Hammegk: please explain this contradiction

[Wrath of the Swarm]

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?

 

[hammegk]

Gentlefolk, I have no interest in participating in this thread, and do not intend to at this time.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Why not? You've said you'll respond to genuine attempts to discuss matters, and I'm genuinely interested.

Please consider my request and post an explanation. I'll bet everyone is interested.

 

[apoger]

I'm interested...

 

[BillHoyt]

Guess we just have to chalk it up to the fallacy of self-contradiction. Other interpretations, I'm afraid, would be less charitable.

 

[Pyrrho]

Threads making another user the topic of discussion are not permitted according to the rules for the Critical Thinking Forum, where this thread originated. Therefore, this thread will be moved to the Religion and Philosophy Forum.

 

[Yahweh]

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.

Knowledge of one's own existences is a good way to demonstrate consciousness to one's self.

To demonstrate it to another, a bit more difficult.

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

This does seem a bit contradictory to the above statement...

However I could probably build a computer program to respond to user input. There are probably better examples to show the above statement isnt universally true.

 

[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?

The first one sounds like something a religious person who believes that souls and consciousness are one and the same would say and the second one sounds like something I as an atheist would say to support that consciousness is not supernatural.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Threads making another user the topic of discussion are not permitted according to the rules for the Critical Thinking Forum, where this thread originated. Therefore, this thread will be moved to the Religion and Philosophy Forum.

So threads making another user's statements are not permitted according to the rules for the Critical Thinking Forum?

This really could have been made clearer.

 

[Pyrrho]

So threads making another user's statements are not permitted according to the rules for the Critical Thinking Forum?

This really could have been made clearer.

You used hammegk's name in the topic of the thread. That is undeniably making him the subject of discussion, which is specifically disallowed in the Critical Thinking rules.

 

[Rob Lister]

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?

Depending on how you use the word "demonstrate", the statements are not necessarily contradictory. If it means "prove" then both statements are true.

Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) is a philosophical primise and cannot be proven (making statement 1 correct). A philosophical primise is assumed to be true so it follows that statement 2) is also correct.

/Rene' Descartes rolling over in grave

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

You used hammegk's name in the topic of the thread. That is undeniably making him the subject of discussion, which is specifically disallowed in the Critical Thinking rules.

No, I used his name in the title of the thread. The topic of the thread was described in the post that followed, and it was about certain statements, not hammegk himself.

 

[Suddenly]

No, I used his name in the title of the thread. The topic of the thread was described in the post that followed, and it was about certain statements, not hammegk himself.

I guess if you would have titled it "Is this a contradiction" and then framed it as "someone said this, is this defensible" then it would have been just fine for that august forum.

Style over substance, of course, because if quality of substance were regulated in CT all merry heck would break loose and the cries of indignation would be heard as far away as ESPN.com.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Gentlefolk, I have no interest in participating in this thread, and do not intend to at this time.

A shame. I was interested in if you could either illuminate or admit error. I guess you're incapable of either.

 

[hammegk]

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.

 

[Unas]

Blather on, nit-pickers.

Translation: hammegk can't explain his contradiction, is embarrassed by it, and fervently hopes that everyone will forget about it.

 

[hammegk]

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

 

[lifegazer]

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?

The inability to "demonstrate" consciousness is a proof that there is no such thing??

 

[Unas]

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

Yes. But since you haven't bothered to look for yourself, you wouldn't know, would you?

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

 

[slimshady2357]

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

I would have said more like 'demonstrate' in the sense of prove vs. 'show' in the sense of indicate, but then I would have thought it was obvious anyway.

It really does seem like certain people on this site are willfully ignorant so that they can be abusive.

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

Adam