to see any other argument offered here that does not depend on the correctness of your Belief that our perceived material, objective universe exists in-and-of-itself.

I also repeat my assertion that science's answers to "matter makes life" will ALWAYS contain the possibility that Idealism is the actual what-is.

Just my 2 cts ....

 

[Upchurch]

These anthropomorphic positions ignore the fact that we cannot define "life", let alone "consciousness" in any universal way.

As such I find them meaningless in defense of your "matter makes life" assertion.

Granted. "life" and "consciousness" has not been well defined in this discussion. However, I would point out that it is not just a failing of the "matter creates consciousness" side but that it is also a failing of the "consciousness creates matter" side as well. It was my impression that when wraith uses the word "consciousness" he is meaning the same thing that I mean when I say "consciousness". Although an abstract concept, we both have an understand what it means for something to be "conscious".

"Life" was my interjection that was meant to be an aid in bridging concepts. It is not critical to my arguement, per se, and can be withdrawn.

And I've yet to see any other argument offered here that does not depend on the correctness of your Belief that our perceived material, objective universe exists in-and-of-itself.

Again, hammegk, I believe that wraith believes in the physical existance of the universe as well. As such, it and the definition of "consciousness" is one of the given assumptions of this discussion and of each of our arguments.

Your objections are to the nature of the discussion itself, not to one specific side of it.

I also repeat my assertion that science's answers to "matter makes life" will ALWAYS contain the possibility that Idealism is the actual what-is.

Perhaps, but not within the context of this discussion because that context is materialism.

If you disagree, perhaps another thread?

 

[CWL]

Ive never been controlled by an animal or some sort of inanimate object. A dog chasing me is not the same as the dog controlling me, neither is falling on a bar of soap.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?
If you think that non-conscious TLOP has the ability to make you conscious, then explain how.

I have seen NOTHING from You, Churchy, Tricky ( dare I say Q-Source ) that represents any sort of Truth to support that matter creates consciousness. If there were, do you mind writting them in bold font?

Please don't dodge the question. I'll make it easy for you. Which of the two below options is an accurate description of your position?

a) The proposition if A controls B then A is always more conscious than B is absolutely true; or

b) "The consciousness with a higher degree of awareness (more complex) tend to control the consciousness with a weaker degree of awareness (less complex)".

If your position is a) I trust you appreciate that you must present evidence for that position. Bear in mind that b) is a direct quote from yourself.

 

[Kally]

Gee, I missed the Franko experience. Did he ever use the name "Eternal?" Eternal once argued "Penis and vagina as proof of god" on another board.

Kally

 

[Upchurch]

Welcome to the board, Kally.

Gee, I missed the Franko experience. Did he ever use the name "Eternal?" Eternal once argued "Penis and vagina as proof of god" on another board.

Although Franko was known for his use of sock puppets, I've never heard that name or that argument before.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky et al; yes I believe I understand both your arguments for and your belief in "matter makes consciousness (after life, mm-kay?)".

I'm glad you understand it. Do you find a flaw in the arguments? Please elucidate. (And yes, life preceded consciousness, at least by most standard definitions of consciousness).

I only state, again, that this question had not been of particular interest to me before joining the discussions here. What materialist thinking as I now understand it has accomplished is to move me from a position -- had I thought about it -- of Dualism, through the question, "which holds primacy, non-life (matter) or life itself (including HPC)" to strongly considering Idealism in some form. Idealism and logic leave science intact (at the 99.999% level anyway) as well providing potential answers to all the questions I've considered as posed by "why and how the universe?".

Providing a "potential answer" to the "why" (science may be able to handle the "how") is nice, but giving supporting evidence for that potential answer is the sticky wicket. To even require an answer to the question "why" must mean that the person asking "why" already has decided that creation was a conscious effort." Just as a child can drive their parents crazy by replying "why" to each answer the parents give them, anyone who perpetually insists that there must be an ultimate "why" is bound to finally be told "because".

Take this set of "potential answers"

Q: Why did God create the universe
A: Because God needed a place to bring other consciousnesses into existence.
Q: Why does God want other consciousnesses?
A: God wants to share His knowledge
Q: Why does God want to share His knowledge?
A: Because God loves us and wants us to be happy:
Q: Why does God want us to be happy?
(ad infinitum)

So exactly what is the "why" question you seek an answer to, and what "potential answers" have you come up with?

These anthropomorphic positions ignore the fact that we cannot define "life", let alone "consciousness" in any universal way.

No, which is why we must agree in advance of what defines consciousness. Earlier in this thread I gave Wraith a number of dictionary definitions and asked him to pick the one he was using, or give us his own. You can probably guess that he ignored this request. How do you define "consciousness" and "life"?

As such I find them meaningless in defense of your "matter makes life" assertion. And I've yet to see any other argument offered here that does not depend on the correctness of your Belief that our perceived material, objective universe exists in-and-of-itself.

As I and others have said (ad tedium), I see no evidence of anything other than the material, but I am open to the possibility. All I'm waiting on is the evidence. A single provable instance of a disembodied consciousness will do.

I also repeat my assertion that science's answers to "matter makes life" will ALWAYS contain the possibility that Idealism is the actual what-is.

Yes, it is always a possibility. Telekinesis is a possibility. Alien life is a possibility. Dowsing is a possibility. All of them are only waiting on the evidence.

Just my 2 cts ....

...and worth every penny!

 

[CWL]

Welcome to the board, Kally.
Although Franko was known for his use of sock puppets, I've never heard that name or that argument before.

Well... I dunno... he did talk about spin deciding the gender of a Graviton, remember. Maybe there is a connection there.

 

[Dancing David]

Just gotta say, it is great to see some people disagreeing withe ach other and not flaming, especialy the spirit of trying to understand the other point of view.

TOTALLY FUNKY!

 

[PixyMisa]

Well... I dunno... he did talk about spin deciding the gender of a Graviton, remember. Maybe there is a connection there.

I only remember him claiming charge as determining the gender of a graviton.

Hence this post. Oh, and this one. And this one.

 

[CWL]

I only remember him claiming charge as determining the gender of a graviton.

Hence this post. Oh, and this one. And this one.

Ah! But then you obviously have forgotten about this one!

 

[Kally]

LOL, he does seem to have a similar style to Eternal. But hey, where's the elephant? I knew who he was.

Kally

 

[PixyMisa]

Ah! But then you obviously have forgotten about this one!

You mean Franko doesn't know the difference between charge and spin?! I'm shocked!

 

[wraith]

huh. I thought I was talking about your proof for a conscious TLOP was a huge logical fallacy. Your rebuttal is that you can't imagine how TLOP can be non-conscious and still lead to conscious entities? (I suggest you start by reading up on the theory of evolution to broaden your horizens and imagination.)

How is reading about the evolution of life going to help?
That doesnt explain how non-consciousness creates consciousness.

Your (or rather, Franko's) consciousness hierarchy is based on a fallacy of logic and your "rebuttal" is based not on logic or evidence but a lack of imagination and/or education. I suggest that your quest for truth should begin at the library, aith.

Fallacy of logic?
You are one deluded individual...


....claiming to know Truth....

HAHHAHA yeah keep thinking that Churchy

 

[wraith]

Originally posted by Q-Source wraith,are you conscious?

Yes

did your consciousness exist before you were born?

As in Soul?
Yes

what will happen when you die?,

Not sure. But im not placing my bet on ceaseing to exist

will your consciousness survive? or will your consciousness die with your body (matter)?

Consciousness/Soul lives on...

how do you know that gravity is conscious? has gravity told you?
it is the only possible way to know for sure.

Im dont have a sufficient understanding in this area. I dont perceive Gravity to the extent Frank does. Ask Frankie when he gets back...if youre lucky

Seriously wraith, take Upchurch's advice.

On a cold day in Hell

 

[wraith]

POS,

Matter pre-exists consciousness

This is shown in a number of ways, primarily by the fact that we have geological and astronomical records showing the existance of matter before the existance of life (let alone consciousness) in the universe and on this planet. Further, there is no evidence of life (let alone consciousness) existing anywhere besides this planet. Even if there is, it is only speculation until some is in evidence.

Yeah, if you assume that matter creates consciousness.

Matter can exist without consciousness

There are several specific, concrete examples of matter without consciousness: Rock, air, plastic, water, etc.

Again, youre assuming that matter creating consciousness is True. You have not shown how this belief is logical.

Consciousness cannot exist without matter

There are no proven examples of consciousness existing without matter. (Remember, you have yet to prove that TLOP is consciouss. Circular "begging the question" logical fallacies are not proof.) Further, consciousness that does exist is dependent on the condition of the matter that creates it, i.e. brain matter. Change the condition of the brain matter, the condition of the consciousness also changes.

A bit like sound and sound waves isnt it?
We interpret energy and we perceive this as matter.
Matter is there by necessity from where I stand.

Correlations is not proof of matter creating consciousness.
Computer coding is proof of the non-existence of the programer...
Top reasoning Church

 

[wraith]

Oh Wraith thou art Frank reborned.

So how does matter lead to conciosness, where do you want to begin?
Just to lay the ground work:
Question #1: Should we define consiousness as the abilty to respond to a situation or the ability to percieve?

The ability to perceive/reason.
Sense of "I"

I think that if we are going to discuss consiousness we need to define what we are going to say did or did not come from matter.

Roger that

PS So TLOP controls but doesn't care?

TLOP wouldnt care if it was non-conscious

Your definition of control may need some brushing up, this control does or does not allow for free will?

If you obey TLOP, then there is no "free-will".

 

[wraith]

Please don't dodge the question. I'll make it easy for you. Which of the two below options is an accurate description of your position?

a) The proposition if A controls B then A is always more conscious than B is absolutely true; or

b) "The consciousness with a higher degree of awareness (more complex) tend to control the consciousness with a weaker degree of awareness (less complex)".

If your position is a) I trust you appreciate that you must present evidence for that position. Bear in mind that b) is a direct quote from yourself.

I would say B, depending on the context of the sentence.

Did you read the part where I said that "control" is one way of establishing the level of consciousness of an entity?

Did you read the whole post about the snail and the ape?

 

[wraith]

Gee, I missed the Franko experience. Did he ever use the name "Eternal?" Eternal once argued "Penis and vagina as proof of god" on another board.

Kally

lol

That may not be as stupid as it sounds actually....

 

[wraith]

Yes, it is always a possibility. Telekinesis is a possibility. Alien life is a possibility. Dowsing is a possibility. All of them are only waiting on the evidence.

So is matter creating consciousness....
HAHAHA
Youre like Churchy.....claiming to hold Truth!

 

[CWL]

I would say B, depending on the context of the sentence.

Did you read the part where I said that "control" is one way of establishing the level of consciousness of an entity?

Did you read the whole post about the snail and the ape?

Ok. If we just for a minute hypothetically assume that it is correct to look upon TLOP as some sort of "personified force" as you choose to do (which it - for the record - of course is not) - this is where we end up:

Your statement is that "the consciousness with a higher degree of awareness (more complex) tend to control the consciousness with a weaker degree of awareness (less complex)".

"Tend to control" of course implies that it is not always so. Therefore I conclude that, by your own admission, "TLOP > YOU > CAR" does not prove that TLOP is conscious.

No amount of snails and apes is going to change that as long as you cannot prove that "the consciousness with a higher degree of awareness (more complex) always controls the consciousness with a weaker degree of awareness (less complex)".

Back to the drawing board perhaps?