• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

On Consciousness

Is consciousness physical or metaphysical?

  • Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be replicated in othe

    Votes: 81 86.2%

  • Consciousness requires a second substance outside the physical material world, currently undetectabl

    Votes: 3 3.2%

  • On Planet X, unconscious biological beings have perfected conscious machines

    Votes: 10 10.6%
  • Total voters
    94
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
!Kaggen said:
I think this was referring to your comment above
Click to expand...

Yes, retroactively.

Oh, wait. perhaps you'd like to retract your statement that logic is a human invention and instead state that boolean algebra, which represents the very real fact that things cannot exist in contradiction, is a human invention ?

If you do, it invalidates your point. If you don't, you have no reason to disagree with what I said about the implications of your post.
 
!Kaggen, let me explain it to you: If logic is nothing more than a human invention, then you lose the argument and have to give me all your money, because turtles.
 
Belz... said:
Yes, retroactively.

Oh, wait. perhaps you'd like to retract your statement that logic is a human invention and instead state that boolean algebra, which represents the very real fact that things cannot exist in contradiction, is a human invention ?

If you do, it invalidates your point. If you don't, you have no reason to disagree with what I said about the implications of your post.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what Boolean algebra says about existence. If anything it is a primitive interpretation of what we already know about existence. It is simply 10% of brain activity and we certainly know the rest already in that we have used it very successfully for at least 40 000 years before we thought abstraction actually meant something.
 
Ah, now you've done it. You have to give both Belz and me all your money. That means that you have to give us twice whatever you have. Turtles, remember?
 
PixyMisa said:
!Kaggen, let me explain it to you: If logic is nothing more than a human invention, then you lose the argument and have to give me all your money, because turtles.
Click to expand...

Since when was there an argument?
I thought it was clear from the start that you were wrong and I was right.
 
!Kaggen said:
I don't really care what Boolean algebra says about existence. If anything it is a primitive interpretation of what we already know about existence. It is simply 10% of brain activity and we certainly know the rest already in that we have used it very successfully for at least 40 000 years before we thought abstraction actually meant something.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but what in the blue hell are you talking about ?
 
I am not a troll so it isn't my intention to constantly monitor the thread and make sure I have the last word ...

... however I just wanted to point out that I made what should have been a very clear and easy to understand case for why a machine can "know" something, in a similar sense to how any animal can "know" something, and there have been zero intelligent responses to that post thus far.

This thread has become a joke, like all of the similar threads before it.
 
rocketdodger said:
I am not a troll so it isn't my intention to constantly monitor the thread and make sure I have the last word ...

... however I just wanted to point out that I made what should have been a very clear and easy to understand case for why a machine can "know" something, in a similar sense to how any animal can "know" something, and there have been zero intelligent responses to that post thus far.

This thread has become a joke, like all of the similar threads before it.
Click to expand...
Pixy's Fourth Law of Internet Forums: As any discussion touching upon philosophy progresses, the probability that someone will attack the relevance of logic itself approaches one. At that point, the discussion has already been dead for days.
 
Pixy or Rocket Dodger, have you ever done a breakthrough dose of a strong psychedelic like 5-MeO-DMT ? If not then I really don't know how we have any talking points when it comes to consciousness as you have barely even explored your own past normal cognition, sleeping and dreaming.
 
554690_354040441336045_1687007944_n.jpg


That was after just 30 seconds. That's the best I can do to explain it ... as words fail. I tried before. So made that picture instead.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
Pixy's Fourth Law of Internet Forums: As any discussion touching upon philosophy progresses, the probability that someone will attack the relevance of logic itself approaches one. At that point, the discussion has already been dead for days.
Click to expand...

Dear Pixy Misa

There is nothing wrong with logic.
The question is whether it means anything or not.
On this I am with Bertrand Russell.

Pure mathematics consists entirely of assertions to the effect that, if such and such a proposition is true of anything, then such and such another proposition is true of that thing. It is essential not to discuss whether the first proposition is really true, and not to mention what the anything is, of which it is supposed to be true ... If our hypothesis is about anything, and not about some one or more particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. People who have been puzzled by the beginnings of mathematics will, I hope, find comfort in this definition, and will probably agree that it is accurate.
Click to expand...

And the reason is simply because being meaningless is a very powerful tool.

But only one tool.
 
Last edited:
!Kaggen said:
Dear Pixy Misa

There is nothing wrong with logic.
The question is whether it means anything or not.
Click to expand...

I should hope so. Logic tells us that P and not P cannot be both true, for instance, and this holds for all of human experience, ever. It's not a construct, it's a representation of how reality works. Indeed, it couldn't possibly work in any other way, under any set of physical laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom