Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Upchurch: Let me pose a straight out question: Do you believe that matter can exist without having consciousness?wraith said:
wraith: No.
So, by "No" you really meant "Yes". And I am the one who missed the point.
Let's summerize:
Matter pre-exists consciousness
You have stated that geological and astronomical records show a correlation for this. (e.g. "You have shown correlations")
Matter can exist without consciousness
You have agreed with this. (e.g. "Why would I believe that rocks etc are conscious?")
Consciousness cannot exist without matter
To this, you have stated: "To say it another way, Im saying that I need sound waves to hear sound." Meaning that consciousness (the sound) requires matter (the matter propegating the sound waves).
I would point out that without the matter to propogate the sound waves, the sound itself does not exist. For example, in outer space, where there is not enough matter to propogate sound waves, there is no sound. Likewise, in space, where there is no matter, there is also no evidence for consciousness.
You have stated that TLOP is a consciousness that can exist without the presense of matter. Your only evidence so far (TLOP > You > Car) has been shown to be a "Begging the Question" logical fallacy.
This is the last point that is in contention. Can you show that TLOP, or anything that exists without matter, is conscious?
wraith
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 991
Upchurch said:Upchurch: Let me pose a straight out question: Do you believe that matter can exist without having consciousness?
wraith: No.
Church: So, by "No" you really meant "Yes". And I am the one who missed the point.
No. I meant "no".
Im not sure what youre trying to pull here, but correlations is not the same as saying "matter CREATES consciousness".
For "matter to preexist consciousness" to be True, then you have to show that TLOP is non-conscious.
..hence me saying "you have missed the point".
"Matter can not exist without consciousness" is not equivalent to saying "matter has consciousness" in the sense that a rock has consciousness.
Yeah thanks for that...but im not refuting correlations.
Im saying that correlations in itself is not evidence to support "matter creating consciousness." Thats your problem.
...and youre wrong when you say "without the matter to propogate the sound waves, the sound itself does not exist." Even if you had air for the waves to travel along, sound is meaningless without consciousness to perceive those waves as "sound".
Only in the context of what you think matter is...Do you think consciousness springs out the blue willy nilly?
Did you bother to read my explanation to this or did you merely ignore it?
+ a couple more...
Thats like asking me to produce sound without sound waves.
When I said "consciousness can exist without matter" Im referring to the "widely held view of matter" - the stuff in this universe that you call matter. Ultimately, LD argues that consciousness does arise from matter, only the LDs hold a different view on what "matter" actually is.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
wraith said:Thats right...only the Best
One day, fighter planes may not need to have hard points...
U mean like in fantasy planes?
I dont live in the States...so the system here isnt exactly like that...but good to know nevertheless.
Neither do I, but the system is the same here. Most governments will want you to be very thoroughly qualified before they put you in charge of a billion-dollar aircraft.
But, nevermind. Done any prop sims apart from IL-2? I meself am an old MS CFS jock, all three of'em though I keep coming back to #1.
Hans
CWL
Funkateer
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,401
wraith said:
Wraith, old boy. Why do you keep insisting that "TLOP is conscious" is the default position?
Is your default position on the matter of the existence or non-existence of Santa Claus also that "Santa exists".
It sure looks that way. An analogous statment with your above statement would namely be: For "jolly old Father Christmas is fiction" to be True, then we have to show that Santa Claus is non-existent.
Does such a statement make any sense to you?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Yikes. You're not even consistant. Okay, so today you're back to thinking that matter cannot exist without having consciousness. Do you still that rocks, etc. are not conscious, or has that different today to? Maybe everything is conscious today in Learning Disabled land? ...er, I mean, Logical Deist land?wraith said:
Not paying attention again, you said that I had shown correlations for Matter pre-exists consciousness, not matter creates consciousness.
I can provide evidence for the existance of matter before the formation of life on this planet. I cannot provide evidence for the existance of consciousness before the formation of life on this planet. Until we do find some evidence for consciousness existing before life formed on this planet, or any other, since all planets are made of matter, we must assume that matter pre-existed consciousness.
But I didn't ask if matter can exist without consciousness. I asked if matter can exist without having consciousness, didn't I? Who missed the actual point, then?
True, each correlation in itself (even though they aren't really "correlations") is not evidence to support "matter creates consciousness". The combined correlations put together ARE evidence to support "matter creates onsciousness". That's been my point since you asked what arguments show that matter creates consciousness (in bold).
Meaningless, perhaps, but the sound still exists. Without matter, there is no sound at all.
Ah, so you're going to redefine what "matter" is now, eh? This should be good.
I do not think think consciousness springs out of the blue willy nilly. I think consciousness comes from a long process of trial and error and a good degree of chance.
Where do you think consciousness springs from?[/b][/quote]
Not at all. Here, allow me to reprint it:Did you bother to read my explanation to this or did you merely ignore it?
That was as close as you came to a rebuttal: "You're wrong" Am I missing the point where you actually rebut the Begging the Question fallacy?
That's right, because consciousness requires matter to exist just like sound requires moving matter to exist.
heh heh heh. Okay, so, unable to argue the point, now an LD person does believe that matter creates consciousness. So, how would you care to redefine matter to save face?
wraith
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 991
Upchurch said:
What do you mean?
Ive never said that rocks were conscious.
No I didnt. I said that "matter pre-existing consciousness is True if TLOP is non-conscious".
Sure. Since the big bang to the first formations of life, was matter just lying around the place doing nothing for a couple of billion years? Surely this must be evidence for matter creating consciousness? It would be, if you could show that TLOP is non-conscious itself. Youre reasoning to say such a thing is purely an assumption.
What do you mean by "combined correlations"?
Really? Even with matter, there is still sound without a consciousness? Thats kind of hard to say, since it's YOU that interprets that energy as "sound". You think that a rock perceives "sound"
Yep. But you cant handle the Truth
I may agree with the trial and error part, but not with "chance".
Im looking at Gravity. Hence LD.
[/quote]That was as close as you came to a rebuttal: "You're wrong" Am I missing the point where you actually rebut the Begging the Question fallacy?[/quote]
Did you read the post where I spoke about the ape and the snail?
No. Matter is simply there because it has to be as a result of consciousness communicating with another consciousness (TLOP being conscious). In no way does the existence of matter imply that it's the creator of consciousness.
oh like I said before, even if you had matter, there is still no sound if there is no consciousness to perceive sound.
If Consciousness is linked to Gravity then consciousness has a materialistic source. In which "matter creating consciousness" is ultimately True when used in this context. However, since you see this perceive reality (this universe) as "matter" in the sense that there there is this "hard stuff taking up space" then the belief that "matter creatiing consciousness", in this context, is False.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
This is not only getting boring, but tedious.
Frankly, I don't see how my point is a "correlation" but you seemed happy enough at the time to take it as such.
As you are fond of saying, don't confuse the map (the word "sound") for the terrain (the sound).
No. Matter is simply there because it has to be as a result of consciousness communicating with another consciousness (TLOP being conscious). In no way does the existence of matter imply that it's the creator of consciousness.[/b][/quote]Can you show that matter is a result of consciousness communicating with another consciousness? Or is this yet another unfounded claim?
And you're right, the mere existance of matter does not imply that it is the creator of consciousness. Nor did I say that it was. (making this a strawman argument.) It's the circumstances around the relationship between matter and consciousness that implies that it is the creator of consciousness. I thought I explained that.
It is often best to start at the beginning (and when you reach the end, stop). So, let's start with the assumption you base the argument on (the "if" part of the statement), "Consciousness is linked to Gravity". Even the more verbal Franko, in all his ramblings, was never able to draw line between gravity and consciousness. Would you like to make the intellectual leap and justify why would should accept this premise?
Let's look at the "then" part of you statement, "consciousness has a materialistic source." Even if your assumption is true, how do you reach this conclusion? Gravity is a physical force, as such it acts on the physical world. What is the mechanism? Evolution has never depended on gravity other than in a peripheral way.
This last bit requires item by item analysis:
However, since you see this perceive reality (this universe) as "matter" in the sense that there there is this "hard stuff taking up space"
This is incorrect. We don't pervieve reality or this universe as matter. Matter is only a one part of what reality and this universe is. Personally, I view the universe as the interplay between spacetime and energy/matter, but that is beside the point.
then the belief that "matter creatiing consciousness", in this context, is False.
It'd be nice if you explained or, perhaps, justified this claim. It is not obvious from either assumption.
You said that matter could not exist without having consciousness. Not that matter couldn't exist without consciousness, but that matter couldn't exist without having consciousness. I've asked three times. The first and third time you said it couldn't, the second time you said it could. Now it appears that you are saying it can't again. Do please make up your mind.wraith said:
In your own words, you said:
Earlier, you said I missed the point when you said "No" I asked "Can matter exist without having consciousness?" Are you now claiming that I'm missing the point when you said "You have shown correlations"? Have I or have I not shown correlations?
Frankly, I don't see how my point is a "correlation" but you seemed happy enough at the time to take it as such.
What evidence is there that any consciousness existed before the emergance of life on this or any other planet? My example above only assumes that geological and astronomical records are representative of the past. In them, there is evidence for matter, but no evidence for consciousness. So, unless these records are not representative of the past or there is a record that we are not aware of, then matter pre-existed consciousness. There is no need to assume that TLOP is itself non-consious, that is merely the ultimate conclusion.
I mean the "correlations" that you said I have presented for each of my three points, when put together. i.e. combined correlations.
Is a rock not a rock without someone there to call it a "rock"? When we say "sound" we are refering to the vibrational energy that propogates through matter. There are sounds that are too low or too high for us to hear. Does that make them any less sounds?Really? Even with matter, there is still sound without a consciousness? Thats kind of hard to say, since it's YOU that interprets that energy as "sound". You think that a rock perceives "sound"
As you are fond of saying, don't confuse the map (the word "sound") for the terrain (the sound).
Riiiight. and you have Absolute Truth, huh?Yep. But you cant handle the Truth
And, once again, you are simply wrong.
Even though the Learning Disabled concept of gravity is demonstrably incorrect? How unfortunate for you.
you mean that insipid example where you rehash the argument again using different critters and a looser form of the word "control" then you've ever used before? Yeah, it still doesn't address the fact that you must assume that only that which is more conscious can control that which is less conscious in order to prove that which is more conscious can control that which is less conscious. You can't use your assumption to prove your assumption.
Did you read the post where I spoke about the ape and the snail?
No. Matter is simply there because it has to be as a result of consciousness communicating with another consciousness (TLOP being conscious). In no way does the existence of matter imply that it's the creator of consciousness.[/b][/quote]Can you show that matter is a result of consciousness communicating with another consciousness? Or is this yet another unfounded claim?
And you're right, the mere existance of matter does not imply that it is the creator of consciousness. Nor did I say that it was. (making this a strawman argument.) It's the circumstances around the relationship between matter and consciousness that implies that it is the creator of consciousness. I thought I explained that.
I suggest a thought experiment. Set a powersaw in the woods on a timer so that at a pre-arranged time, it saws through a tree. Also, place a tape recorder nearby and walk away. Well after the time goes off, return and check the tape. Since no one was there to perceive the sound of the tree falling, will it be on the tape? Why or why not?
Wow. I hardly know where to begin. There is litterally a plethora of holes in this argument.
It is often best to start at the beginning (and when you reach the end, stop). So, let's start with the assumption you base the argument on (the "if" part of the statement), "Consciousness is linked to Gravity". Even the more verbal Franko, in all his ramblings, was never able to draw line between gravity and consciousness. Would you like to make the intellectual leap and justify why would should accept this premise?
Let's look at the "then" part of you statement, "consciousness has a materialistic source." Even if your assumption is true, how do you reach this conclusion? Gravity is a physical force, as such it acts on the physical world. What is the mechanism? Evolution has never depended on gravity other than in a peripheral way.
This last bit requires item by item analysis:
However, since you see this perceive reality (this universe) as "matter" in the sense that there there is this "hard stuff taking up space"
This is incorrect. We don't pervieve reality or this universe as matter. Matter is only a one part of what reality and this universe is. Personally, I view the universe as the interplay between spacetime and energy/matter, but that is beside the point.
then the belief that "matter creatiing consciousness", in this context, is False.
It'd be nice if you explained or, perhaps, justified this claim. It is not obvious from either assumption.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
wraith said:
Im not talking to myself when I post on this forum
Yes, I remember
Has anyone ever mentioned that your avatar looks like an explosion between someone's legs, when viewed from the souls of their feet?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I've always thought it looked an abstract image of a woman about to give birth. (Shows where my mind is)Diogenes said:
If you have to ask, don't bother. I'm not going to explain what I mean in a public forum.
wraith
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 991
Upchurch said:
Yeah, I have you to thank.
I never said that matter couldnt exist unless it was conscious itself. If thats how you interpreted what I said, then thats not what I meant.
I have made up my mind. "Matter" doesnt exist without consciousness (this doesnt mean that matter *like a rock* is conscious itself).
What did you originally say?
Im saying that correlations is not evidence for matter creating consciousness, but you seem to think that it is.
HAHAHAHA
OMG!
That last sentence of that post contains more 5hi7 than the nappy of a 6 month old baby.
So explain how TLOP being non-conscious is the "ultimate conclusion".
What 3 points were they again?
How can it be? "Rock" is something that consciousness perceives. It's perceived properties like shape, colour, hardness etc is something that we identify and call "rock".
Did you hear them? So how are they "sounds"?
They would be energy "passing by" that we didnt perceive as "sound".
I dont know everything actually
hahaHence me wanting to acquire knowledge.
In what way?
...what a dip5hi7...wraith: Did you read the post where I spoke about the ape and the snail?
Church: you mean that insipid example where you rehash the argument again using different critters and a looser form of the word "control" then you've ever used before? Yeah, it still doesn't address the fact that you must assume that only that which is more conscious can control that which is less conscious in order to prove that which is more conscious can control that which is less conscious. You can't use your assumption to prove your assumption.
Control is one way of figuring out the levels of consciousness, like a human to a dog. Though it can be ambiguous. eg a new born baby needs constant attention...in a way the baby is controlling the parents, but the baby is not controlling the parents.
Same deal with a human and SARS.
Which entity would be more complex you think? A human or the SARS virus? What is actually controlling both of them? I would say that TLOP is. So exactly am I more conscious than TLOP.
I bet your doom character is always talking about the non-existence of the programer.
I perceive energy as matter, thanks to TLOP.
Well you didnt. Your explanations do not logically justify how this is the case, because you assume that TLOP is non-conscious.
Sure it will be on the tape. Isnt it simply a transfer of energy.
It's not until you play the tape that you perceive that energy as sound.
Firstly, thats the core of LD. Why the hell would Frank tell the enemy anything valuable? If you cant see the logic on how TLOP is conscious, than youre not going to handle Gravity and Consciousness, not to mention Time.
That Force has to come from somwhere
Current understanding of the make up of the universe is dark energy and matter (dark and luminous)....it's still all energy.
WHAT?
Thats the core of you belief. That TLOP is non-conscious and that matter is this "hard stuff" creating consciousness.
In this case, when some says "matter creates consciousness", that would be False.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
wraith said:
Lordy, you are dense. Look, I'll say it again. Each of my original three points, by themselves are not evidence for matter creating consciousness. It's the three together that implies matter creates consciousness.
First you need to explain your claim (the actual point of the above quote) that I first assumed that matter creates consciousness. We can get off on your tangent later.
Holy cow, you are stupid and lazy! I've already looked up one reference for you, I'm not going to do all your work for you. Go find them yourself. I'll even give you a hint: They're in bold just like you asked.
again.So a rock is not a rock without someone to there to call it a "rock". That is the most inanly stupid thing you've said yet. What is it then?
How do you know this claim is true? This is the question you're begging. You're assuming that it's true to prove that it's true.
Lovely, but you didn't answer the question.
Where in my argument did I assume that TLOP is non-conscious? My argument rests on records of consciusnessness, records of matter, and when each set of records began. That's all.
...
[Insert the sound of a jaw hitting the floor here]I take it back. This is the most inanly stupid thing you have ever said. You're making a claim to special knowledge, supposedly what the "logic on how TLOP is conscious" is based on, but you won't tell anyone what the special knowledge is until they already believe that TLOP is conscious?!?
You do realize this is a skeptics forum, don't you
Why should anyone take something like that on blind faith without something to back it up?Tell ya what. Why don't you take your secret dogmatic religion to another forum board where they aren't so skeptical? Maybe you'll have a more positive experience and maybe, just maybe, someone may believe you so you won't be by yourself in all this, eh?
edited to add: If you're not even going to seriously try to argue your points anymore, I see no reason to continue, do you?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I've pretty much given up on him. Wraith, though he has better manners, is simply not as entertaining and creative as Franko. Franko would at least come out with some wacky explanations now and again. Wraith is just a broken record. Since this is Franko's memorial, perhaps we should let him rest in peace.Upchurch said:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
So I hear. But then, CFS2 stinks. CFS3 has picked up a lot; real cool graphics, good flight models, VERY detailed damage modeling. Sadly, the AI still stinks. Mmm, I could crank up my CFS2 and we could have an online game, heheh. For online, though, the old CFS1 still rocks.wraith said:
Ive got CFS 2...though IL-2 is better
Hans