Franko Memorial thread!

[Loki]

hammegk,

Now if you define "existence of consciousness" and "presence of matter" without assuming matter exists

No need to be so "definition driven" - I'll settle for John Edward conversing with my dead grandmother, and having him recount the final conversation we had before she died. Then have him do the same for 10 or 15 other randomly chosen volunteers, and I'd be prepared to call that "provisional proof" that materialism is falsified.

Not completely scientific as a test I suppose, but strong enough to convince me - and that's all I care about, really!

 

[Tricky]

LD is a philosophy regarding quantum gravity. With Gravity being the source of consciousness.

Im not familiar with the logic as yet, so any questions regarding Consciousness and Gravity will be limited.

This doesn't require any new logic. It is the same logic you've been repeating for ages: "Consciousness must be created by a more conscious entity". This single statement of "logic" is, part and parcel, your entire argument for saying TLOP are conscious. If gravity is the source of consciousness, then gravity must itself be conscious (since we can't have a conscious entity springing into existence on its own, can we? )

So, here we have one of your favorite things; A decision node.
Either:
A) Because it creates consciousness, Gravity is conscious (and therefore requires a greater consciousness to create it).
Or
B) Your logic is incorrect.

Though Consciousness and Time is another issue.

Whats Time without Consciousness and Consciousness without Time?

Time does not require consciousness. Time is simply the relationship of the occurrance of events. From all evidence, time has existed long before consciousness.

However, I know you did not pose this as a serious question. It was merely an attempt to sound as if you have deep thoughts. In the future, I will simply respond to such "heavy" questions with a .

I said that correlations are not evidence for matter creating consciousness

So correlations are evidence for some things, but not for others? That's cheating, Wraith. You have to be consistant in your application of evidence, or else you are saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up."

Correlations show that you obey TLOP. Which you believe is a non-conscious force.

Yep. Correlations show that I am constrained by TLOP. Correlations do not show that TLOP are conscious. Or at least, I have not seen any that show such a thing. Do you have some?

Again you have shown correlations...not the process of matter creating consciousness.

And again, you are simply deciding to ignore the evidence. If you want to understand it better, get yourself a textbook on neurology.

How though?
Im not the one generating this universe? I am a part of it. I obey TLOP.

I cant think of a F-22 and a F-22 will magically appear in front of me.

Well why the heck not? Consciousness creates matter, right? You are conscious, right? Create some matter for me.

This universe is "matter creating consciousness" in action...via TLOP, only you have assigned TLOP to be non-conconscious.

LOL. Did you mean the reverse? I am supposed to be the one arguing for "matter creates consciousness". Thus, TLOP do not need to be conscious to create consiousness (Although I would not say "create" consciousness, but rather "allow consciousness to arise".)

How is TLOP the dictator? Ultimately, it's YOUR MPB that's being run.

If you are using "obey" in the sense of "takes orders from" then TLOP are dictating us. That makes them a dictator. If they are not a dictator, then we have free will.

Randomness and free-will.....well consciousness seems to be algorithmic in process...I dont see how randomness and free-will can be so. Even if things were random, I dont see how you can sufficiently explain how that gives you your free-will.

I realize this is a gross oversimplification, Wraith, but I don't want to bore you.. If there is no randomness, then everything that happens is a consequence of its previous states. If randomness exists, then some things happen that are not consequences of their previous states. Thus it is possible to make a choice that is not a consequence of your previous states.

Whats science without logic?
Thats meanlingess, because science is going to stem from logic anyway.

Thats the thing....you see correlations as "evidence" for matter creating consciousness, yet you dont obey those very correlations?

I obey them in the sense that I am constrained by them. I don't take orders from them.

How is the asteroid hitting the earth a random event?

Take a look at the pattern of meteor craters on the moon. Would you call that a regular distribution of spacing and size, or a random distribution?

haha
That syllogism isnt logical. So youre right in saying that the logic is false. Due to this, the conclusion is not true by necessity.

However you said "false logic should lead to a false conclusion."
What are you trying to say here? The syllogism is false becase the conclusion doesnt flow from the premises. You seem to say that the premises are not logical. How do the premises indicate, as you say, "false logic"?

Actually we are talking about two logic issues here.

Issue 1) A statement can have flawed logic, and yet it's conclusion is correct. This is the case with the Muslim/Terrorist syllogism as well as the "You are made of atoms" syllogism.

Issue 2) A statement can have perfect logic, and yet it's conclusion is incorrect due to incorrect premises. For example:
All Reptiles have four legs
A snake is a reptile
Therefore, a snake has four legs

Premise one is obviously incorrect, but the logic is flawless.

Thus you can see that logic, although a great tool, is not, by itself, able to point to truth like an Irish Setter at a pheasant. It is only a tool, which can be used wisely or misused.

How can you image a "no-time" scenario when you need Time to think up that scenario in the first place?

Top pic by the way Tricky
I take it that youre a bit of a ladies man? a stallion if you will..
haha!

You are too kind. I am afraid my days as a ladies man are all in the past. I am happily married now.

 

[Upchurch]

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

But I thought you had asked:

What do you know of that is more quintessentially "energetic" than life?[/b]

Implying that life is VERY energetic, unless I read that wrong. If life is quintessentially energetic, why is its energy so difficult to measure?

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

A star is an extreme example, but the effect can be seen at cooler scales as well.

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.

Photons are one of those rare critters that shows a particle nature and still has no mass. To be honest, I don't know how that works exactly. I've studied Special Relativity, whose domain is v < c. For photons, v = c. So, there is probably a General Relativity correction. What I have studied of GR didn't really get into that. Or at least, it didn't as far as I can remember.

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?

hm. I think the only time non-electromagnetic radiation/particles are ejected from active sun is when it goes nova, but I don't know that for a fact.

Nope. I don't put any sanctity on the need for humans.

Then what mechanism causes a photon, for example, to switch from particle to wave to particle throught the course of a trip? e.g. if it passes through a polarizing lense, a double slit and then through a second polarizing lense? If it is only one or the other, they why does it display the properties of both?

My 2 cts here I admit ....

I appriciate that, but my I suggest that you re-evaluate this opinion based on avalible information rather than what seems right?

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

Oh, then I would suggest that modern science shows Idealism to be incorrect..

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

Yep, truth is stranger that fiction. Look, I don't pretend to know all the answers, just some of them. You don't have to take my word for it. There are plenty of books, studies, classes, experiments etc. that you can use to inform yourself on these things. It's an amazing world out there.

Dualism???

well, yeah. Or maybe it's something else that's more fundamental than energy/matter that we only see manifest as energy or matter. I don't know. It wouldn't be the first time we found out that two things were really manifestations of a single things. Electricity and magnetism, for example, used to be considered two different subjects.

But, for example, mass accelerates in a "gravitational field"; energy is available from somewhere.

This, I remember a little bit about. Objects tend to travel in a straight line (the old Newtonian, "Things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force" routine). In a warped 4D hyperplane, the straightest line is usually a curved one (depending on the topography of the hyperplane). That curved line in hyperspace "translates" to acceleration in our 3D space. So, in a real sense, no new energy is available.

4-space is not going to convince me

er. oops.

Okay, let's translate it to 3D terms. When a particle is accelerated due to gravity, the energy itself comes from the particle's potential energy. The potential energy is transfered to kinetic energy.

The thing about conservative force based energy is that you can't convert it into just any other form of energy. It must be changed into kinetic energy first. In other words, you can't take an object up a very tall hill and run your radio off of the potential energy it has stored up in it.

The only reason there is energy to get out of gravitational acceleration is beause there was energy put into seperating the masses in the first place.

(sorry, that was probably more confusing)

Higgs fields & bosons seem to be under current consideration to come to grips with mass & gravity.

Ya got me. QM is what chased me out of the field.

 

[hammegk]

hammegk,


No need to be so "definition driven" - I'll settle for John Edward conversing with my dead grandmother, and having him recount the final conversation we had before she died. Then have him do the same for 10 or 15 other randomly chosen volunteers, and I'd be prepared to call that "provisional proof" that materialism is falsified.

Not completely scientific as a test I suppose, but strong enough to convince me - and that's all I care about, really!

Or a burning bush that talks?

If your proof of the subatomic world was as stringent as your JE proof, you would be hard-pressed to defend its "objective existence" in that those blasted inert-matter-particles keep playing "now you see me" "now you don't".

You accept the average as truth. JE in my mind is charlatan at 99.99% probability, yet others disagree, agreeing that "at least that time" we *were* chatting w/ dead granma.

 

[Upchurch]

Logic is insufficient?
Now I have heard it all

Logic is nsuffiecent to prove truth value because logical truth is always based on the truth of the assumptions. You need some kind of evidence to prove the assumptions true to establish the truth of the logical conclusions.

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

I obey TLOP
I am not more conscious than TLOP

Here, for example are the assumptions made by logical diests. Allow me to represent this in a different form.

1. TLOP is consious.
2. Matter is a consequence of TLOP.
3. Therefore, consciousness creates matter.

But before we can accept the logical conclusion that consciousness creates matter, we must first establish that the assumptions (1 and 2) are true. Personally, I will give you two because I also believe that it is true, but you need to establish that TLOP is consious. Can you do that with evidence?

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

I would assert that the creator must pre-exist the createe, do you agree? The mother and father pre-exists the baby. The tree pre-exists the seed. The programmer pre-exists the the program.

The theory of evolution and ambio-genisis (sp?), describes how life and then consciousness comes from matter. Matter pre-exists consciousness.

To counter, you need to show that consciousness pre-exists matter. I would be mostly satisfied if you could show that consciousness can exists without matter. Then, at least, your assertion becomes plausable.

What about the force behind TLOP [as a consciousness that exists without matter]?

TLOP is a consequence of the nature of the universe. You have yet to show definitive proof that TLOP is actually conscious.

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.

I never claimed to know how it creates consciousness, only that it does. Modify the brain matter and you modify the consciousness. Remove the brain matter and you remove the consciousness. consciousness is dependent on the matter that generates it. If you can point to a consciousness that does not depend on matter, you will have shown me wrong.

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

Upchurch: 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.

So, your question is, "If you make a choice, what's the probability that you haven't made that choice?" uh... zero?

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

Why not? You do it all the time. I act in accordance with the nature of the universe. It is the nature of the universe that mass attracts, so I attract mass. It is the nature of the universe that things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon, so when in motion, I tend to stay in motion until acted upon.

Let's play one more semantic game: what do you mean by "obey"? Does the TLOP command all aspects of my life which I have no choice but to accept? No. Does TLOP dictate what I eat for breakfest? No.

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

So, no attempt to reconcile LD with observed phenomena? or you're not going to be careful?

Soooo...what can we say about this?

Well, for one, we can say that velocities are not added linearly as LD's claim. Care to explain?

 

[hammegk]

Implying that life is VERY energetic, unless I read that wrong. If life is quintessentially energetic, why is its energy so difficult to measure?

If we agree on a definition of terran life, energetic without doubt. How do you demonstrate that is the correct definition -- that is humans can sense it to be so, ergo, it's life -- and discount the obvious attribute of energy itself, say at quark level or finer?

A star is an extreme example, but the effect can be seen at cooler scales as well.

Hmm, so we can weigh "thermal energy"?

I think the only time non-electromagnetic radiation/particles are ejected from active sun is when it goes nova, but I don't know that for a fact.

Thanks for responding.

Then what mechanism causes a photon, for example, to switch from particle to wave to particle throught the course of a trip? e.g. if it passes through a polarizing lense, a double slit and then through a second polarizing lense? If it is only one or the other, they why does it display the properties of both?

Actually it never does does; only one property can be determined by a given experimental setup IIRC. I suggest a photon does have a single existent; we just don't know what it is. I tend to agree "consciousness" is the observer; at what level "consciousness" begins is the question. Idealism answers "mind", materialism answers "body".

I appriciate that, but my I suggest that you re-evaluate this opinion based on avalible information rather than what seems right?
Oh, then I would suggest that modern science shows Idealism to be incorrect..

So true, but only once we accept the axiom of objective materialism.

Yep, truth is stranger that fiction. Look, I don't pretend to know all the answers, just some of them. You don't have to take my word for it. There are plenty of books, studies, classes, experiments etc. that you can use to inform yourself on these things. It's an amazing world out there.
well, yeah. Or maybe it's something else that's more fundamental than energy/matter that we only see manifest as energy or matter. I don't know. It wouldn't be the first time we found out that two things were really manifestations of a single things. Electricity and magnetism, for example, used to be considered two different subjects.

I have certainly convinced myself that "what is" is monist. Your choice; static v dynamic.

....
The only reason there is energy to get out of gravitational acceleration is beause there was energy put into seperating the masses in the first place.

Just so. I'm just re-iterating the "neither created nor destroyed, just re-arranged" basis of "what-is" at the energetic level.

QM is what chased me out of the field.

I discovered I'd never be a mathematician courtesy of a couple 400 level math courses, one in topology and one on the mathematics of cryptoanalysis. Gah!

 

[Upchurch]

If we agree on a definition of terran life, energetic without doubt. How do you demonstrate that is the correct definition -- that is humans can sense it to be so, ergo, it's life -- and discount the obvious attribute of energy itself, say at quark level or finer?

It seems to me that you're jumping back and forth between a scientific definition of energy and a literary one (e.g. the "energy" of youth). When you say life is energy, which do you mean?

Hmm, so we can weigh "thermal energy"?

Sure, if you have an instrument sensitive enough for the kind of temperatures you are talking about. Remember: m = E / c^2, where c is the speed of light (a very big number). A little bit of energy divided by a very big number squared (even bigger) will result in an extremely small amount of mass. If you took a steel block and raised its temperature to 400 degrees F, I doubt there would be any instrument on Earth that would be sensitive enough to measure the mass difference within the margin of error.

Actually it never does does; only one property can be determined by a given experimental setup IIRC.

I'm sorry, hammegk, but this simply isn't true. Consider sending a beam of light through a polarizing lense (wave-like) that then hits a photoelectric surface to generate power (particle-like). The light can exhibit both properties within the same trip. Now, perhaps you would say that the polarizer changes it from wave to particle? Add another polarizing lense. How would one polarizing lense know when to change it to particle-like behavior?

I suggest a photon does have a single existent; we just don't know what it is.

Do you have any reason to believe this or is it that you believe dualism, in general, is impossible, so particle/wave dualism must be impossible?

So true, but only once we accept the axiom of objective materialism.

Is that the only possibility? (I don't know) If it is, then why wouldn't we?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

CAR controls YOU controls Abyss!

Well Wraith I think you need to put more thought into what you say, I'm 100 percent a materialist/relativist.
I believe for example TRUE=FALSE under the right circumstances.

I mean you say TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

But that's just not how it works. If a CAR goes somewhere you have to go along. So CAR cotnrols YOU. And you, using your free will(in a causal sense), can manipulate the laws of physics, so CAR controls YOU controls TLOP.

Or TLOP obeys YOU obeys CAR!

Also it's quite obvious matter creates consciousness. I mean rocks did become conscious through evolution technically.

And if EVERYTHING is controlled by consciousness, is the Abyss controlled by consciousness?

Who consciously made A-theists? or D-ists?

or is there Infinite Regress and pure randomness? Like free will?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

CAR controls YOU controls Abyss!

Well Wraith I think you need to put more thought into what you say, I'm 100 percent a materialist/relativist.
I believe for example TRUE=FALSE under the right circumstances.

I mean you say TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

But that's just not how it works. If a CAR goes somewhere you have to go along. So CAR cotnrols YOU. And you, using your free will(in a causal sense), can manipulate the laws of physics, so CAR controls YOU controls TLOP.

Or TLOP obeys YOU obeys CAR!

Also it's quite obvious matter creates consciousness. I mean rocks did become conscious through evolution technically.

And if EVERYTHING is controlled by consciousness, is the Abyss controlled by consciousness?

Who consciously made A-theists? or D-ists?

or is there Infinite Regress and pure randomness? Like free will?

 

[c4ts]

If Franko/Wraith would just write a frikkin' treatise, then he wouldn't be having these problems.

 

[wraith]

Re: CAR controls YOU controls Abyss!

Well Wraith I think you need to put more thought into what you say, I'm 100 percent a materialist/relativist.
I believe for example TRUE=FALSE under the right circumstances.

What an example?

I mean you say TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

But that's just not how it works. If a CAR goes somewhere you have to go along. So CAR cotnrols YOU.

If youre talking about the car losing grip on the road and I lose control, are you saying that the car is responsible for my actions when I open the door and jump out?

And you, using your free will(in a causal sense), can manipulate the laws of physics, so CAR controls YOU controls TLOP.

Or TLOP obeys YOU obeys CAR!

Are you saying that the thought to accelerate the car wasnt due to TLOP? If not, where did it come from?

Also it's quite obvious matter creates consciousness. I mean rocks did become conscious through evolution technically.

The evidence of that is staggering haha

And if EVERYTHING is controlled by consciousness, is the Abyss controlled by consciousness?

The Abyss is Solipsism.
So yeah, it's controlled by your consciousness.

Who consciously made A-theists? or D-eists?

Are you asking where consciousness came from?

or is there Infinite Regress and pure randomness? Like free will?

Where did Time begin?

As for pure randomness, I dont see how logic can allow this.

 

[wraith]

Re: CAR controls YOU controls Abyss!

My apologies for jumping in here, but who says that TLOP is a "force"? Is it not

simply the properties of energy and matter?

Semantics in action here I think. Whatever takes your fancy

As to the famous Syllogism, may I ask you to consider the following:

Atoms behave in certain way
You are made of atoms
You behave in (exactly) the same way as atoms

Is there in your opinion anything wrong with it? Why or why not?

Do you believe that the above syllogism excludes any and all possibilities for "you"

to behave differently from "atoms"?

Nothing wrong with that. But how do you account for the atoms behaviour? If not

for TLOP, then something else?

I dont see how you can act any "differently" to the atoms if you obey TLOP ( or

constrained ala Tricky ) and admit to correlations.

How so? Only by providing evidence can one reasonably assert that TLOP is

conscious.

Same thing applies to TLOP being non-conscious.

Besides, I have logic on my side and matter can be reduced to energy.

 

[wraith]

Re: CAR controls YOU controls Abyss!

Logic is insuffiecent to prove truth value because logical truth is always based

on the truth of the assumptions. You need some kind of evidence to prove the

assumptions true to establish the truth of the logical conclusions.

ahhh?
Im saying that my belief is logically consistent...
Matter can be "broken" down to energy and im not more conscious than the force

controlling me (ie running my MPB)

Here, for example are the assumptions made by logical diests. Allow

me to represent this in a different form.

1. TLOP is consious.
2. Matter is a consequence of TLOP.
3. Therefore, consciousness creates matter.

But before we can accept the logical conclusion that consciousness creates matter,

we must first establish that the assumptions (1 and 2) are true. Personally, I will

give you two because I also believe that it is true, but you need to establish that

TLOP is consious. Can you do that with evidence?

Hang on. Im not saying that TLOP is consciousness just for the sake of feeling

"warm and fuzzy" If Im controlled by TLOP in every way, then how am I

more conscious than TLOP?

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


Church: I would assert that the creator must pre-exist the createe, do you agree?

The mother and father pre-exists the baby. The tree pre-exists the seed. The

programmer pre-exists the the program.

The theory of evolution and ambio-genisis (sp?), describes how life and then

consciousness comes from matter. Matter pre-exists consciousness.

To counter, you need to show that consciousness pre-exists matter. I would be

mostly satisfied if you could show that consciousness can exists without matter.

Then, at least, your assertion becomes plausable.

You cant just say "matter pre exists consciousness". Whats your reasoning for this

belief?

TLOP is a consequence of the nature of the universe. You have yet to

show definitive proof that TLOP is actually conscious.

Are you saying that the universe was created before TLOP came into play? I dont

even think that Tricky would agree with you here.
All I have is logic. TLOP controls me. Im not more conscious than TLOP.

It's you that wants to show that things can behave outside the scope of TLOP.

Whats an example of this?

I never claimed to know how it creates consciousness, only that it

does.

Appealing to a special plea?

Modify the brain matter and you modify the consciousness. Remove

the brain matter and you remove the consciousness. consciousness is dependent

on the matter that generates it. If you can point to a consciousness that does not

depend on matter, you will have shown me wrong.

How about the force behind TLOP? Besides, if Consciousness has a direct link to

Gravity, then consciousness is materialistic, just not in the sense as you would see

it.

So, your question is, "If you make a choice, what's the probability that

you haven't made that choice?" uh... zero?

If you want to live, whats the probability that youll go out and kill yourself.

Let's play one more semantic game: what do you mean by "obey"?

Does the TLOP command all aspects of my life which I have no choice but to

accept? No.

Your reasoning for this belief?

Does TLOP dictate what I eat for breakfest? No.

No?
So you dont have taste buds? Why is it that you dont have a big bowl of

crap for breakfast

You think there is no logical reason why you had toast instead of cerial?

So, no attempt to reconcile LD with observed phenomena? or you're

not going to be careful?

??

Well, for one, we can say that velocities are not added linearly as LD's

claim. Care to explain?

I dont understand the subject sufficiently at this stage.

Whats your take on the situation?

 

[CWL]

Re: Re: CAR controls YOU controls Abyss!

Semantics in action here I think. Whatever takes your fancy

Semantics are indeed in action here. So, do you agree that labeling things in a certain way does not constitute proof in itself?

Nothing wrong with that. But how do you account for the atoms behaviour? If not for TLOP, then something else?

I dont see how you can act any "differently" to the atoms if you obey TLOP ( or constrained ala Tricky ) and admit to correlations.

For instance, I can respond to your posts - in stark contrast to let's say a carbon atom. Is that not "acting differently" to you?

Really wraith, why is it so hard for you to understand the Fallacy of Composition? Things are not necessarily restricted to exactly the same properties as those of the elements of which they are made. This is a simple observable fact, why is it so hard for you to accept it?

Same thing applies to TLOP being non-conscious.

No it doesn't. It is impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you my friend if you persist in claiming that TLOP is is conscious. Until we have proof thereof, the reasonable thing to do is not to assume that TLOP is conscious.

Besides, I have logic on my side and matter can be reduced to energy.

No you do not have logic on your side. Any syllogism which is subject to the Fallacy of Composition is not a valid logical argument. As to TLOP > YOU > CAR, again you must prove the assertion that it is impossible for something "less conscious" to control something "more conscious". Otherwise the statement is worthless.

What has matter/energy got to do with your assertions?

 

[Q-Source]

this guy is amazing!

If Im controlled by TLOP in every way, then how am I
more conscious than TLOP?

Do you even know what to be "conscious" means????

Don't you feel more conscious than the laws of motion or QM?

I do.

Are you saying that the universe was created before TLOP came into play? I dont

The Universe was "created" before TLOP, my friend.
TLOP are a human construct, a mathematical description of the Universe. No more no less. So, until humans came into existence, there were no TLOP, because they are a result of human reasoning.

All I have is logic. TLOP controls me. Im not more conscious than TLOP.

All you have is nonsense.

It's you that wants to show that things can behave outside the scope of TLOP.

Whats an example of this?

Oh, sure. What about a singularity?

Q-S


P.S. Please, Franko come back!

 

[Tricky]

Re: this guy is amazing!

Do you even know what to be "conscious" means????

A good point, QS. Tell us Wraith, which one of these definitions of "conscious" are you using?

1 : perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation.

What do TLOP notice? How do they have "controlled thought" when there is no brain with which to think? Any evidence?

2 : personally felt :conscious guilt

Do TLOP have feelings? Do they try to get in touch with their "inner TLOP"?

3 : capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception.

Will? Do TLOP have free will? Again, how do they think?

4 : having mental faculties undulled by sleep, faintness, or stupor : AWAKE :he became conscious after the anesthesia wore off

I think we can safely say that TLOP do not sleep.

5 : done or acting with critical awareness :conscious effort to do better

This one has to do with focusing awareness. Can TLOP do that?Are TLOP even "aware"? Evidence?

6 a : likely to notice, consider , or appraise :a bargain-conscious shopper b : being concerned or interested a budget-conscious businessman c : marked by strong feelings or notions :a race-conscious society

How do you get TLOP to notice you? Break one of the laws?

No, Wraith, I'm afraid that you must be using The Lexicon definition of "conscious". Can you share it with us?

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: CAR controls YOU controls Abyss!

ahhh?
Im saying that my belief is logically consistent...
Matter can be "broken" down to energy and im not more conscious than the force

controlling me (ie running my MPB)

You can say it all you like and it might be logically consistant (I don't think it is), but being logically consistant is not sufficent to prove truth. At best, you have conjecture.

Hang on. Im not saying that TLOP is consciousness just for the sake of feeling

"warm and fuzzy" If Im controlled by TLOP in every way, then how am I

more conscious than TLOP?

What does consciousness have to do with control? I can be mauled (a form of being control, since I don't want it to happen) by a bear, does that make the bear more conscious than I am? I my legs can be crushed by a rolling rock, does that make the rock more conscious than I am?

Consciosness is not necessary for control. Metaphorically, TLOP is just the room we live in. We can do whatever we like as long as we stay in the room. We can do whatever we like as long as we act in accordance with the laws of physics, which is just another name for the nature of the universe. TLOP need not be conscious to define our limitations any more than a room must be consious to define its boundries. The room doesn't think about where it's boundries are, it just is what it is.

You cant just say "matter pre exists consciousness". Whats your reasoning for this

belief?

Consider the theory of evolution and ambio-genisis (someone help me on the spelling here). Non-living things generating living things and consciousness developing from that.

Are you saying that the universe was created before TLOP came into play?

Nice strawman. Let me repeat, "You have yet to show definitive proof that TLOP is actually conscious."

If you can point to a consciousness that does not

depend on matter, you will have shown me wrong.

How about the force behind TLOP? Besides, if Consciousness has a direct link to

Gravity, then consciousness is materialistic, just not in the sense as you would see

it.

Again, you haven't shown that TLOP is conscious. That conclusion rests on the assumption that only the more conscious can control the conscious. I've already given two examples (bear and rock from above) that shows this isn't the case.

Further, what is the direct link between consciousness and gravity? Can you show it? Prove it?

So, your question is, "If you make a choice, what's the probability that

you haven't made that choice?" uh... zero?

If you want to live, whats the probability that youll go out and kill yourself.

Intentionally? zero. Unintentionally, non-zero.

I dont understand the subject sufficiently at this stage.

Whats your take on the situation?

My take is that Franko, et al, have read some popularized science and formed faulty opinions on some aspects and rejected others on incomplete information. Velocities do not add linearly, except by approximation at low speeds. "Random" is not logically inconsistant. Consiousness is not required for "control". Space and time are the same thing. Mass and energy are the same thing. etc.

LD does not coincide with what is demonstratable and further isn't logically consistant. Read through Tricky's list again. It almost reads like a laundry list of poor thinking.

 

[wraith]

Re: Re: Re: CAR controls YOU controls Abyss!

Semantics are indeed in action here. So, do you agree that labeling things in a certain way does not constitute proof in itself?

?
How is this related to, as you said, "properties of the universe"?
Ultimately youre saying that TLOP has no logical reason for existing.

For instance, I can respond to your posts - in stark contrast to let's say a carbon atom. Is that not "acting differently" to you?

Your brain is more complex than a carbon atom.

Really wraith, why is it so hard for you to understand the Fallacy of Composition? Things are not necessarily restricted to exactly the same properties as those of the elements of which they are made. This is a simple observable fact, why is it so hard for you to accept it?

So youre saying that one of the premises is false? Whats the flaw?

wraith: Same thing applies to TLOP being non-conscious.


CWL: No it doesn't. It is impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you my friend if you persist in claiming that TLOP is is conscious. Until we have proof thereof, the reasonable thing to do is not to assume that TLOP is conscious.

TLOP being non-conscious is not True by default. That's your claim. YOU have to support it.

No you do not have logic on your side. Any syllogism which is subject to the Fallacy of Composition is not a valid logical argument.

What's the flaw? Atoms dont obey TLOP? Are you saying that an atom obeys TLOP but as soon as you get more atoms, the rules dont apply?

As to TLOP > YOU > CAR, again you must prove the assertion that it is impossible for something "less conscious" to control something "more conscious". Otherwise the statement is worthless.

A bit like a dog controlling you?

What has matter/energy got to do with your assertions?

Depends on what we're arguing about??

 

[wraith]

Re: this guy is amazing!

Do you even know what to be "conscious" means????

I can reason

Don't you feel more conscious than the laws of motion or QM?

I do.

Perhaps your controlling the forces of the universe?
Even me?

The Universe was "created" before TLOP, my friend.
TLOP are a human construct, a mathematical description of the Universe. No more no less. So, until humans came into existence, there were no TLOP, because they are a result of human reasoning.

Are you saying that the map came before the terrain?

wraith: All I have is logic. TLOP controls me. Im not more conscious than TLOP.


Q-Cumber: All you have is nonsense.

Explain yourself

wraith: It's you that wants to show that things can behave outside the scope of TLOP.

Whats an example of this?


Q-Source: Oh, sure. What about a singularity?

Q-S

What about it?

P.S. Please, Franko come back!

I second that

 

[wraith]

Re: Re: this guy is amazing!

A good point, QS. Tell us Wraith, which one of these definitions of "conscious" are you using?

Able to perceive reason.
Sense of "I"

What do TLOP notice? How do they have "controlled thought" when there is no brain with which to think? Any evidence?

Still living on a flat earth ol chap

Do TLOP have feelings? Do they try to get in touch with their "inner TLOP"?

Im sure that God has Feelings

Will? Do TLOP have free will? Again, how do they think?

Even God is bound by Fate.

I think we can safely say that TLOP do not sleep.

Does God sleep? Interesting

This one has to do with focusing awareness. Can TLOP do that?Are TLOP even "aware"? Evidence?

Sure.
Youre a function of TLOP.

How do you get TLOP to notice you? Break one of the laws?

Well youre here (in this universe) are you not?