Science Vs.

reply to post by Jezus

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

And yet you state as a matter of fact in the absolute sense that the nature of consciousness can never be proven. It is that matter of absolute fact that is upsetting me. Nothing is an absolute fact unless it is proven an absolute fact.

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

If your example of a contradiction of mine involves an argument of out of context, then you haven't shown any contradictions. Please show one contradiction I have made thus far.

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.

That is fundamentally wrong in my opinion and from my readings on the nature of consciousness and all subsequent research upon the subject.

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.

I disagree. You can't place future discoveries upon the limitations of current technological capacities unless you are willfully being an arrogant ignorant retard.

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

When stating something as a fact, you need to produce evidence for this perceived fact. You can't claim something to be true without evidence and then demand acceptance for it. It's an exercise of futility and your arguments in favor for futility will fall over deaf ears here.

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

Discussing the mind, body and consciousness as if they are separate things without showing them to be separate things is again, an exercise of futility. If you are unable to show them to be separate things, then there is no reason to pass judgment upon the blind belief of them being separate things. This is where humility comes into play rather than prideful arrogant ignorance.

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

This is an empty claim.

You are the observer/responder.

This is another empty claim.

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.

I have read up on these subjects and many more, none of these subjects that I have studied explicitly state that in which you explicitly state. If you are suggesting that it does otherwise, then you are not properly decoding the information with a true drive to seek knowledge. Blind belief will never amount to any discovery of truth.

Originally posted by sirnex

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

When stating something as a fact, you need to produce evidence for this perceived fact. You can't claim something to be true without evidence and then demand acceptance for it. It's an exercise of futility and your arguments in favor for futility will fall over deaf ears here.

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

Discussing the mind, body and consciousness as if they are separate things without showing them to be separate things is again, an exercise of futility. If you are unable to show them to be separate things, then there is no reason to pass judgment upon the blind belief of them being separate things. This is where humility comes into play rather than prideful arrogant ignorance.

The evidence is your conscious experience.

You are constantly living the proof.

However, I must admit that this is my assumption.

I doubt that you are really a biological robot without freewill but I can never scientifically prove that you have consciousness in the way I do.



It could be possible that I am telling a robot that he isn't a robot while he stubbornly insists that he is...

reply to post by Jezus

The evidence is your conscious experience.

You are constantly living the proof.

However, I must admit that this is my assumption.

I doubt that you are really a biological robot without freewill but I can never scientifically prove that you have consciousness in the way I do.



It could be possible that I am telling a robot that he isn't a robot while he stubbornly insists that he is...

Oh for crying out loud. That is about as intelligent as saying the evidence for God is the universe itself. Step down before you hurt yourself. If you can't comprehend even the most simplest of common sense and logic then there is no chance of you understanding what is wrong with your arguments despite the many times I've pointed out what is wrong with them.

Blind belief is not proof of anything.
Blind belief is not equatable to truth.
Blind belief does not make you knowledgeable or capable of understanding.

When you hold a blind belief to be more truer than what common sense and logic dictates then many thing's will for the rest of your life seem to be mysterious and unknowable.

If you think reserving judgment upon an empty claim is equatable to closed mindedness, then you don't understand what either are.

If you lack understanding of semantics and context, then a majority of your arguments are going to sounds ignorant and unintelligent to those who do understand.

Originally posted by sirnex
If you lack understanding of semantics and context, then a majority of your arguments are going to sounds ignorant and unintelligent to those who do understand.

semantics
–noun (used with a singular verb)
1. Linguistics.
a. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics

You are never going to understand anything being so confrontational and argumentative.

I'm trying to get you to take your comprehension of this issue to another level.

The mind experiences the brain's message.

This is a logical argument supported by science.

But even without the scientific findings that are consistent with this point you are capable of understanding it just by using your logical reasoning. You are experiencing the evidence right now.

Your thought is the evidence.

Your logic is actually implying that you are a biological robot without any freewill.

Originally posted by sirnex

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?

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

This is an empty claim.

These two responses show that you aren't as familiar with the scientific perspective of this subject as you claim to be.

1. Humans have a highly complex attention system that is unlike other animals.

2. Life experiences actually control the physical structure of brain development.

reply to post by Jezus


Your a complete tool. You cite the definition of semantics as if it's a valid argument that you were not earlier arguing semantics.

3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics

Re-read your argument of definitions and the tactic employed in that argument.

Like I said, if you don't understand what a semantics argument is, your arguments will remain those of ignorance.

You are never going to understand anything being so confrontational and argumentative.

I am not doing either thing. You still haven't been able to grasp the concept of reserving judgment in comparison to blind belief. I'm not arguing that you are wrong, I am arguing that there is no reason for me to pass judgment without evidence in which to pass judgment and thus I reserve judgment until such evidence is put forth. This is not the same thing as being closed minded or having an inability to understand and this is also at least, I think, the sixth time I've explained this concept to you. It's not my ability to understand something that is in question, it is your ability to understand.

I'm trying to get you to take your comprehension of this issue to another level.

No, you are trying to get me to blindly believe that what you say is true without giving me anything in which to pass judgment upon that claimed truth. I don't resort to arrogant ignorance as a valid form of truth.

The mind experiences the brain's message.

This is a logical argument supported by science.

I accept this statement, but previous statements of trying to equate the mind as something separate from the brain/body system that exists of it's own accord is not something currently accepted by science nor something that currently possesses any evidence in which to claim is a valid truth.

But even without the scientific findings that are consistent with this point you are capable of understanding it just by using your logical reasoning. You are experiencing the evidence right now.

Your thought is the evidence.

Your previous arguments of trying to equate the mind as something separate that exists of it's own accord is woefully different than what my logical reasoning dictates and what current evidence dictates.

Your logic is actually implying that you are a biological robot without any freewill.

I agree, I accept a deterministic universe for the time being as that is the only logical universe I can conceive of to exist if the universe had a beginning. There is no chance nor randomness.

These two responses show that you aren't as familiar with the scientific perspective of this subject as you claim to be.

1. Humans have a highly complex attention system that is unlike other animals.

2. Life experiences actually control the physical structure of brain development.

You are kidding. The science behind this is in it's infantile stage right now, especially the comparison between humans and other species. We also can't 'humanize' other species as they are not a part of the human species. Some systems and functions will certainly operate similarly, other systems and functions will not and nor should the systems and function in whole every be equated to the systems and functions of the human species. Other species do possess a reasonable advanced attention system but within those species that function is applied differently. Recent research has even shown that something as 'lowly' as an ant possesses a higher capacity for rational thought than humans do. There is a lot we don't understand and to proclaim arrogant ignorance as an attribute to strive for is just idiotic. If you wish to proclaim knowledge and truth without showing understanding of either, then you are a pompous buffoon pretending to have knowledge and truth. If you think this is argumentative and confrontational, then you neither understand what I am trying to tell you. Swallow your pride for just one minute while you read my posts. You are wrong on many aspects and the reason you can't prove your truths is self evident for being wrong.

Originally posted by sirnex

You are never going to understand anything being so confrontational and argumentative.

I am not doing either thing.

Originally posted by sirnex
Your a complete tool.

Originally posted by sirnex

Your logic is actually implying that you are a biological robot without any freewill.

I agree, I accept a deterministic universe for the time being as that is the only logical universe I can conceive of to exist if the universe had a beginning. There is no chance nor randomness.

Well if you believe you a biological robot than it makes sense that you believe that the mind is nothing but a product of the brain.

However, logically, the existence of free will is proven by novel thought.

Free will proves the mind/soul as a separate force from the vehicle.

You got upset when I posted definitions because you couldn't comprehend what I meant in posting the meaning of "sensation" and "feeling"

I was pointing out that attempting to explain these abstract terms in words is inherently flawed.

Really...think about it...What is a feeling?

Scientifically the distinction of the mind from the brain is supported however it is also self evident just from experiencing reality.

But if you want some scientific issues to study that will help in understanding this fact check out the following...

The material of dreams.
The nature of learning and brain development (specifically language acquisition).
The phenomenon of out of body experiences.

If you want to logical issues to study I have already stated the best one...

What is a feeling?

reply to post by Jezus

Well if you believe you a biological robot than it makes sense that you believe that the mind is nothing but a product of the brain.

There is nothing indicative that the mind is not a product of the brain. Until such evidence is put forth to the contrary, I reserve judgment unto believing such, however I do accept the possibility of such I just possess no reason to place belief in it.

However, logically, the existence of free will is proven by novel thought.

Free will is still a very debatable concept. I'm willing to bet that based upon previous arguments of yours that you would be unable to even show one instance of free will without resorting illogical arguments.

Free will proves the mind/soul as a separate force from the vehicle.

This is an empty claim.

You got upset when I posted definitions because you couldn't comprehend what I meant in posting the meaning of "sensation" and "feeling"

I was pointing out that attempting to explain these abstract terms in words is inherently flawed.

Really...think about it...What is a feeling?

I never got upset over the actual posting of the definitions. I got upset over your usage of semantics through those definitions. If you haven't figured out by now why the tactic employed within those definitions is a semantics arguments as evident by your complete disregard for the definition of semantics despite posting it, then you haven't got much to go on here except ignorance.

Scientifically the distinction of the mind from the brain is supported however it is also self evident just from experiencing reality.

Can you please cite sources and I also have to disagree that this distinct separation is self evident. Personal experience is not a valid form of evidence as is evident from six billion contradictory personal experiences.

But if you want some scientific issues to study that will help in understanding this fact check out the following...

The material of dreams.
The nature of learning and brain development (specifically language acquisition).
The phenomenon of out of body experiences.

One of those you've already suggested, the rest I have studied as well. The phenomenon of OOBEs exists as a personal experience phenomenon and as such I don't accept such things. The other two suggestions do not explicitly state what you explicitly state.

If you want to logical issues to study I have already stated the best one...

What is a feeling?

I do not wish to get into a semantics argument so please do not set me up for one. You've already covered the definition through your own terms of bolding certain words and sentences in an attempt to push your own beliefs forward as fact without showing that these beliefs possess any evidence to be called fact.

Originally posted by sirnex
Personal experience is not a valid form of evidence as is evident from six billion contradictory personal experiences.

The phenomenon of OOBEs exists as a personal experience phenomenon and as such I don't accept such things.

This is exactly why consciousness can not be proven to exist on a scientific level.

Originally posted by sirnex

What is a feeling?

I do not wish to get into a semantics argument so please do not set me up for one. You've already covered the definition through your own terms of bolding certain words and sentences in an attempt to push your own beliefs forward as fact without showing that these beliefs possess any evidence to be called fact.

This is not semantics, this is logical reasoning.

What do you think a feeling is?

Just explain it.

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

Who doesn't understand the mechanics of life? Am I a doctor that knows all the little details? No. But the functions of life itself are understandable and logical.

Rather than slinging personal insults here, why don't you try coming up with something about life that you think is not understood. I notice you offer nothing of that sort, but instead dismiss me, then call me names.

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.

#1. "Binary" program means a program of duality. 1's and 0's, on and off switches. Yes, the universe does in many cases work in exactly this manner. Action and reaction and so forth.

#2. I am not saying creation is a program exactly. I am saying it is LIKE a program in the way it functions, meaning it functions because of LOGIC. The laws of physics for example, that is logic being applied.

These things CAN and ARE put into programs all the time in different forms. Entire virtual worlds are created from nothing but logic and so forth. NASA and plenty of other scientists put in the laws they see and run simulations and all sorts of things.

Personally, I can't even believe you are arguing against it. I suppose I need that reviewed by scientists? You know why it's not? Because it's freaking obvious that is why.

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

Do you actually know anything about programming to argue about this? I mean, if you are going to make such claims, then you must have some experience writing programs right?

Define subjective and what it means to you.

Pretty sure I already gave you links on the differences between subject and objective. At any rate, all you need to do is put in those 2 keywords into google.

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

Another dismissal without any real argument. Isn't that what you keep saying is "faith"?

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

For starters, I'd never answer that question. But the type of work I do for a living is NOT in anyway related to AI and such. The AI stuff was only a personal goal/project for me that I worked on in my spare time. I write custom programs for companies and such, rather than public software. Chances are, you have used a program I have written, as the majority of my work things are internet/web based.

AI was something I worked on in my free time. And I eventually abandoned the project when I realized that true intelligence required consciousness, and that it was beyond logic.

All intelligence from a program will be artificial in nature. Meaning, not real intelligence. Don't get me wrong, programs will do many great and wonderful things in the future. Drive your car, and handle many of the daily things we do every day. AI is 100% capable of all those things. But it works because programmers are able to put the logic into the program. The program then only carries out that logic. But it carries that logic out with 100% accuracy and at a much faster rather than humans.

As such, programs are the way of the future. However, there is the boundary I came across, and that is in terms of actually getting it to create logic, as humans do(a measure of true intelligence).

In the end, I came to realize that even if I was successful in creating all the parts(the stuff that was humanist in nature, brain, long term memory and so forth) that in the end 1 thing would be missing. And that is consciousness. Without consciousness in it, then it would always just be nothing but patterns and logic working out.

This is well known, and if you do a bit of research into the field of AI you will find that getting consciousness into a computer is a #1 goal. But they too also realize these limits, and so they are trying to find a way to get your consciousness into a computer. The idea being that once in, the functions of the computer will do the things the brain and such does, only unlike the human flesh, could be upgraded and so forth, resulting in what they hope to be like a super intelligence, as well as the ability to have direct control over things, unlike the flesh currently.

I recently seen a show on the Science channel called "Brink". One of the episodes was about AI. On it, they had someone from the field on TV. The above things was the basic topic(and about being able to save memory, and back it up in case of memory loss). The host oddly enough mentioned consciousness and the philosophical question. Care to guess what the experts reply was? "Some things are beyond Science".

Is that scientifically proven by him? Nope, nor can it be. But it is something that anyone who works in the field eventually comes to realize and understand. From their own work and experience and by taking these things head on. Some are more stubborn than others, but in general it seems to be the rule.

Entire companies are focused on getting consciousness into a machine.

Personally I quit working on it because I realized that I was really only doing that which was already done, and that I was already living in the result. But again, this is based on more information and thought than I can possibly express here.

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.

Unable to provide and not taking the time to argue with the most basic concepts are 2 different things. You can say what you like, but at the end of the day you are basically asking me to explain calculus to someone who wants to argue about basic math. The most basic of concepts seems to be beyond your comprehension.

If you want to blame me for it, then go ahead. But I'm just going to move on. If you were actually trying to grasp those concepts in an honest manner, then fine I would probably spend hours on it. But that isn't the case. You are just being argumentative in defense of your own beliefs.

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

No, actually they were atheists and we disagreed on many things and had a much heated debate that went on for quite some time. While many people look for like minded people to talk to and such, I do the opposite. Thus why I even bother responding to you.

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.

Well, there is a bit more to it than that, I had other experiences and such. The AI part isn't really the point either. It was the questions and problems I was confronted with that lead to the understanding as a result of it. Of which, anyone can ask and think about, but it is something that someone has to do on their own.

And I'm not at all sure what you think I have in my possession that is proof. What part of - "Failed" do you not understand? If I had such a thing in my possession, then it would prove my entire premise wrong and I would be speaking to that effect.

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

The irony of this post is thick. If you didn't place judgment on it, then you wouldn't have an opinion on it, nor would you argue either. You know what I don't make judgment on? Womens Tennis. Why? Because I don't know anything about it. You know what else? I don't post or talk about Womens Tennis either - I have no opinion on it.

Your entire premise is that the lack of evidence is in itself evidence that it doesn't exist. That is your objective reality.

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.

And to you, anything which has not been proven to you is by default false and a belief. To you, it is impossible that people have experienced and seen things that you have not.

You call me arrogant over and over. But do you realize how tiny your perspective is? If we only take the known universe, in the current place of time, you perspective on that universe is so tiny I can't even venture a guess to how many 0's come before the 1 in the %.

And that is not even considering the billions of years science itself says we have in time.

And yet, from this little tiny perspective, you pretend that all things not included in it, proven or otherwise is by default false and a belief or that I'm a liar.

In the end, it's human nature I suppose. We always deny in others what we ourselves lack.

Originally posted by Jezus
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.

Yes, some even have the balls to admit it too. I can't think of his name at the moment, but I've debated someone like that a few times.

He completely believes that we are exactly that. He considered consciousness to be Entropy, and that free will and choice were simply illusions. All things were a result of the previous actions.

In the end, that was just how he saw it. But we were able to debate and discuss on that level, rather than this level. Debated actual philosophical concepts and such.

My response to him was that in order to have an illusion, you must first have something which is able to perceive the illusion, and that Entropy is really no different than saying "God did it".

We were at each throats from time to time, it was very heated. But a much better debate overall.

reply to post by badmedia

Well, there is a bit more to it than that, I had other experiences and such. The AI part isn't really the point either. It was the questions and problems I was confronted with that lead to the understanding as a result of it. Of which, anyone can ask and think about, but it is something that someone has to do on their own.

Exclaiming truth but that this truth can only be personally discovered is exclaiming an exercise of futility. If you have no evidence in which to discern truth from faulty experience, then I have no reason to judge what you state as true.

And I'm not at all sure what you think I have in my possession that is proof. What part of - "Failed" do you not understand? If I had such a thing in my possession, then it would prove my entire premise wrong and I would be speaking to that effect.

OK, so now your stating you have explicitly no proof in which to what you believe you are saying is true at all. Great, as I assumed previously, blind belief.

The irony of this post is thick. If you didn't place judgment on it, then you wouldn't have an opinion on it, nor would you argue either. You know what I don't make judgment on? Womens Tennis. Why? Because I don't know anything about it. You know what else? I don't post or talk about Womens Tennis either - I have no opinion on it.

Piss poor logic and comparison. I have no true opinion, I never stated it's not possible. What I am getting at here is that you are exclaiming truth without evidence of truth and demanding I accept that truth without reason. I accept the possibility of a creator, a soul and pink unicorns. I don't place judgment upon the validity of either of those things being true in the same sense that gravity exist without evidence for such truths.

I don't blindly believe in things in the same mannerism as you, that is called arrogant ignorance. You are still unable to discern that.

Your entire premise is that the lack of evidence is in itself evidence that it doesn't exist. That is your objective reality.

If you weren't being so arrogantly ignorant you would realize quickly and correctly that this statement is false preformed opinion made by yourself due to my dismissal of your truth without evidence.

And to you, anything which has not been proven to you is by default false and a belief. To you, it is impossible that people have experienced and seen things that you have not.

If you weren't being so arrogantly ignorant you would realize quickly and correctly that this statement is false preformed opinion made by yourself due to my dismissal of your truth without evidence.

You call me arrogant over and over. But do you realize how tiny your perspective is? If we only take the known universe, in the current place of time, you perspective on that universe is so tiny I can't even venture a guess to how many 0's come before the 1 in the %.

If you weren't being so arrogantly ignorant you would realize quickly and correctly that this statement is false preformed opinion made by yourself due to my dismissal of your truth without evidence.

And that is not even considering the billions of years science itself says we have in time.

Big bang theory rests upon a series of assumptions and only works if those assumptions are correct.

And yet, from this little tiny perspective, you pretend that all things not included in it, proven or otherwise is by default false and a belief or that I'm a liar.

In the end, it's human nature I suppose. We always deny in others what we ourselves lack.

Clearly your incapable of higher intelligent thought and lack the capacity to understand humility and reserve of judgment. Most arrogantly ignorant pompous buffoons are just like you. They exclaim the truth and absolute facts and yet provide no evidence for these facts. If anyone dares question the validity by asking for evidence before acceptance they are quickly called closed minded, narrow minded, having a small perspective, etc.

If you can't understand that truth doesn't come from personal experience or that truth doesn't come from blind belief then you don't understand what truth is. If you can't discern the difference between open mindedness and humility to reserve judgment, then you are not a seeker of truth at all. You are a pompous buffoon who arrogantly and ignorantly exclaims to already have that truth. Again, swallow that pride and forget about your personal experiences because there are six billion others who all have different 'truths' than you. The real truth isn't through your your own limitations and you'll never find it until you understand it.

reply to post by badmedia

Who doesn't understand the mechanics of life? Am I a doctor that knows all the little details? No. But the functions of life itself are understandable and logical.

Really? At this point in time the knowledge of how life arose is one of the most hardest concepts existent within the scientific community along with where the universe came from. Hey, if you think it's easy, then you should join in on the research.

Rather than slinging personal insults here, why don't you try coming up with something about life that you think is not understood. I notice you offer nothing of that sort, but instead dismiss me, then call me names.

Ugh, observing your arrogant ignorance is not a personal insult. Observing you being a trolling tool in your answers or purposeful lack of in cop-out tactics is not an insult. Learn the difference.

Why I don't offer an alternative is because I don't have an alternative. Why I attack your "truth" is because you lack reason to believe it is true. Without a single shred of evidence in which to pass judgment upon that truth you are doing nothing more than blindly believing it to be true. Again, this is not closed mindedness, not understanding, or being blind to your truth. This is humility and reserving judgment before acceptance of any so called truths.

#1. "Binary" program means a program of duality. 1's and 0's, on and off switches. Yes, the universe does in many cases work in exactly this manner. Action and reaction and so forth.

Semantics and piss poor comparison.

#2. I am not saying creation is a program exactly. I am saying it is LIKE a program in the way it functions, meaning it functions because of LOGIC. The laws of physics for example, that is logic being applied.

Please show one physical law that can be accurately shown to function on logic as a software program does.

These things CAN and ARE put into programs all the time in different forms. Entire virtual worlds are created from nothing but logic and so forth. NASA and plenty of other scientists put in the laws they see and run simulations and all sorts of things.

The comparison is poor and the two are not equatable. I'll leave you to try and work out why, the answer is ridiculously simple. Yet we already know you ignore ridiculously simple questions. Such as "What is the purpose of life?" You still haven't answered why that question is wrongly asked. Ridiculously simple logic there.

Personally, I can't even believe you are arguing against it. I suppose I need that reviewed by scientists? You know why it's not? Because it's freaking obvious that is why.

It was obvious the sun revolved around the Earth, Galileo was killed for proving otherwise. It took the church four hundred years to apologize for their arrogant ignorance because they also didn't think they required evidence to believe in something as well. Take that it's obvious or it's something you have to understand arguments and shove 'em. I don't play that way and I don't accept arrogant ignorance as a trait to strive for.

Do you actually know anything about programming to argue about this? I mean, if you are going to make such claims, then you must have some experience writing programs right?

Appealing to authority.

Pretty sure I already gave you links on the differences between subject and objective. At any rate, all you need to do is put in those 2 keywords into google.

I don't recall and no amount of google search will give me your opinion.

Another dismissal without any real argument. Isn't that what you keep saying is "faith"?

Piss poor analogy and comparison.

For starters, I'd never answer that question. But the type of work I do for a living is NOT in anyway related to AI and such. The AI stuff was only a personal goal/project for me that I worked on in my spare time. I write custom programs for companies and such, rather than public software. Chances are, you have used a program I have written, as the majority of my work things are internet/web based.

Empty claim then.

AI was something I worked on in my free time. And I eventually abandoned the project when I realized that true intelligence required consciousness, and that it was beyond logic.

Piss poor logic born of your own limitations to program.

All intelligence from a program will be artificial in nature. Meaning, not real intelligence. Don't get me wrong, programs will do many great and wonderful things in the future. Drive your car, and handle many of the daily things we do every day. AI is 100% capable of all those things. But it works because programmers are able to put the logic into the program. The program then only carries out that logic. But it carries that logic out with 100% accuracy and at a much faster rather than humans.

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations.

As such, programs are the way of the future. However, there is the boundary I came across, and that is in terms of actually getting it to create logic, as humans do(a measure of true intelligence).

Piss poor logic born of your own limitations to program.

In the end, I came to realize that even if I was successful in creating all the parts(the stuff that was humanist in nature, brain, long term memory and so forth) that in the end 1 thing would be missing. And that is consciousness. Without consciousness in it, then it would always just be nothing but patterns and logic working out.

Lack of understanding of what consciousness is.

This is well known, and if you do a bit of research into the field of AI you will find that getting consciousness into a computer is a #1 goal. But they too also realize these limits, and so they are trying to find a way to get your consciousness into a computer. The idea being that once in, the functions of the computer will do the things the brain and such does, only unlike the human flesh, could be upgraded and so forth, resulting in what they hope to be like a super intelligence, as well as the ability to have direct control over things, unlike the flesh currently.

Outright lie. Discussing two goals as if one goal is self-defeated so they are attempting to work on a different goal. The two goals are separate goals and the work between are entirely different.

I recently seen a show on the Science channel called "Brink". One of the episodes was about AI. On it, they had someone from the field on TV. The above things was the basic topic(and about being able to save memory, and back it up in case of memory loss). The host oddly enough mentioned consciousness and the philosophical question. Care to guess what the experts reply was? "Some things are beyond Science".

Appeal to authority.

Is that scientifically proven by him? Nope, nor can it be. But it is something that anyone who works in the field eventually comes to realize and understand. From their own work and experience and by taking these things head on. Some are more stubborn than others, but in general it seems to be the rule.

Appeal to authority coupled with limiting future knowledge by current technological limitations.

Entire companies are focused on getting consciousness into a machine.

And entire companies are focused on developing true AI.

Personally I quit working on it because I realized that I was really only doing that which was already done, and that I was already living in the result. But again, this is based on more information and thought than I can possibly express here.

Piss poor logic and contradictory statement.

Unable to provide and not taking the time to argue with the most basic concepts are 2 different things. You can say what you like, but at the end of the day you are basically asking me to explain calculus to someone who wants to argue about basic math. The most basic of concepts seems to be beyond your comprehension.

You are asking me to place judgment upon something you can show no evidence for. The logic employed and the comparison here is flawed.

If you want to blame me for it, then go ahead. But I'm just going to move on. If you were actually trying to grasp those concepts in an honest manner, then fine I would probably spend hours on it. But that isn't the case. You are just being argumentative in defense of your own beliefs.

I am trying to grasp these concepts and thus in order to grasp these concepts as if they were true I would need evidence in which to place judgment upon those concepts. Resorting to cop-out tactics by appealing to authority or claiming it's just something you have to understand or it's something you understand based on your own limitations, are not thing's that will fly for me and will not help me grasp such concepts.

No, actually they were atheists and we disagreed on many things and had a much heated debate that went on for quite some time. While many people look for like minded people to talk to and such, I do the opposite. Thus why I even bother responding to you.

You took the statement out of context. I never mentioned religious belief or lack of. Please comprehend what your reading and perhaps the reword of this statement won't be born of arrogant ignorance.

reply to post by Jezus

This is exactly why consciousness can not be proven to exist on a scientific level.

Your limiting the science and study of consciousness and how the brain operates to produce consciousness based upon current scientific limitations. It's like saying we shouldn't be flittering about in jumbo jests today because of the scientific limitations of the ancient Greeks. The science behind consciousness and the study of how it arises is starting to become understood. Since you like posting definitions, look up consciousness. Compare consciousness to what your describing and explain how the two are either the same or are different.

This is not semantics, this is logical reasoning.

What do you think a feeling is?

Just explain it.

No, this is going to develop into a semantics argument. You've already proven your usage of semantics in regards to feelings.

If your discussing feelings as in emotional responses, then feelings are a chemically induced emotional response created by outside stimuli.

**Let the semantics begin!

"What is the purpose of life?"

In a word - to experience.

That which is unlimited limits itself in order to have an experience. A limited perception is required to have this "life".

All the things you think of yourself as, those possessions. Those simply define your experience.

And with that I'm done. I'm kind of tired of giving you replies, only to get called a name in response.

Originally posted by badmedia
"What is the purpose of life?"

In a word - to experience.

That which is unlimited limits itself in order to have an experience. A limited perception is required to have this "life".

All the things you think of yourself as, those possessions. Those simply define your experience.

And with that I'm done. I'm kind of tired of giving you replies, only to get called a name in response.

Wrong. Your answer is utterly wrong and show's how much you lack logical thought. Your not a seeker of truth, your a pompous buffoon that think he has the truth.

The correct answer is that the question *assumes* there is a purpose to life. Your answer *assumed* that there was a purpose to life. From that *assumption* you are thus unable to logically answer why that question is asked wrongly. Acting with arrogant ignorance is your decision, not mine. If you wish to not be observed as being such then change how you think.

A chemical induces a response but what exactly is responding?

Originally posted by sirnexThis question is illogical as it automatically assumes that the mind is not a product of the brain and that it is a separate entity that exists of it's own accord. Please cite sources, research or evidence to substantiate this line of questioning.

You the one the said that a feeling is a "chemically induced emotional response"

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus

 

If your discussing feelings as in emotional responses, then feelings are a chemically induced emotional response created by outside stimuli.

My question is what is responding?

What is an emotion?

You keep saying "semantics" but that is the entire point of the argument...

These words are defining abstract concepts and that is why the definition is never going to do it justice.

Scientifically we can discuss psychological psychology and chemical biology but if you want to discuss the other side of the equation, the mind, you are going to have to see that everything you have said logically proves that the mind is separate from the brain. Science may support this fact, but it is defined by the personal experience you are having.

Originally posted by sirnex
Define mind and define consciousness.

Mind is the responder to the conscious experience.

You=Mind=Soul=Observer=Intelligent Energy

Consciousness is simply what we call the observable evidence that the mind is responding to brain.

A feeling is a state of mind.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Jezus]

reply to post by Jezus

It isn't a limitation of science, it is a fundamental aspect of science.

No, your limiting future knowledge with current scientific limitations. You can not state as a matter of fact that X can't be known in the future because X can't be known now.

What we know about consciousness is exactly what has led to the understanding that it does not exist on a physical level.

And yet I ask you to cite sources, evidence, research and you simply refuse or are unable to produce this. If what we know about consciousness states that it does not exist or arise from a physical substance then you should have some basis of evidence in order to state that this is a fact.

We may be able to see the effects of consciousness on a physical level and logically assume other people to have it, but while we may logically be able to prove something it does not mean it can be scientifically proven.

Your limiting future knowledge with current scientific limitations. You can not state as a matter of fact that X can't be known in the future because X can't be known now.

I'm not talking about distinguishing emotional feelings from physical feelings. I'm asking you what you think a feeling in general is.

Damnit, I knew this was going to get into a semantics argument. It was a simple answer to a more complex problem. I'm not getting into a semantics argument with you. If you wish to continue this line of argument, I will simply ignore it.

Originally posted by sirnex

I'm not talking about distinguishing emotional feelings from physical feelings. I'm asking you what you think a feeling in general is.

Damnit, I knew this was going to get into a semantics argument. It was a simple answer to a more complex problem. I'm not getting into a semantics argument with you. If you wish to continue this line of argument, I will simply ignore it.

If you can't discuss these abstract concepts then you a simply discussing physical biological chemistry or physiological psychology.

The discussion of consciousness is innately abstract.

You need to get past the brain and move onto the mind.

What are sensations?
What are feelings?

A chemical induces a response but what exactly is responding?

If you are unable to discuss these issues you aren't discussing the phenomenon we call consciousness.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Jezus]

Originally posted by sirnex
Wrong. Your answer is utterly wrong and show's how much you lack logical thought. Your not a seeker of truth, your a pompous buffoon that think he has the truth.

The correct answer is that the question *assumes* there is a purpose to life. Your answer *assumed* that there was a purpose to life. From that *assumption* you are thus unable to logically answer why that question is asked wrongly. Acting with arrogant ignorance is your decision, not mine. If you wish to not be observed as being such then change how you think.

As opposed to assuming there is no purpose to life, and that by default anyone who purposes an answer is by default wrong?

If you have no purpose in your life - why do you even doing anything at all? After all, there is no purpose in it right?