It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science Vs.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



Not exactly. The mind is also a possession. What I am separating is that which possesses from that which is a possession.


So then what are you proposing is what makes us, 'us'? What is this third party 'possessor'? Do you have any peer reviewed verifiable research or evidence that suggests this third party 'possessor' exists?


As opposed to calling yourself things which are clearly possessions and clearly treated as possessions?


Still sounds like word play to me.


What makes you who you are in the manner of possessions is to name things which are part of your experience. Your body defines your experience, as does your time, place in the universe and so forth. I am asking you what experiences it?


The consciousness mind experiences it which is composed of a variety of subsystems working in unison.


It's a very deep philosophical question. But, it is the difference maker in being able to understand what people are really talking about. When you realize these things - without me telling you, then you will see a bunch of other things, which aren't exactly easy to express.



I disagree, it isn't that deep of a question, it's more of a simplistic musing that lacks any attempt to really know how the brain works. It's like saying God created the universe without attempting to discover the mechanics behind how a universe can arise.


Calling it a word play is a cop out. Especially considering it's a question that has been asked and debated for thousands of years, even in the times of Plato.


I disagree that it's a cop out. Using analogies of word play tactics like "This is my apple, this apple exist outside of me, I am a third party possessor of the apple" and equating that to the human body is erroneous.


Have you ever heard the allegory of the cave? Well that is basically what it's talking about etc.


No.


You not being able to see/understand it is what it means by being blind etc. You are unable to see yourself as anything other than flesh. But maybe now you can start to see where people are coming from?


Ah, so if one can't understand that some third party possessor/soul/whatever exists, then they are just woefully blind and your not because you consider this possessor as a real entity that comprises what you are and how you exist within reality?

I'm sorry, I don't accept empty claims as valid arguments. If you have any peer reviewed scientific research or evidence for these claims I would be more than happy and willing to review them myself. If you know of any experimental studies that have shown reproducible results in regards to this third party possessor, I will also be more than happy to review those results and/or conduct experiments of my own.




posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SS.Invictus
"The majority of the great advancements in science are actually from people who were religious"

Say, what?


It's a forum, I don't need to repeat myself. In fact, some of the greatest minds actually ridiculed atheists as being ignorant.



Jesus one thing, religion another.

Lets not start how gruesome their differences are, along with their hypocritical practises and their mask behind their public statements.


So why are you judging the topic of god and such on what the religious people do, if you say yourself they are 2 different things? Topic of god comes up, and all anyone wants to do is talk about how screwed up religious people are.



"You want to know the secret to what made Einstein so great? He realized and understood that time was not "real" in the manner we know it, and as such - philosophically - he was able to see the universe without time"

Exactly, he didnt do it religiously; he didnt put a God and voila; All makes sense now!


But, he did exactly what the bible says to do. So, because he actually did it the way the bible says to, rather than how religious people do it, that makes the bible wrong?



Proverbs 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.


Thats what I do, I don't care what religious people do, I know the understanding in the bible is true, and for reasons beyond the bible itself. Is it wise to reject the understanding because foolish people claim to have it?



You think Philosophy will do any good to Religion?


I think true understanding doesn't come from other men, but from seeking and coming to understanding by ones own choice and effort. Philosophy and Religion are but expressions of that understanding. As expressions, they are merely the shadows of the real understanding and what is really being talked about, which is only available to be seen by those who already have the understanding themselves.

In otherwords, the best you can ever do that will do any good for anyone, is simply to get them to question their reality. Life has a funny way of making that happen.



It will break it down so fast and so hard, its head would not be standing on its body every again;

I.e P: Where is God?
R: Inside your Heart
P: No it is not. You are just using an old trick; putting me into the state of mind of "emotional intuision" so my thoughts would be purely lead by my feelings; thus accepting that a God is inside There.
R: See it with your inner eyes my child!


Again, are we discussing the topic of god, or the topic of what religious people say and do?



"Name the things about religion that you see are bad, and I will show you were the bible says they are bad too"

The bible is not a universal book of Christianity; it is a compilation of different scriptures, from different sources, by different interpretations and different inclusions and exclusions; Lets not get into the debate of apocraphic or Dead Sea Scrolls, along with the true "nature" of Jesus; or what particular texts were embodied while others were ignored or burned to dust.


So you just wanna bash religious people, and only argue against the weak arguments while pretending that is what the topic of god is about?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
So then what are you proposing is what makes us, 'us'? What is this third party 'possessor'? Do you have any peer reviewed verifiable research or evidence that suggests this third party 'possessor' exists?


And this is EXACTLY why you don't understand. Because to you, if it hasn't been proven by science than it doesn't exist.

It's nothing more than a cop out. You pretend as if it's some "advanced" way of thinking, and thus makes you smarter, but in reality it's no different than the same attitude that has held science back through the years.

Whats that? The earth revolves around the sun? Well, I sure hope you have your peer reviewed verifiable research and evidence that suggests it.

Haha you think the earth is round? Well, I sure hope you have your peer reviewed verifiable research and evidence to prove it. Prove to me that is the earths shadow on the moon!

etc.

Of course, it was peer reviewed and generally accepted by scientists tons of things that were wrong.

Anyway, you are just using it as an excuse and a way of avoiding the questions and points.

Do you think the scientists who "peer review" and so forth look at the points that are made, or do they sit around asking if it's already been done?

And this is also my response to the last message by the SS guy:

THIS is an example of someone stuck in an objective reality. A reality where the only thing that can exist is that which is "proven" to them or experienced by them. Anything else is by default false.



[edit on 11/22/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



And this is EXACTLY why you don't understand. Because to you, if it hasn't been proven by science than it doesn't exist.


This is where you and I are at a distinct difference in beliefs. For me, I don't readily assume *anything* true if there is no evidence to support that belief or if a belief is riddled with paradoxical explanations. This doesn't explicitly have anything to do with science itself, it has to do with common sense and humility to reserve judgment rather than blindly believing something as true.


It's nothing more than a cop out. You pretend as if it's some "advanced" way of thinking, and thus makes you smarter, but in reality it's no different than the same attitude that has held science back through the years.


You say that asking for research and evidence is what is holding science back? Are you daft? How can you seriously sit there and allude to something as such and yet show no viable mechanism for what you claim is true?


Whats that? The earth revolves around the sun? Well, I sure hope you have your peer reviewed verifiable research and evidence that suggests it.


I'm sorry, I don't accept crap spouting smartassery as valid forms of arguments. Try again.


Haha you think the earth is round? Well, I sure hope you have your peer reviewed verifiable research and evidence to prove it. Prove to me that is the earths shadow on the moon!


I'm sorry, I don't accept crap spouting smartassery as valid forms of arguments. Try again.



Anyway, you are just using it as an excuse and a way of avoiding the questions and points.


I disagree as you haven't raised any actual points or questions of substance that would be able to receive answers. In retrospect, so far your entire post has been utterly devoid of even answering my very basic question of what evidence exists for this third party possessor that you claim exists. I certainly did answer your questions, you just don't accept the answers.


Do you think the scientists who "peer review" and so forth look at the points that are made, or do they sit around asking if it's already been done?


Can you clarify what your trying to ask here.


Why sit there and claim to know something is true and then when asked to prove that something is true you essentially turn around and call me closed minded? Do you think calling me closed minded is a valid argument or answer for the question of evidence? Like I said, it's a very simplistic mindset and belief system, it's calling for self defeat. You didn't answer me or provide me with evidence for your so called truth because you know none exists. Because you can't prove it true because it isn't true. If you can't even grasp or comprehend the science behind consciousness, then how can I accept this third party possessor you claim exists without you even understanding that possessor yourself? Don't even begin to talk about closed mindedness or being blind to something until you yourself are capable of even understanding it. Clearly you haven't even got a basic grasp of even your own simplistic musings.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
This is where you and I are at a distinct difference in beliefs. For me, I don't readily assume *anything* true if there is no evidence to support that belief or if a belief is riddled with paradoxical explanations. This doesn't explicitly have anything to do with science itself, it has to do with common sense and humility to reserve judgment rather than blindly believing something as true.


Personal experience > what science says. I don't just believe because the bible says so and so forth. I agree with it after I have spent years debating on the topic on so forth.



You say that asking for research and evidence is what is holding science back? Are you daft? How can you seriously sit there and allude to something as such and yet show no viable mechanism for what you claim is true?


Can you prove the way a flower smells? Can you prove the color blue to a blind man? What I am saying is there are some things in life that are beyond the ability of science to prove. That just because science hasn't proven something doesn't mean it is by default false.



I'm sorry, I don't accept crap spouting smartassery as valid forms of arguments. Try again.


It was hyperbole, an exaggeration used to make a point. The point being that you are applying the same kind of thinking people who rejected those things in the past had.




I disagree as you haven't raised any actual points or questions of substance that would be able to receive answers. In retrospect, so far your entire post has been utterly devoid of even answering my very basic question of what evidence exists for this third party possessor that you claim exists. I certainly did answer your questions, you just don't accept the answers.


Because like a flower, it can't be proven only experienced.

All your answers were possessions. The entire point of the question is to name that which is not a possession. Which you can't do.

I'm not even sure why you are calling it 3rd party.



Can you clarify what your trying to ask here.


Yeah, it means that new ideas and progress come from people going out and figuring out new things, not sitting around repeating what is already thought to be true. That without question and exploration, there is no progress.

Your "Box" is defined by what is proven, not what is possible.



Why sit there and claim to know something is true and then when asked to prove that something is true you essentially turn around and call me closed minded? Do you think calling me closed minded is a valid argument or answer for the question of evidence? Like I said, it's a very simplistic mindset and belief system, it's calling for self defeat. You didn't answer me or provide me with evidence for your so called truth because you know none exists. Because you can't prove it true because it isn't true. If you can't even grasp or comprehend the science behind consciousness, then how can I accept this third party possessor you claim exists without you even understanding that possessor yourself? Don't even begin to talk about closed mindedness or being blind to something until you yourself are capable of even understanding it. Clearly you haven't even got a basic grasp of even your own simplistic musings.


Because for once you will have to get off your lazy rear and go find out for yourself. Not everything in life can be hand feed to you in a nice little basket to be accepted. Just because you may not understand something doesn't mean it is not proven.

Btw, I have spent TONS of time on this topic. I'm a programmer and I use to have a goal of making a program that was actually intelligent. Did you know that it is impossible to have a program make a choice? That there is no such thing as choice in a program, it will ALWAYS do what it is programmed too.

The best you can do is generate a random number in which it selects a predetermined action based on the results of that random number. Even then, a computer can't even generate a truly random number, so that can also be predicted and is determined.

Can you or anyone else come up with logic that creates the state of "being"? Are you even aware that you are aware? Do you have any idea the significance of even being aware? These are all things that are beyond logic.

That computer also can't create logic. It is always slave to the logic given to it by the programmer. So how it is that humans, which are supposed to be part of this creation are able to create logic? Action and reaction is the result of logic, it happens over and over the same way - no choice. It's the reason science works.

I could go on. There is tons more, but if you are going to sit here and ask for scientific proof and use other cop outs instead of actually trying to understand and see the significance in things, then there is no reason for me to waste my time.

Not everything fits into short soundbites. Things require a good bit of thinking, pondering and so forth. Sorry, but I can't teach, show or prove an algebra problem to someone who doesn't understand math. So if you want to see what is being talked about, then you start with the basics. In which case I ask you again - What is you.

How can one understand god, if they can not first understand themselves?

What is you? Can you name what you are without naming a possession?

Tell me this. Your eyes collect the light from out there. That light is then turned into electrical waves. Those electrical waves travel to the back of the brain. Once there, they are converted back into the images "You" see. To what is that is that image presented too?

Is there some special chemical compound that it's presented too? Is it some special chemicals and electrical signals that it's presented too?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 




Personal experience > what science says. I don't just believe because the bible says so and so forth. I agree with it after I have spent years debating on the topic on so forth.


Personal experience is a faulty measure of what is true which is self evidence through comparison of contradictory personal experiences for what is true. I don't accept personal experience, not even my own.

The basic premise of the biblical scriptures of a God, soul and afterlife have never been proven to be true, have been showing to be a newer telling of older mythologies and nor have all of the events described even been verified to have occurred and some of the events proven to be impossible to occur and were nothing more than stories, even the pope doesn't accept the bible as a literal text word for word.


Can you prove the way a flower smells? Can you prove the color blue to a blind man? What I am saying is there are some things in life that are beyond the ability of science to prove. That just because science hasn't proven something doesn't mean it is by default false.


Again, arguing with the simplistic mindset of what reality is. We understand the mechanics behind scent and no we can't prove the color blue to a blind man as a blind man doesn't possess the necessary brain function to interpret that wavelength of light.


It was hyperbole, an exaggeration used to make a point. The point being that you are applying the same kind of thinking people who rejected those things in the past had.


The analogy was understood, the reason behind it being utter crap spouting smartassery is due to the piss poor logic employed in using that analogy. Yes, at that time when those discoveries were made, no one else had discovered the same, but the research was still existent for others to verify and review to discover that the initial discovery was a valid truth.

What your describing lacks such research and your doing nothing more than demand that I accept your statements at face value with piss poor analogies, logic, and semantic arguments. Unfortunately for you, I'm not an arrogant ignorant nitwit that runs around just believing in all sorts of things without evidence as basis for those beliefs.


Because like a flower, it can't be proven only experienced.


Not understanding the mechanics behind scent is not proof of anything else. If you don't understand why thing's smell the way they do or how the brain interprets or how we label those scents and the various brain functions that come into play, that is of your own doing. If you wish to devolve that lack of understanding into some piss poor form of logic as proof of something else in which you don't have any verifiable evidence for it's existence, then you are doing nothing more than a disservice to your own faculties of intelligence.


All your answers were possessions. The entire point of the question is to name that which is not a possession. Which you can't do.


No, your non-acceptance of those answers are semantics arguments and piss poor forms of logic.


I'm not even sure why you are calling it 3rd party.



Not exactly. The mind is also a possession. What I am separating is that which possesses from that which is a possession.


If the body is that which accepts input to initiate experience thus it would be the first person.

if the mind is that which interprets that input in order to experience thus it would be the second person.

If neither are what we are and what we are is that which is the observer of that experience thus that is the third person observer.

That is just a *simple* answer, the fact that you can't even determine that answer upon your own capacity to think just shows even more how much of your own concept you don't even understand.


Yeah, it means that new ideas and progress come from people going out and figuring out new things, not sitting around repeating what is already thought to be true. That without question and exploration, there is no progress.


There is a distinct different between exploration of new ideas and the blind belief of ideas. I've asked for evidence for this third party observer that possesses the mind and body and you can't even produce such evidence. There is no shown ability on your behalf for producing research or evidence to substantiate and validate this belief, that makes the belief a blind belief. Faith.


Your "Box" is defined by what is proven, not what is possible.


You misunderstand what I believe if you think that to be true. I am open minded to a plethora of possibilities, including the one you speak of. Again to repeat myself; There is a distinct difference between you and I. I *do not* blindly believe in anything. If there is no evidence for something to be true, there is no logical reason to conclude that it is true until such a time that evidence is put forth.

Withholding judgment is not equal to being closed minded to different possibilities. For you to think that this is so again shows the simple mindedness of your views. You can't seem to comprehend that one is capable of being open minded while at the same time reserving humility and judgment of beliefs.


Because for once you will have to get off your lazy rear and go find out for yourself. Not everything in life can be hand feed to you in a nice little basket to be accepted. Just because you may not understand something doesn't mean it is not proven.


Talk about a cop-out! Your doing nothing more than being a trolling little nitwit now.


Btw, I have spent TONS of time on this topic. I'm a programmer and I use to have a goal of making a program that was actually intelligent. Did you know that it is impossible to have a program make a choice? That there is no such thing as choice in a program, it will ALWAYS do what it is programmed too.


I love AI research and from my understanding and readings of that research, your statement is either an outright lie, or an outright lie to push an agenda.


The best you can do is generate a random number in which it selects a predetermined action based on the results of that random number. Even then, a computer can't even generate a truly random number, so that can also be predicted and is determined.


Obviously you don't understand what randomness is. There is no true randomness, not even in nature.


Can you or anyone else come up with logic that creates the state of "being"? Are you even aware that you are aware? Do you have any idea the significance of even being aware? These are all things that are beyond logic.


Perhaps beyond your capacity for logic they are, but for those of us who are capable of intelligent thinking it's not beyond our capacity for logic. What your doing is asking questions like "What is the purpose of life?". Explain to me why that question is written wrongly. I want to see a serious answer and that answer is ridiculously simple. If you can't provide, refuse or give the wrong answer then you obviously are to simple minded to even think logically.


That computer also can't create logic. It is always slave to the logic given to it by the programmer. So how it is that humans, which are supposed to be part of this creation are able to create logic? Action and reaction is the result of logic, it happens over and over the same way - no choice. It's the reason science works.


I'm not even going to touch this obviously contradictory explanation.


I could go on. There is tons more, but if you are going to sit here and ask for scientific proof and use other cop outs instead of actually trying to understand and see the significance in things, then there is no reason for me to waste my time.


You trolling tool, give me something to understand! Don't sit there and talk about not understanding something or using cop-outs when I argue against your usage of semantics. Your not even giving me anything to understand. You can't just claim something is true without showing it is true. Don't talk about logic if don't even possess logical thinking yourself to even understand any of this! Your nothing more than a waste of your own time.


Not everything fits into short soundbites. Things require a good bit of thinking, pondering and so forth. Sorry, but I can't teach, show or prove an algebra problem to someone who doesn't understand math. So if you want to see what is being talked about, then you start with the basics. In which case I ask you again - What is you.


I've already given you that answer, but you idiotically devolve to non-acceptance of that answer through arguments of semantics.


How can one understand god, if they can not first understand themselves?


Which God?


What is you? Can you name what you are without naming a possession?


Semantics.


Tell me this. Your eyes collect the light from out there. That light is then turned into electrical waves. Those electrical waves travel to the back of the brain. Once there, they are converted back into the images "You" see. To what is that is that image presented too?


Semantics coupled with a lack of understanding of how the brain works with a nice dose of spiritual belief for flavoring.


Is there some special chemical compound that it's presented too? Is it some special chemicals and electrical signals that it's presented too?


There is nothing 'special'. It isn't 'presented to' anything.

Again, you have yet to show that this third party observer exists. I don't accept things as true without evidence for believing they are true, this does not equate to a closed minded belief that they are not true, but that I reserve judgment before blindly believing.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I don't see any reason to continue. If common ground can't be found on the most basic things, there is no point.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by sirnex
 


I don't see any reason to continue. If common ground can't be found on the most basic things, there is no point.



You argue that my explanation of your usage of semantics is a cop-out on my part but then when confronted for evidence of your claimed truth you devolve to actual cop-out tactics.

Yes, I agree that thinking is required to discover new things, but with discoveries come's work to show those discoveries were made and can be verified as being true. You refuse to show such verifiable work because you don't have any. You resort to piss poor logic and analogies because you lack the required logic to think deeply about the questions you ask. You can't provide evidence for your truth because it isn't a truth at all.

Your bowing out because you know your wrong but to prideful to admit it. You are a blind believer of faith, and I despise that kind of arrogant ignorance. I loath it and find it a despicable trait that your ilk tries to attain. No, I'm not blind or closed minded, it's not that I don't understand. The problem with me with that I am not arrogantly ignorant as you are. Don't speak of truth if you are incapable to seeking truth yourself.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I will not and shall not post further into here.

Call me arrogant, egoist, narcissistic; but the truth for I is that I havent fell at all intellectual challenged; It made me feel like a School Boy.

I thought that by 5-7 years, religious forums would have changed; apparently they are still searching for the footprints of the Cave Man.

Have fun searching, I will have fun learning.

Adios.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Do you view the human species as the only species that possesses consciousness and free will?

What about ants, or trees?


Plants are a perfect example of how the physical vehicle can "interrupt" consciousness differently.

An animal's life force is focused onto it's brain. The difference between a person and an animal is that human consciousness is not as rigidly attached to the vehicle. Human attention can move away from physical sensations to memories and fantasies. The mind is a bigger part of the equation for humans compared to animals.

Plants are even more different because they don't have a brain but are certainly alive. They undeniably have some kind of consciousness but the medium is different.

Human>Monkey>Dog>Lizard>Insect>Plant

Consciousness varies in it's level of expression by the physical vehicle.


Originally posted by sirnex
All sensations arise from chemical signals induced from outside input. This is a proven thing, even the emotion of love is nothing more than a chemically induce emotion that serves certain precise functions required for finding a mate to reproduce with.


But what is sensation?

–noun
1. the operation or function of the senses;perception or awareness of stimuli through the senses.
2. a mental condition or physical feelingresulting from stimulation of a sense organ or from internal bodily change, as cold or pain.
3. Physiology. the faculty of perception of stimuli.
4. a general feeling not directly attributable to any given stimulus, as discomfort, anxiety, or doubt.
5. a mental feeling, esp. a state of excited feeling.
6. a state of excited /b]feeling or interest caused among a number of persons or throughout a community, as by some rumor or occurrence.
7. a cause of such feeling or interest: The new Brazilian movie was the sensation of the film festival.

Look at how inherently vague this definition is.

A sensation is a feeling of physical change of the body caused by the mind's response to the physical changes of the body.

Kind of circular huh?

feeling

–noun
1. the function or the power of perceiving by touch.
2. physical sensation not connected with sight, hearing, taste, or smell.
3. a particular sensation of this kind: a feeling of warmth; a feeling of pain.
4. the general state of consciousness considered independently of particular sensations, thoughts,
5. a consciousness or vague awareness: a feeling of inferiority.
6. an emotion or emotional perception or attitude: a feeling of joy; a feeling of sorrow.
7. capacity for emotion, esp. compassion: to have great feeling for the sufferings of others.
8. a sentiment; attitude; opinion: The general feeling was in favor of the proposal.
9. feelings, sensibilities; susceptibilities: to hurt one's feelings.
10. fine emotional endowment.
11. (in music, art, etc.)
a. emotion or sympathetic perception revealed by an artist in his or her work: a poem without feeling.
b. the general impression conveyed by a work: a landscape painting with a spacious feeling.
c. sympathetic appreciation, as of music: to play with feeling.

physical sensation not connected with sight, hearing, taste, or smell.

the general state of consciousness considered independently of particular sensations, thoughts,



What does that even mean?

A sensation is a feeling and a feeling is a physical sensation that is not connected with physical sensations?

A sensation is a feeling and a feeling is a sensation independent of particular sensations?

It shouldn't be surprising that these definitions are circular when you are attempting to define your mind using your mind...

Our grammar however actually explains the phenomenon rather well.

I am happy.

Happy is a noun.

Am is the verb.

To be happy.

YOU = The Feeling

You become the feeling.

You are your feelings.

Some people use the term observer but responder actually makes more sense.

The mind is the entity experiencing the sensation.

The physical body sends the message.

The brain interrupts the message.

The mind becomes the message.

This is why as we grow older our mind actually shapes the physical brain depending on life experience.

Our mind is slowly built and has a constant reciprocal relationship with the brain. So much attention is focused on immediate feelings but YOU are the culmination of all of the feelings you have ever had.


Originally posted by sirnex

You said "brain/consciousness" but consciousness is not even something that can be proven scientifically.


I disagree and so would many others from a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines.


Consciousness is an abstract idea to explain our mind's relationship to the physical vehicle.


Can you prove this statement true with peer reviewed scientific research and evidence? I don't accept empty claims as valid arguments.


You have tried so hard to stay on the scientific side of this issue that you have contradicted yourself.

Consciousness can NOT be empirically proven to exist.
It is in fact impossible to scientifically PROVE that any person besides yourself has consciousness.

We can see what we interrupt as a physical response to the mind but we can never prove that another person has a mind.

You are trying to argue but I agree with everything science says. You just need to take it a little further.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I would have better luck proving the color blue to the blind man. If you think there is nothing to "being" and so forth, then there is no where to start.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Plants are a perfect example of how the physical vehicle can "interrupt" consciousness differently.


I would like further clarification of this statement.


An animal's life force is focused onto it's brain. The difference between a person and an animal is that human consciousness is not as rigidly attached to the vehicle.


Humans are animals. There is no humans and then animals as a separate thing. Can you provide an research that verifies that human consciousness is not rigidly attached to the brain and that all other species are attached to their brains?


Human attention can move away from physical sensations to memories and fantasies. The mind is a bigger part of the equation for humans compared to animals.


Can you provide any research conducted that substantiates this statement? From my understanding of the human species compared to other species and how the brain functions across different species, this is a field that is poorly understood and one that lacks much current research in. From the research I have read in this regard, we've discovered that what we once thought separated our species from all others isn't explicitly existent in only our species alone. Including what your statement describes.


Plants are even more different because they don't have a brain but are certainly alive. They undeniably have some kind of consciousness but the medium is different.


Good, at least you acknowledged that.


Human>Monkey>Dog>Lizard>Insect>Plant


What is this supposed to mean?


Consciousness varies in it's level of expression by the physical vehicle.


Define consciousness.


It shouldn't be surprising that these definitions are circular when you are attempting to define your mind using your mind...


What's surprising to me is how you honestly believe that an exercise of semantics utilizing only portions of two definitions appears to allow you to think that such a thing is circular.

*I do not accept semantics arguments as valid arguments*


This is why as we grow older our mind actually shapes the physical brain depending on life experience.


This is an empty claim.


Our mind is slowly built and has a constant reciprocal relationship with the brain. So much attention is focused on immediate feelings but YOU are the culmination of all of the feelings you have ever had.


This is a half truth obfuscated by the above empty claim.


You have tried so hard to stay on the scientific side of this issue that you have contradicted yourself.


Your argument of contradiction involves an exercise of taking things out of context. I will not accept out of context arguments as valid arguments.


Consciousness can NOT be empirically proven to exist.
It is in fact impossible to scientifically PROVE that any person besides yourself has consciousness.


False statement based upon your lack of understanding. I don't accept arguments of not knowing as valid arguments for something else.


We can see what we interrupt as a physical response to the mind but we can never prove that another person has a mind.


False statement based upon your lack of understanding. I don't accept arguments of not knowing as valid arguments for something else.


You are trying to argue but I agree with everything science says. You just need to take it a little further.


I don't accept forms of 'truth' without evidence in which to base those truths off of. This is not to mean nor can be equated with being closed minded or not understanding a concept or being blind to a concept because of any erroneous views perceived by someone who lacks the ability to comprehend and discern the differences of being open minded but at the same time reserving judgment until evidence is put forth in which to form a judgment upon that belief or evidence.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by sirnex
 


I would have better luck proving the color blue to the blind man. If you think there is nothing to "being" and so forth, then there is no where to start.


Explain what you mean by that statement?

As I mentioned many times now, I reserve judgment until evidence is put forth in which to place judgment. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. You obviously don't have evidence for what you claim and yet you demand I just willy nilly automatically blindly believe it to be true. I'm sorry if I am more intelligent than most and understand thing's just slightly that much better than most.

The universe and life is only mysterious if you don't understand the mechanics behind it all. If you submit to humility and reserve judgment before blind belief, then the path to understanding these things becomes available to you.

If you blindly believe with arrogant ignorance, then you are not a seeker of truth. You are a pompous buffoon who pretends to be a seeker of truth whilst knowingly or unknowingly spreading lies and deceit upon those who would listen to your ignorance.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Consciousness can NOT be empirically proven to exist.
It is in fact impossible to scientifically PROVE that any person besides yourself has consciousness.


False statement based upon your lack of understanding. I don't accept arguments of not knowing as valid arguments for something else.




You can not scientifically prove to yourself that another human has consciousness.

It is not possible.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


The mechanics of life is easy. It's the state of being that is difficult, and it's not provable because it is subjective.

The body is nothing more than a biological machine. The cells are nanobots, that worked based on the configurations given to it by the DNA. Same exact setup in programs.

Asking me to prove that is about like me trying to prove to the blind man the color blue - can't really be done. Because it is subjective.

You say I'm not logical, but the truth is I am a programmer and make my living because of my ability to create and work with logic. In the end I came to understand the limits of logic and such is all. I use to be an atheist, I went into the project thinking exactly like you do, I came out with another understanding.

I have no difficulty with how the senses work. Something touches your arm, and so you feel it. The nerves are stimulated, travels to the brain and so forth. When working on trying to create actual intelligence, I found answers to my programs in the human body over and over. From the reason why we sleep, to a reason for life and death.

But we are talking about years of me working on this, and I can't give things to you like you want. There are much smaller things which must be understood before it can continue.

I've had plenty of these discussions in the past, and never did the other just ignore there being something different about consciousness and such, being aware and so forth. If for no other reason for it than entropy, they at least recognized that much. As such, we were at least somewhat able to enter into the philosophies as such.

Can't even go there if we are unable to establish some common ground. So there is no point in continuing, as you will continue to say "prove it" and I will continue to say - it's something you understand.

It's just the way it is, if one is unable to separate themselves from the possessions, then they won't be able to see the understanding behind what I'm talking about.

I dunno, think about the questions I asked you for a bit, and then maybe in a few days or so it will hit you.



[edit on 11/22/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
You can not scientifically prove to yourself that another human has consciousness.

It is not possible.



Exactly. All you can really know is that you yourself have awareness and consciousness. It is generally accepted as "true" simply because we each experience it. While I don't know for sure it's in anyone else, I think it's a safe bet. But you can never know for sure.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



You can not scientifically prove to yourself that another human has consciousness.

It is not possible.


This is the exact arrogant ignorance I'm talking about. The study of consciousness as a whole is still very infantile, with many questions regarding the nature of consciousness still needing to be answered. To state as an absolute truth that *it is not possible* is to admit self defeat and lack of willingness to continue research in order to discover the answers to those questions left unanswered. Thankfully I lack that arrogant ignorance and disagree with your simple minded arguments that are devoid of logic.

The fact that you chose this ignorant argument rather than arguing all other points raised is very revealing of your own capacity to use intelligent thought. Hell, your semantics and out of context arguments was even more revealing than this.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



The mechanics of life is easy. It's the state of being that is difficult, and it's not provable because it is subjective.


The mechanics of life is easy for you to understand? The mechanics of something we don't even understand at this moment in time how it arose is... Easy for *YOU* to understand? Now you off being that trolling nitwit doing the crap spouting again. Think before you type, please.


The body is nothing more than a biological machine. The cells are nanobots, that worked based on the configurations given to it by the DNA. Same exact setup in programs.


Biological systems are not setup the same as digital representations, if you understood biology and programming as you claim to be one, you would understand this. I agree that the body is a biological machine, but that machine is not analogous to to any binary program ever written by man at this moment nor can even be compared in complexity to any program written by man at this moment.

Either your lying or your lying. I see no way to reconcile such blatant idiocy.


Asking me to prove that is about like me trying to prove to the blind man the color blue - can't really be done. Because it is subjective.


Define subjective and what it means to you.


You say I'm not logical, but the truth is I am a programmer and make my living because of my ability to create and work with logic. In the end I came to understand the limits of logic and such is all. I use to be an atheist, I went into the project thinking exactly like you do, I came out with another understanding.


Given you above arguments, I'm beginning to doubt the validity of this statement.


I have no difficulty with how the senses work. Something touches your arm, and so you feel it. The nerves are stimulated, travels to the brain and so forth. When working on trying to create actual intelligence, I found answers to my programs in the human body over and over. From the reason why we sleep, to a reason for life and death.


What company do you work for, what software have you developed that lead to these various answers that appear analogous to the human systems.


But we are talking about years of me working on this, and I can't give things to you like you want. There are much smaller things which must be understood before it can continue.


Years of you working on these programs that led to these answers for you but you are unable to provide this research in order for it to be reviewed and verified and then resort to a cop-out explanation that it's something that you just "have to understand"? Your a trolling tool.


I've had plenty of these discussions in the past, and never did the other just ignore there being something different about consciousness and such, being aware and so forth. If for no other reason for it than entropy, they at least recognized that much. As such, we were at least somewhat able to enter into the philosophies as such.


Perhaps because you've discussed this with other arrogantly ignorant pompous buffoons who think they have the answers as well.


Can't even go there if we are unable to establish some common ground. So there is no point in continuing, as you will continue to say "prove it" and I will continue to say - it's something you understand.


Your full of sh**, you tell me you went into programming as an atheist but through some conversion of digital representations of human system function written into programming code you've decided to not be an atheist anymore. In other words, you have in possession something that can be reviewed and verified and yet still resort to more cop-outs than I can even imagine.


It's just the way it is, if one is unable to separate themselves from the possessions, then they won't be able to see the understanding behind what I'm talking about.


I am sorry, I lack arrogant ignorance in order to place that judgment because no such evidence exists nor has been put forth in which to place judgment upon. It's one thing if there was evidence and I denied it's validity, fine then call me closed minded or unable to understand. It's totally different if you claim truth while idiotically being unable to show that this truth is true.


I dunno, think about the questions I asked you for a bit, and then maybe in a few days or so it will hit you.


How daft can someone be? Seriously ...

This is no hard concept, honestly.

The universe and life is only mysterious if you don't understand the mechanics behind it all. If you submit to humility and reserve judgment before blind belief, then the path to understanding these things becomes available to you.

If you blindly believe with arrogant ignorance, then you are not a seeker of truth. You are a pompous buffoon who pretends to be a seeker of truth whilst knowingly or unknowingly spreading lies and deceit upon those who would listen to your ignorance.

*Read it till your eyes bleed.*

If there exists no evidence in which to place judgment, then it is blindly believed to be true. If you lack evidence in which I can place judgment, then I have no reason in which to believe it to be true. Blind belief does not make something true.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus
 



You can not scientifically prove to yourself that another human has consciousness.

It is not possible.


This is the exact arrogant ignorance I'm talking about. The study of consciousness as a whole is still very infantile, with many questions regarding the nature of consciousness still needing to be answered. To state as an absolute truth that *it is not possible* is to admit self defeat and lack of willingness to continue research in order to discover the answers to those questions left unanswered. Thankfully I lack that arrogant ignorance and disagree with your simple minded arguments that are devoid of logic.

The fact that you chose this ignorant argument rather than arguing all other points raised is very revealing of your own capacity to use intelligent thought. Hell, your semantics and out of context arguments was even more revealing than this.


I agree that many questions regarding the nature of consciousness are still unanswered.

You are trying so hard to be "right" that you are contradicting your self.

If you want to look at the issue in a completely scientific way the VERY first thing you have to understand is the consciousness is fundamentally abstract and can not be proven to exist.

We can study the physiological relationship of our sense organs, our brains, and our behavior but we can not scientifically prove the existence of consciousness or mind or soul.

This physical vehicle creates the message.
The brain interrupts/transforms the message.
The mind becomes the message.

Consciousness is the constant second to second experience created by our brain that our mind responds to.

What makes you YOU is the way that your mind responds to consciousness.

You are the observer/responder.

Some interesting concepts to study that may help in understand this issue.

The consciousness of plants.
The material of dreams.
The physiological mechanisms of our sense organs.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by Jezus
You can not scientifically prove to yourself that another human has consciousness.

It is not possible.



Exactly. All you can really know is that you yourself have awareness and consciousness. It is generally accepted as "true" simply because we each experience it. While I don't know for sure it's in anyone else, I think it's a safe bet. But you can never know for sure.


The ironic thing about discussing an issue like this is that if you bring some people's arguments and statements to their logical conclusion they are unknowingly claiming to be biological robots without a free will...

The ironic part is that I can't actually prove they are wrong.

I assume they have consciousness like I do but I can never really prove it.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join