Hammegk: please explain this contradiction

[hammegk]

What I like about you hammy, you don't usually need any reason to be abusive

LOL. I do have a couple of regrets that come to mind. Long ago I laid into Darat for no real reason, and much more recently apoger (my bad for not checking his join date). C'est la vie.

 

[Ratman_tf]

From the original thread:

"Friggin semantics, not to mention those who don't want to understand;

no contradiction: demonstrate in the sense of prove true vs demonstrate in the sense of observable act."

Blather on, nit-pickers.

Actually, I think I get it. You intended the first as an absolute, and the other as a relative? In that case, I think it was just a poor choice of words on your part.

 

[hammegk]

Humph. I thought -- and think -- it was and is a fine choice of words.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Humph. I thought -- and think -- it was and is a fine choice of words.

Considering the confusion it generated, I would disagree.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Ah, but from hammegk's perspective, that's precisely why it was such a good choice. Or so I gather from his statements.

 

[hgc]

Damn. Another proverbial bad penny returns. Remind me, Anus, did you ever make a post that was more than a personal attack?

Hey hammy, I thought you reserved that question for me! "Anus" is a funny nickname. You have a lot to teach the 3rd grade boys at the bus stop when you're not too busy being obtuse and annoying around here.

 

[hammegk]

... You have a lot to teach the 3rd grade boys at the bus stop when you're not too busy being obtuse and annoying around here.

In your case, keep trying. You may make it to third grade this year!

And feel free to offer a post with more merit than an insult; I won't hold my breath on that one, thanks.

 

[Unas]

And feel free to offer a post with more merit than an insult; I won't hold my breath on that one, thanks.

Can you explain your contradictory claims, or are you going to continue to pretend you didn't contradict yourself?

 

[JAR]

In this thread, you make two claims within several posts of each other:

1) No one can demonstrate their consciousness to anyone else, or even themselves.

2) Anything that responds to its environment shows a degree of consciousness.

Would you please explain this seeming contradiction in your thinking?

I think I get what hammegk meant by those two claims. I think the first one means that one person cannot experience someone else's consciousness and the second one means that consciousness is caused by something reacting to it's environment which would be like the effect of all of a set of dominos being knocked down when one of them is knocked down.