Franko Memorial thread!

[Upchurch]

the dead Upchurch & the live one weigh the same so far as I am aware.

Okay, now you've got me thinking about this example. Let us, for the moment, assume that live Upchurch (LU) and dead Upchurch (DU) weigh exactly the same, as hammegk says. Maybe we measure LU just before and DU just after the moment of death and no decay has yet occured.

What does this tell us? Well, if Einstien is correct about E = mc^2, and if "life" is a form of energy, it's departure from the body should result in a loss of overall mass. i.e. LU > DU.

On an interesting aside, this rationality has been used by some scientists in an attempt to try to "weigh" the physical human soul. The results have been inconclusive the last I'd heard of it. It's hard to control for everything and the human soul is, apparently, extremely light.

Anyway, back to the thought experiement, if Einstein (E=mc^2) and hammegk (life=E) are both correct than LU > DU. However, we've postulated that LU=DU, so one or both of our theorists must be incorrect.

Now, I'm inclined to believe that Einstein's proposition is correct, for no other reason than it's withstood the test of time for almost 100 years of exaustive testing. Which leaves us with hammegk's two propositions, Life = E and LU = DU. They cannot both be correct or, if they can, how is it possible?

 

[hammegk]

...Which leaves us with hammegk's two propositions, Life = E and LU = DU. They cannot both be correct or, if they can, how is it possible?

Good question, although preciseness required to measure could be my out (today, anyway) and I'd suspect Heisenberg's little comment could eventually come into play.


A thought for you. If we take a block of metal and add energy by heating (heat is my second favorite form of energy after gravity) would mass increase? If so could we measure it?

by Upchurch
I do know of the existance of something that behaves both as matter and energy at the same time though. Lots of things, actually.

I'd politely disagree; depending on how we choose to observe, it is one thing OR the other, never both.

Heh. Close, but no banana. "Counterintuitive" means opposite or different than your intuition or "common sense" would lead you to believe, not that "I don't know how THAT happens". The latter implies that the mechanism isn't understood or describable. The former just implies that it isn't what you would expect.

Basically, the math or model describing things is too complicated to foresee the result without doing it. I.E. How the hell did that happen?? With enough extra effort you will probably be able to say, oh, now I see!

Any matter field? Okay, I've got one to the side of my house. It's comprixed mostly of dirt with vegitable matter mixed in. There is another one just above my head that is comprised on Nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, mostly.

Umm, I don't think so. We both know you are looking at energy fields interacting. Where is that "matter" again? (think A-tom).

 

[Upchurch]

Good question, although preciseness required to measure could be my out (today, anyway) and I'd suspect Heisenberg's little comment could eventually come into play.

How is Heisenberg applicable here? Either there is a loss in mass due to life = E or LU = DU and life isn't a form of energy.

A thought for you. If we take a block of metal and add energy by heating (heat is my second favorite form of energy after gravity) would mass increase? If so could we measure it?

Actually, it the mass of the block does increase a little bit, but it takes LOTS of energy to make much of a differnece.

A great example of that, actually, is the sun. It is slowly losing mass, but the only thing it emits is electromagnetic radiation, i.e. heat and light. Pretty cool, huh?

I'd politely disagree; depending on how we choose to observe, it is one thing OR the other, never both.

So you believe that it is our observation that causes the light to sometimes act as a particle and sometimes act life a wave? What is the physical interaction at a distance that causes it to change from one form to another? And must it be conscious observation? If a (unconsious) camera could be set up to view an experiment and the tape was only viewed later, would the effect be different?

Basically, the math or model describing things is too complicated to foresee the result without doing it. I.E. How the hell did that happen?? With enough extra effort you will probably be able to say, oh, now I see!

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Umm, I don't think so. We both know you are looking at energy fields interacting. Where is that "matter" again? (think A-tom).

Hold on. Didn't you just say that "I acknowledge that given experiments will see particles OR waves"? (my emphesis) Do you believe there is a particle (a.k.a. mass) nature to the universe or don't you?

I think what you're doing here is viewing matter as purely energy, but one could also view energy purely in terms of matter. Electricity is just the movement of particle (in this case, electrons) down a wire. Light is just photons flying through space. etc.

Okay, granted, the pure matter view has problems, but so does the pure energy view. If solid matter is nothing but electromagnetic fields, what is generating the fields? There is an interdependency between energy and matter because they are two forms of the same "stuff". You can't have one without the other because it's part of the same thing.

Incidently, I'd love to know why you think the force of Gravity is a form of energy.

 

[hammegk]

How is Heisenberg applicable here? Either there is a loss in mass due to life = E or LU = DU and life isn't a form of energy.

The flucuating measurement problem will be there if the effect is small enough.

Actually, it the mass of the block does increase a little bit, but it takes LOTS of energy to make much of a differnece.

A great example of that, actually, is the sun. It is slowly losing mass, but the only thing it emits is electromagnetic radiation, i.e. heat and light. Pretty cool, huh?

True, but I planned on keeping the temp increase a little smaller than would initiate atomic reactions.

Another question. How do we assign energy (& the mass equivalent) to a photon, in that science seems positive that a photon has no mass. Ditto for the neutrino family, unless they turn out to have mass.

Back to the sun reactions; do photons & neutinos cause the loss in mass, or are electrons etc also ejecta? I can look it up, but maybe you recall off the top of your head?

So you believe that it is our observation that causes the light to sometimes act as a particle and sometimes act life a wave?

Nope. I don't put any sanctity on the need for humans. The damn cat is either dead, or alive, if the counter clicks, or does not imo. Open the box in 3 weeks, the cat is dead (for one reason or another); opening often enough to keep the cat healthy, he will or will not die when the counter detects an emitted "wavicle".

My 2 cts here I admit ....

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

It was followup on counterintuitive.

Hold on. Didn't you just say that "I acknowledge that given experiments will see particles OR waves"? (my emphesis) Do you believe there is a particle (a.k.a. mass) nature to the universe or don't you?

That's what we are discussing. Idealism says, no; its all just energy.

I think what you're doing here is viewing matter as purely energy, but one could also view energy purely in terms of matter. Electricity is just the movement of particle (in this case, electrons) down a wire. Light is just photons flying through space. etc.

Electrons, tunneling, hmm .. funny little critter ain't it? Mass of a photon, hmmm.

Okay, granted, the pure matter view has problems, but so does the pure energy view. If solid matter is nothing but electromagnetic fields, what is generating the fields? There is an interdependency between energy and matter because they are two forms of the same "stuff". You can't have one without the other because it's part of the same thing.

Dualism???

Incidently, I'd love to know why you think the force of Gravity is a form of energy.

I may have mis-spoke. But, for example, mass accelerates in a "gravitational field"; energy is available from somewhere. Higgs fields & bosons seem to be under current consideration to come to grips with mass & gravity. Sounds energetic rather than massy to me. Am I wrong? 4-space is not going to convince me, I don't think, but again I may be wrong in how I'm looking at it.

 

[wraith]

Logic, in and of itself, is insufficent to show that an idea is true. The rules of D&D are logical but that doesn't make them true. How do you show that consciousness makes matter?

Logic is insufficient?
Now I have heard it all

Consciousness creates matter....
why do I believe that this is the case?

I obey TLOP
I am not more conscious than TLOP

My quicky proof for matter makes consciousness is that consciousness is dependent on the existance of matter, but matter is not dependent on the existance of consciousness. your example of a rock (matter without consciousness) is a wonderful example.

Correlations are great...
that doesnt show that matter creates consciousness...
thats what you have to show

Can you produce or point to a consciousness without matter?

What about the force behind TLOP?

No, I didn't say all matter creates consciousness, just like you didn't say that all consciousness creates matter. (or, if you did, Randi's got some money waiting for you, if you can demonstrate it)

What difference does it make? Youre still left having to explain why brain matter is more special than normal matter. How does non-conscious matter create a conscious entity.

wraith: Whats the probability running a red light at a busy intersection when you want to live?

Church: Small, but non-zero. Consider the probability of your breaks failing or the probability of the guy behind you pushing you out into traffic. Like I said, the probability is small, but non-zero.

Yes but thats not what Im asking.
Im talking about your actual "choice" to stop.

Listen closely, I act in accordance with the nature of the universe.

I saw that
Are we going to play semantics now?
Do you obey TLOP or not?

uh, sure. It starts near the bottom of this page and goes until almost the last page. But be careful, Franko last posted on this thread and never came back!

Dont hold your breath

or something. More like with the movement of planets, starts, asteroids, etc. Modern astronomy is based on the this stuff and is incredibly accurate in predicting the motion of such things.

Soooo...what can we say about this?

 

[wraith]

You think a tree isn't a tree without someone to call it so?

What would a tree be without a consciousness?

"If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it make a sound?" and so on? Do you believe the only things that exist are those that you are there to observe?

If there was no consciousness at all to observe a tree, then what is it?

This is not to say that if I close my eyes, my surroundings suddenly cease to exist. I can still sense it with my other senses. Also, I share this reality with other consciousnesses. If I was to cease to exist then things cease to exist to me.

Sounds like you're falling into the trap of "we're nothing but figments of your imagination" that Franko was so fond accusing others of.

Youre the one thats claiming to be more conscious than TLOP.

"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet"

Thats great

wraith: What are the other forms of matter?

Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. [ba-dum-dump]

Seriously, what are the other forms of matter? Energy. What are the other forms of energy? Matter.

So the forms of matter are solid, liquid, gas, plasma (is plasma officially recognised as a separate form of matter?) and energy?

So matter can be in a solid state, liquid state, gaseous state, plasmatic state and an energetic state?

wraith: Yes, it's H20 in different states. Though, they are both dependent on energy.
You can have ice and water by themselves.
Can you have ice without energy?
What about water?

Church: *sigh* new word for the day: a-n-a-l-o-g-y

analogy= resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike

In this case, energy and matter are two forms of one thing like ice and water are two froms of the one thing. Notice I'm not saying that energy/matter are identical in every respect to dihydrogen oxide, only that this one aspect is similar. (see also: synonym)

Take good notes, there will be a pop quiz later.

Energy and matter are two forms of the one thing? Whats that?

 

[wraith]

wraith,


So what's your explanation of where the first conscious entity (TLOP, goddess, whatever) came from? What "started to create conscious entities" in your worldview? Don't you (like everyone else) have only 3 possible answers?

1. Nothing 'created the first consciousness' - it "just is", and has always been that way.
2. Something (or some process) created the first consciousness, and that something (which by definition can't have been conscious) was _____________ (please fill in details)
3. Don't know.

Now, which one is your answer?

I would have to go with number one.
Where there is Time, there is Consciousness.

 

[wraith]

Wraith, old boy. I understand that the above is supposed to prove that TLOP is conscious - i.e. the existence of "God". The snag is that it doesn't, since it presupposes that the proposition that "less conscious things are always controlled by more conscious things". Franko has however never offered any proof as to this assertion.

"TLOP > YOU > CAR" hence proves nothing.

Whats something that is not controlled by TLOP

 

[wraith]

Pointless question loki, good question but pointless.

TPP (the progenitor puppetmaster), when posting as Franko, said that this law stopped at the PS. The progenitor solypsist>godess/tlop>you>car was the end of the line, no superior intelligence exists above the progenitor solipsist.

The equally valid conclusion that if this law could arbitrarily end at the progenitor solipsist then it could just as validly end at "You" (removing the need for godess and Progenitor solipsist) has been ignored by TPP when posting as Franko. When TPP answer this when posting as wraith he generally also ignors it and/or changes the subject and/or answers a strawman...thats what will happen in this case. TPP posting as wraith will ignore your question, change the subject or answer a strawman. (or he may say he doesn't know and will ask Franko)

over to TPP.... Whats the answer from our well loved forum fruitcake?

SO FOOL
what do you have planned for this weekend?

 

[wraith]

Of course not. You not only have not shown that you understand what "begging the question" is, you have not shown any examples of where I have done it. I can understand why you haven't, because there aren't any examples, but try this: Invent a case of begging the question. It doesn't have to be something anyone has said, just make it up. That should be easy for someone so talented with strawman construction.

Why write over something?
SO, your arguments for matter creating consciousness again?
lol...looking good Trix

Yes, I know you believe that. What I'm looking for here is any evidence to support that belief. Your "belief" falls into the classic turtles problem. If human consciousness requires a conscious precursor, (TLOP) then TLOP requires a conscious precursor and that one requires a conscious precursor... You see the endless regression Wraith? At some time one consciousness had to appear without a conscious precursor. I simply let that "one" be the ones we can actually observe as conscious. (TLOP does not satisfy the definition of "conscious")

Well thats right.....consciousness gets traced to Time...
Only you have a problem here, because you believe that matter creates consciousness....the major flaw.

wraith: You believe that a non-conscious force came from nothing (after a "no-time" state) that started to create conscious entities. Now were you saying that you didnt obey TLOP yet maintained that there were correlations between mental and brain states?


Tricky: (sigh) Is it possible to stick to what I have actually said? At no point did I say we did anything that violates the laws of physics.

Sorry, I just wanted to clear that up. So you obey TLOP?

And BTW, you too believe that a conscious force came from nothing, as I have shown in the "precursor" argument above.

No I didnt. Ever heard of Time?

wraith: You being more conscious than TLOP is valid yet to say that a car is more conscious than you is invalid?


Tricky: I am sorry to see you dip back into your dogma rather than addressing the points I have raised.

What is more conscious than TLOP? What is more conscious than the Logical Goddess? What is more conscious than the Progenitor Solipsist? If one extrapolates your theories, these consciousnesses could not have arisen without a superior consciousness to guide them.

How so?
Just how did the very first person to ride a bike, obtain such an ability without learning from anyone else!?

The problem is that you cannot see the logic in something if you do not understand logic. I'm trying to show you some very basic things about logic, but you seem to be protected by a +5 shield of ignorance.

Im sorry that you see it that way

Yes, life comes from life, but consciousness is another matter. A zygote has no consciousness. When does it appear? It seems to be correlated to the growth of the neural network. This is not proof, but it is evidence. Can you show me a single piece of evidence (which is different from logic, especially what you call "logic" ) which supports the consciousness-creates-life scenario?

It's evidence of what!?
How do you conclude that correlations imply that matter creates consciousness?

wraith: I dont have an experiment. Just logic.


Tricky: Then why should I believe you? Logic relies on it's postulates. It is the job of science to prove the postulates, via experimentation. One of your postulates is that TLOP is conscious. If you cannot design an experiment to support this postulate, then it is simply a belief, which is not related to or supported by science.

Im not asking you to believe in what I believe. Im just sharing what I believe.

Besides, since youre a big fan on experimentation, then why dont you design an experiment to show that matter creates consciousness.

More beliefs which you admit you cannot support with science. continue it backwards, Wraith. Where did it start?
.....? > ? > PS > LG > TLOP > YOU > CAR

Time...

wraith: Still dodging the questions.....geez


Tricky: Wraith, that is a lie and you know it. I spent a great deal of time answering your questions in detail, giving you examples and explaining my logic. I said it might be a waste of time, and I see that I was correct. I hope someday to have a discussion with you when you are not carrying your Shield.

wow
great metaphor
Trix, you have not shown any arguments that supports matter creating consciousness.
You said that you have....
Im simply asking what they are...

Is that the best you can do, Wraith? I just showed you a clear example of the difference between science and logic, and all you can do is fall back on your tired old saw. Can you at least acknowledge that you know the difference between data collection and data analysis?

I do acknowledge that.
However, is that suppose to show that science is not based on logic?

Which definition of "obey" are you using?

BAH
the usual one

wraith: Didnt you say that the conclusion could still be true, even if the premises were false?


Tricky: Yes I did, which means that it can VIOLATE LOGIC and still be true. This means that logic is not something that always leads to truth. This means that your beliefs, however logical are not necessarily true. Now do you see why I showed you that flawed syllogism?

Logic does not always lead to the Truth you say?
Thats another good one Tricky!

Why did you show me that syllogism?
It's not logical. Are you trying to draw an analogy?

wraith: It's true, but it's not true by necessity...


Tricky: And not by logic either. This is why it is so futile to cant your LD syllogisms when you admit that you will accept the conclusion regardless of the correctness of the syllogism. What is the point of trying to employ logic if you say up front that you don't care if it is logical or not?

HAHAHA!
Just how am I saying that!?

wraith: That syllogism is an example of composition


Tricky: LOL. Right you are, Wraith. It was composed by Whitefork, whereas your syllogisms are examples of decomposition

Now can you explain the reason why the syllogism is flawed? You don't have to name the fallacy, just show me that you understand it. (Hint: it is not the fallacy of composition)

The syllogism is flawed because the conclusion does not flow from the premises.

 

[The Fool]

SO FOOL
what do you have planned for this weekend?

sorry sockpuppet, I was talking about you, not to you. I long ago realised you are not a debater, you are a dogmatist.....I was discussing you with other debaters. So butt out please.

 

[Tricky]

How so?
Just how did the very first person to ride a bike, obtain such an ability without learning from anyone else!?

Now you're arguing my side. If someone can learn to ride a bike for the first time without having a bike-riding precursor, then by analogy, life can "learn" to be conscious for the very first time without having a conscious precursor. See? Wasn't that easy?

It's evidence of what!?
How do you conclude that correlations imply that matter creates consciousness?

Correlations are how science works, Wrath. What is logic but correlations? In your favorite syllogism you are correlating the properties of atoms with the properties of things made of atoms. If you now want to argue that this correlation means nothing, then you have just lost the main weapon in your arsenal.

Besides, since youre a big fan on experimentation, then why dont you design an experiment to show that matter creates consciousness.

Doable, but unethical, however I think you would agree what the results would be.

Take a conscious being and gradually remove parts (made of matter) from it's neural network (carefully so as not to kill the being). Watch consciousness decrease and then eventually disappear. Now, use logic to determine what this says about the origin of consciousness.

wow
great metaphor
Trix, you have not shown any arguments that supports matter creating consciousness.
You said that you have....
Im simply asking what they are...

Raising your shield again? If you are going to declare that correlations are not evidence, then I am afraid you are unteachable. Tell me, how do you define evidence? What kind of evidence can exist without correlation? Give me an example.

I do acknowledge that.
However, is that suppose to show that science is not based on logic?

Logic is one of the tools of science, but it is useless unless science has validated the premises. Remember step one is gather data. Step two is evaluate data, Step three is test your evaluations by gathering more data (experimentation). Repeat as necessary.

BAH
the usual one

Okay, then I use the definition obey = is constrained by, so we can be constrained by the laws of physics but not take orders from them (i.e. we have free will). Now if you have a different meaning of "obey", then I suggest you trot it out.

Logic does not always lead to the Truth you say?
Thats another good one Tricky!

You just said so yourself, Wraith. A perfectly logical statement can have erroneous conclusions because of erroneous premises. GIGO.

The syllogism is flawed because the conclusion does not flow from the premises.

Excellent! Yet the conclusion is correct, just not logical. If truth comes only from logic, how can this be?

Oh, and as to "time" being the precursor of consciousness, I must ask, is time conscious? If so, how did it become so? Did it's consciousness arise spontaneously without a precursor? As I have said, we both believe that at some point, a consciousness came into being spontaneously, without a prior consciousness creating it. You simply invoke a lot of intermediaries between that point and human consciousness. I see no need for those intermediaries since it is just as "logical" to believe that the consciousness that arose spontaneously is our own.

 

[hammegk]

If someone can learn to ride a bike for the first time without having a bike-riding precursor, then by analogy, life can "learn" to be conscious for the very first time without having a conscious precursor. See? Wasn't that easy?

Easy to type perhaps, and irrelevant. But if you think your arguments are making sense, go for it.

I do admit my bias.

 

[Tricky]

Easy to type perhaps, and irrelevant. But if you think your arguments are making sense, go for it.

Well, I was responding using the same analogy that Wraith used. It would not normally have been my choice of comparisons, but it is, I suppose, as good as any others. It asks the question:

Doesn't everything, at some point, have to be done for the "first time"? At some point, something had to "think" (however you define it) for the first time. I believe it is an insult to humanity (and indeed life on Earth) to insist that we were incapable of doing it without outside help.

I do admit my bias.

Good lad!

 

[c4ts]

Well, what you have asked is more a question on ethics in law where I study the actual legislation. Not to mention that I dont live in the States haha

But im happy to give you my take on the questions asked if you want

So what are you studying? Common law??

Since I'm not too familiar with the judicial system anywhere other than the US, I would appreciate an example.

 

[c4ts]

It's a philosophy.
It can be a religion.

No, I had already demonstrated that it cannot be a religion. More precisely, it could be a religion, but it isn't. It falls short on all accounts except dogma. You say it is philosophy, but you are not treating it as though it were philosophy, especially when you say it has followers, that it is somehow gaining popularity on the net, when there is no evidence for that whatsoever. Religion is dependent upon belief, whereas philosophy is not. Even religious philosophy, though its purpose can often be to reinforce belief, is not dependent upon belief. If Logical Deism is dependent upon belief, then it cannot be a valid philosophy.

In order to show that Logical Deism is not a matter of belief, that it is indeed valid philosophy, then it will require extensive explanation and definition. It will not merely make rules and define them, but explain the reasons why these rules are as they are, where they come from, where they can be observed, how they work together as a whole, and a systematic logical explanation for itself. A philosophy must have some sort of structural coherence, and it must be tenable on its own without the need for belief in what it argues for. Otherwise, it would not be a valid one.

This means, quite simply, Logical Deism must include a treatise of some kind if it is to be called a philosophy. A treatise is basically a systematic exposition or argument, usually in writing, the key being that it is comprehensively systematic and conclusive for its own purpose. It is the kind of thing that results from years of hard work and mental excercise. If there is a treatise for LD, then it can be considered philosophy.

Usually, I would just ask you to quote from the original source, from whatever literature it may come from. Since there is no Logical Deist literature, and Franko has fled the boards out of cowardice, you are charged with providing such a treatise. You may provide a series of systematic arguments along any one of these topics:

-on the existence of the Logical Goddess
-on the nature and existence of the graviton
-on the nature and metaphysics of TLOP
-on the fallacy of quantum physics
-on the origins of time and/or consciousness

Please do not write about the non-existence of free will. I say this for your own benefit, because the argument for it will require ALL those treateses put together. That would take you years, even if they are the simplest of (valid) treatises.

You may write your treatise in any form you'd like, even as poetry or a dialogue, if you'd like. Just as long as it is logical, systematic, comprehensible, and thorough. But for the sake of language barriers, please write it in English.

I suggest you do not write anything on the fallacy of free will, since it would require a thorough explanation of both the metaphysics of TLOP and the the existence of the LG.

Granted that your post size limit won't allow for something as long as a treatise, I suggest you write this as a document and put it on the web. You can use www.angelfire.com if you'd like. It's free.

Surely, if you understand Logical Deism as a philosophy, you shouldn't have too many problems with it. From what I can tell about LD, I'd say it will only be about 40 pages long on any one of those topics.

Philosophy is hard work, Wraith. You can't just come up with a bunch of silly beliefs and call it "philosophy" if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[wraith]

sorry sockpuppet, I was talking about you, not to you. I long ago realised you are not a debater, you are a dogmatist.....I was discussing you with other debaters. So butt out please.

I went over to a house warming shindig myself...there were these 2 girls there and my god, stunners and a half...im pretty sure that you couldnt handle it haha

peace out

 

[wraith]

Now you're arguing my side. If someone can learn to ride a bike for the first time without having a bike-riding precursor, then by analogy, life can "learn" to be conscious for the very first time without having a conscious precursor. See? Wasn't that easy?

That's good Tricky...
Just what have we been arguing about for the past couple of months now?! NOW whats the argument to support that matter creates consciousness?

Correlations are how science works, Wrath. What is logic but correlations? In your favorite syllogism you are correlating the properties of atoms with the properties of things made of atoms. If you now want to argue that this correlation means nothing, then you have just lost the main weapon in your arsenal.

Twisting what I have said Tricky?
Dont worry, I dont blame you

I never said that correlations were not important. I obey TLOP remember. Im saying that they do not imply that matter creates consciousness.

wraith: Besides, since youre a big fan on experimentation, then why dont you design an experiment to show that matter creates consciousness.


Tricky: Doable, but unethical, however I think you would agree what the results would be.

Take a conscious being and gradually remove parts (made of matter) from it's neural network (carefully so as not to kill the being). Watch consciousness decrease and then eventually disappear. Now, use logic to determine what this says about the origin of consciousness..

Again, youre doing nothing but showing the correlations between matter and consciousness.

wraith: Trix, you have not shown any arguments that supports matter creating consciousness.
You said that you have....
Im simply asking what they are...


Tricky: Raising your shield again? If you are going to declare that correlations are not evidence, then I am afraid you are unteachable. Tell me, how do you define evidence? What kind of evidence can exist without correlation? Give me an example.

Evidence for....what exactly?
I do not deny the correlations between matter and consciousness...I obey TLOP

wraith: However, is that suppose to show that science is not based on logic?


Tricky: Logic is one of the tools of science, but it is useless unless science has validated the premises. Remember step one is gather data. Step two is evaluate data, Step three is test your evaluations by gathering more data (experimentation). Repeat as necessary.

Without logic, what is science?

Okay, then I use the definition obey = is constrained by, so we can be constrained by the laws of physics but not take orders from them (i.e. we have free will). Now if you have a different meaning of "obey", then I suggest you trot it out.

constrain huh?
This looks like another game of semantics
obey: to follow command

The moon obeys TLOP ie the moon is constrained by TLOP but it doesnt take orders from TLOP...ahh huh...So what does it do when it's not taking orders?

You just said so yourself, Wraith. A perfectly logical statement can have erroneous conclusions because of erroneous premises. GIGO.

I did? Where?
What's an example of something being logical but false when the premises are true?

wraith: The syllogism is flawed because the conclusion does not flow from the premises.


Tricky: Excellent! Yet the conclusion is correct, just not logical. If truth comes only from logic, how can this be?

The conclusion doesnt flow from the premises! The conclusion has the possibility to be false. Youre saying that the conclusion has no way of being false. That's incorrect. The conclusion is true because of observation.

Oh, and as to "time" being the precursor of consciousness, I must ask, is time conscious? If so, how did it become so? Did it's consciousness arise spontaneously without a precursor? As I have said, we both believe that at some point, a consciousness came into being spontaneously, without a prior consciousness creating it. You simply invoke a lot of intermediaries between that point and human consciousness. I see no need for those intermediaries since it is just as "logical" to believe that the consciousness that arose spontaneously is our own.

Im saying that Time was always around. Youre saying that it started to "tic" at the point of the big bag. A non-conscious force warped in from the void and started to create stars and planets, then started to create conscious entites.

I dont see the logic in a Timeless period/state (whatever you want to call it) give rise to Time.

Youre saying that it originated at the time of the big bang, Im saying that it was always around.

 

[Tricky]

That's good Tricky...
Just what have we been arguing about for the past couple of months now?! NOW whats the argument to support that matter creates consciousness?

You are so close to enlightenment, grasshopper. Can you make the final leap? Ask yourself this question: If not matter, then what creates consciousness? Is it something unconscious, like Time?

Twisting what I have said Tricky?
Dont worry, I dont blame you

I never said that correlations were not important. I obey TLOP remember. Im saying that they do not imply that matter creates consciousness.

You have stated that all my evidence is mere "correlation" and therefore not evidence. I would like to know what evidence you have that is not correlation. Is that twisting your words?

My correlations do indeed imply that matter makes consciousness, unless you can come up with another equally logical interpretation of the correlations. Okay, then, come up with some really bizarre interpretation. Okay then, come up with any interpretation of these correlations that does not imply matter creates consciousness. That will be hard to do, even for one such as you who has alreadly decided the conclusions in advance.

Again, youre doing nothing but showing the correlations between matter and consciousness.

Yes, and all those correlations show that matter makes consciousness. I say, manipulate matter and conciousness is changed. Now show how you show how to manipulate consciousness and thereby change matter. I've shown you how my experiments would work. You show me how yours do.

Evidence for....what exactly?
I do not deny the correlations between matter and consciousness...I obey TLOP

So do I, lad, in the sense that I cannot do anything that TLOP do not allow. But TLOP allow lots of things, including randomness and free will. I like to think of TLOP as a fair and just lawgiver, rather than a dictator.

Without logic, what is science?

Wow! what a meaningful aphorism! But then, without science, what is logic. OOOOOH. We are such deep thinkers!

constrain huh?
This looks like another game of semantics
obey: to follow command

Okay, then. You mean "obey" in the sense as to follow commands. But TLOP do not give commands. They do not tell which atoms of uranium must fission. They do not tell Wraith which number he must choose between one an one hundred. TLOP constrain, they do not command (IMO). Thus, the different meanings of "obey" are critical to this discussion.

The moon obeys TLOP ie the moon is constrained by TLOP but it doesnt take orders from TLOP...ahh huh...So what does it do when it's not taking orders?

It has some friends over for wine and cheese. Even the moon must have a day off.

But seriously, Wrath, the moon is not absolutely constrained in it's orbit, nor is the Earth or any body in the galaxy. A large enough asteroid could knock the moon out of orbit, or even destroy it. Is that TLOP? Yes, but it still shows that TLOP allow random and unpredictable occurrances to happen. If TLOP really are conscious, then I would think that like all other conscious beings, they must crave some spontaneity.

The conclusion doesnt flow from the premises! The conclusion has the possibility to be false. Youre saying that the conclusion has no way of being false. That's incorrect. The conclusion is true because of observation.

Will you please quit telling me what I am saying. I know what I am saying and you apparently don't. In fact, I am saying the same thing you are. The conclusion is observably true, yet the logic is false. According to the "logic equals truth" school, false logic should lead to a false conclusion. I have shown you an example where that is incorrect. I have also shown you cases where correct logic leads to a false conclusion. Thus, logic is not the final arbiter of truth, and so Logical Deism is a house of cards.

Im saying that Time was always around. Youre saying that it started to "tic" at the point of the big bag. A non-conscious force warped in from the void and started to create stars and planets, then started to create conscious entites.

I dont see the logic in a Timeless period/state (whatever you want to call it) give rise to Time.

Youre saying that it originated at the time of the big bang, Im saying that it was always around.

I realize that is what you are saying, and I don't claim that you are wrong. All I am saying is you don't know. Neither do I. I can envision a timeless scenario, and I can envision a scenario where time always existed. But if you claim time is conscious then you must admit that at least one thing (time) has a consciousness that was not created by somethingl else. Therefore both you and I claim that consciousness can exist that was not created by a conscious precursor. You say time. I say life on Earth. I can show that some life on Earth is conscious (by any definition you choose). Can you show that time is conscious?

 

[hammegk]

Therefore both you and I claim that consciousness can exist that was not created by a conscious precursor. You say time. I say life on Earth. I can show that some life on Earth is conscious (by any definition you choose). Can you show that time is conscious?

Seems to me a rather strange discussion. What does "conscious life on earth" have to do with "what-is"? LD at least is trying to make sense of the unknowable-to-us, now. What are you doing?

I should recall from you plethora of posts, but would you refresh my memory?

Are you 100% materialist/atheist, or

Materialist/agnostic, or

some form of Dualist?


As a further aside, glad you think I might be a "good lad"; is that also what you call your grandpa? (I base this on what you have posted as being your picture.)