I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

No, that's not why I can't be 100% certain of anything,

You currently unaware of the actual reason of why you "can't 100% sure of anything", as long as your awareness is stuck only at its space\time variant aspect.

 

[Belz...]

You currently unaware of the actual reason of why you "can't 100% sure of anything, as long as your awareness is stuck only at its space\time variant aspect.

Oh, I'm very well aware of why. It's you who makes up crazy reasons for it.

Shall I tell you ? It's the least I can do.

Steel isn't strong, boy. Flesh is stronger-- Oops.

The reason why I'm not 100% of anything (except the axiom "something exists.") is that my point of view is not omniscient, and that future evidence may lead me to different conclusions. It has nothing to do with variance or boundings or bondage or whatever, but with the incompleteness of my knowledge. Meditation will not change that. All knowledge is incomplete and transient.

 

[Nonpareil]

So a robot exhibiting all the behaviours of a human is self-conscious (not including the bodily functions)?

Yes. Again, that is what it means to be conscious. That is what "is" means.

Not necessary for the correct functioning of the apparatus... Through which the soul manifests.

Circular. You can't claim that the soul is necessary because it manifests through the brain without first demonstrating that the soul exists.

But everything in existence could be evidence for it.

Not without entirely discarding any functional definition of the word "evidence".

Which seems to be a common flaw among idealistic arguments.

So provisionally self-consciousness is due to computation then.

In the same way that objects falling towards the ground is provisionally due to gravity.

I am not assuming the necessity of organic life

Yes, you are.

I am observing its involvement in the scenario.

No. You are observing its presence in the scenario, and assuming that translates to a requirement for its presence, despite the fact that no evidence supports that.

But my point rests on the fact that both the fully self-conscious person and the person in a vegetative state have an identical make up (excluding genetic difference etc) in their body, as opposed to a robot for example. If the person in a vegetative state where to recover suddenly, one would know immediately that they where self-conscious and not just an automaton or robot. However if they where replaced by an automaton with the identical appearance of that person and behaved as that person did when they recovered, one would not be able to say, immediately, that they where self-conscious.

...Yes, you could. You are just waving your hands and saying "but you couldn't" without giving any actual reason, other than "it's a robot and I don't like the idea of robots being conscious".

Because they might actually be clockwork or some other mimicking device.

In which case, assuming by "some other mimicking device" you mean "an imperfect mimic", you would be able to show a difference in behavior that would indicate a lack of consciousness.

This is where the distinction between conscious and self-conscious becomes important. The machine which behaves in every circumstance as though it is self-conscious, need not be self-conscious to perform the act.

Yes, it does. That is what "is" means.

You really can't get around this.

Well I haven't come across this before, I don't think I can work with this as there is the presumption that things only exist if they are rational or truthful to humans.

Nowhere in there is there a requirement for rationality or ability for humans to understand. Those are common side-effects, not the definition itself.

Surely a better definition of is is, the third person singular present of be.

You do realize you're just kicking the can further down the road, yes? "Be" has the same definition. It's just a different tense.

Or of whether x is a subset of y.

Same problem. It is still irrational to conclude Y, or to entertain belief in it. By definition, you can never have any evidence for it.

Logical, I presume. I assure you logically a human can quite easily consider that existence is as a consequence of mind, the very mind that is doing their thinking for them. Because that thinking comes prior to any other knowledge they might have.

You can consider it, yes.

And then you discard it, because it leads to the two problems I have listed before, among others. It is not rational. Ever.

Now who's assuming their conclusion? A robot, for example Data, can exhibit any property that a human can (except for biological bodily functions which are irrelevant to this point) in the absence of self consciousness. Why not?

Because, if it exhibits all the properties of self-consciousness, it is self-conscious. That is what "is" means.

If it quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck, it must be a duck and not an automaton.

Yes, assuming that it is a perfect imitation.

Remember personal thought is a priori to all other knowledge.

So?

If personal thought is y*, why can't all secondary knowledge x be a subset of y?
*y=mind.

First problem.

You trap yourself in solipsism, which crumbles the moment you have a functional definition of the word "is".

"objective" and "subjective" are both space\time variant phenomena, whether they are influenced by a given observation, or not.

This is not the case of the simplest state of existence, which is the invariant substance of the "objective" and the "subjective" that are both space\time variant phenomena including all their possible observations.


---------------

This is not the case of direct awareness of the non-composed simple state of existence that is absolutely invariant independently of all its space\time variant phenomena including all their possible observations.

Unity is the substance of multiplicity, and by directly being aware of it, one knows reality also beyond its space\time variant phenomena.

Stop lying to yourself by being bounded with your material's behavior paradigm.

Word salad.

 

[Dancing David]

That can easily be remedied. However it does not require a definition because whatever it is, it is well known* to every one of us.

Seriously I can't believe that I just read that.

This is the worst example I have ever seen of failing to respond to a coherent, the fact that soul is an incoherent term is a real problem for discussing it.

Engaging in solipistic rambling does not a coherent argument make.

 

[doronshadmi]

I am not talking about photons, but about their speed.

Speed is not the only property of the photons, so they are after all not an example of absolute invariance.

In other word, you did not provide a space\time phenomenon that is absolutely invariant.

 

[Belz...]

Speed is not the only property of the photons

Who said anything about it being the only property ? You are turning moving goalposts into a national sport with tournaments and awards.

You asked for an invariant phenomenon. I give you a photon's speed. Its speed is invariant. This fulfills your requirement, therefore YOU ARE WRONG. There IS an invariant quantity in the universe, and that's the speed of light.

Ergo your entire argument collapses. That's why you want to look at other things, but it doesn't matter because I have a good enough memory to remember what your question was.

 

[realpaladin]

Speed is not the only property of the photons, so they are after all not an example of absolute invariance.

In other word, you did not provide a space\time phenomenon that is absolutely invariant.

Reading comprehension is not taught by the teachers that taught you...

The property speed of photons *is* the absolute invariant example of a space/time phenomenon.

It does not matter if that property belongs to a variant entity.

 

[doronshadmi]

Meditation will not change that. All knowledge is incomplete and transient.

Wrong, direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is naturally 100% complete.

Indirect awareness of the simplest state of existence is naturally not 100% complete (and this is exactly what space\time knowledge is, which means that your current conclusions are naturally changeable.

 

[Nonpareil]

You asked for an invariant phenomenon. I give you a photon's speed. Its speed is invariant.

You're assuming that doronshadmi is using any sort of coherent definition for "invariant".

 

[dlorde]

Doron reached a nadir of meaningless babble long ago; it's just a coincidence, I'm sure, that this is indistinguishable from a zenith of inability to address anyone else's points.

Zenith of inability and nadir of meaningless babble are just aspects of Doron's absolute invariant state of existence...

 

[doronshadmi]

There IS an invariant quantity in the universe, and that's the speed of light.

Once again you are using light instead of photon, after YOU clearly distinguished between the two.

So since we are talking about photons, they are not an example of absolute invariance in terms of space\time phenomenon, since a photon is variant in terms of motion AND invariant in terms of speed.

Logically if variant=F and invariant=T, then F AND T --> F, or in other words, logically your argument does not hold.

 

[Belz...]

Wrong, direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is naturally 100% complete.

I am aware that this is your claim, but you have not demonstrated it.

...which is why you lose.

 

[Belz...]

Once again you are using light instead of photon, after YOU clearly distinguished between the two.

Yes and once again you didn't understand what I meant by the distinction. Under normal circumstances I would say it's probably my fault, but given your 100% misunderstanding rate, I'll blame you instead.

The point about the distinction is that light as a phenomenon can be slowed down by materials, but light as photons cannot. When light travels, it travels at the speed of light (300,000 km/s), not at any other speed. When it doesn't travel, then of course it'll take longer to get to where it's going, but that doesn't change its travel speed.

So since we are talking about photons, they are not an example of absolute invariance in terms of space\time phenomenon, since a photon is variant in terms of motion.

Again, we are not talking about photons but about the SPEED OF PHOTONS.

 

[Aepervius]

Speed is not the only property of the photons, so they are after all not an example of absolute invariance.

In other word, you did not provide a space\time phenomenon that is absolutely invariant.

Our contention . photon speed is always c

Your contention : photon speed is not invariant

If you are not able to provide an example of a photon having a different speed than c, then you are just spouting nonsense and adapting your definition on the fly/moving goalpost to avoid admit you were wrong.

So which is it ? Do you agree that photon speed is invariant, or do you disagree ?

 

[Belz...]

Our contention . photon speed is always c

Your contention : photon speed is not invariant

If you are not able to provide an example of a photon having a different speed than c, then you are just spouting nonsense and adapting your definition on the fly/moving goalpost to avoid admit you were wrong.

So which is it ? Do you agree that photon speed is invariant, or do you disagree ?

It's worse than that. Doron's saying that since a photon has other, variant characteristics, its speed is not invariant. It's like saying that, since the value of your house varies with time, its colour isn't the same as it was an hour ago.

The bitch of it is, if neutral monism contains invariant things, then they have no energy, motion or dimension. They pretty much don't exist.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again, we are not talking about photons but about the SPEED OF PHOTONS.

The speed of photons does not exist without the existence of photons as space\time objects.

If we research these objects we discover that they are not absolutely invariant since their position is changed in space\time (they are not remain the same under all possible space\time measurements).

This is not the case of the simplest state of existence, it remains the same under all possible space\time measurements, and the only way to know this fact is by direct awareness of it.

No one else but you can actually provide this evident to you exactly because the simplest state of existence remains the same under all possible space\time measurements, whether they are objective or subjective measurements, simply because the simplest state of existence is not space\time objective or subjective phenomenon.

 

[doronshadmi]

It's worse than that. Doron's saying that since a photon has other, variant characteristics, its speed is not invariant.

No, I say that the speed of photons does not exist without photons, and photons are not absolutely invariant under all possible space\time measurements.

 

[doronshadmi]

The bitch of it is, if neutral monism contains invariant things, then they have no energy, motion or dimension. They pretty much don't exist.

The simplest state of existence is the invariant substance of space\time phenomena including energy, motion and dimension objective or subjective measurements.

 

[realpaladin]

The speed of photons does not exist without the existence of photons as space\time objects.

And here we can actually see what practicing TM does with ones mind:

• All faculties pertaining to reading comprehension atrophy to the point of non-existence.
• All logic disappears from any reasoning circuits in the brain.
• One starts to mistakenly think one is glib whilst the rest of the world thinks 'obtuse' and other expletives.
• The IQ drops below 100.

Doron, it does not matter what the photons are part of; their speed is the invariant phenomenon. Period.

 

[doronshadmi]

As for constant c, please look at https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all.

See also:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321394004906 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9408016.pdf).

http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.023810

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?uri=QELS-2012-JTh4K.4