Franko Memorial thread!

[CWL]

Yes, but the nature of an atom contribute to the nature of the compound.

The point was that you can think, which atoms can't. You can consciously choose between perceived and available options, which atoms can't. You are visible to the naked eye, which atoms aren't. You can listen to Pat Boone's interpretation of Heavy Metal classics, which atoms can't.

The following syllogism is clearly not correct:

Atoms cannot think
You are made of atoms
You cannot think

Like Franko's syllogism, it is subject to the Fallacy of Composition:

Atoms obey the laws of physics (= behave in a certain way)
You are made of atoms
You obey the laws of physics (= must behave in exactly the same way as atoms)

... does not prove anything regarding the ability of human beings to consciously choose between perceived and available options, nor does it prove anything else.

Come on wraith. Think, lad. You can do it. Please don't just answer "Don't you obey TLOP?!? "

 

[wraith]

The point was that you can think, which atoms can't. You can consciously choose between perceived and available options, which atoms can't. You are visible to the naked eye, which atoms aren't. You can listen to Pat Boone's interpretation of Heavy Metal classics, which atoms can't.

Sounds like youre purporting the existence of a Soul?!

The following syllogism is clearly not correct:

Atoms cannot think
You are made of atoms
You cannot think

Like Franko's syllogism, it is subject to the Fallacy of Composition:

That's why "matter creating consciousness" is flawed.
An atom can not think. Groups of atoms can not think, unless you can logically explain the "jump" from non-conscious to conscious.

Again, it's as if youre purporting a Soul.

Why is it that we can think?

Atoms obey the laws of physics (= behave in a certain way)
You are made of atoms
You obey the laws of physics (= must behave in exactly the same way as atoms)

... does not prove anything regarding the ability of human beings to consciously choose between perceived and available options, nor does it prove anything else.

?
We don't choose anything.
We all obey TLOP.

If youre saying that this is not the case, then why not? Does disobeying TLOP give you this "free-will"??

Come on wraith. Think, lad. You can do it. Please don't just answer "Don't you obey TLOP?!? "

oh Im thinking

 

[CWL]

Sounds like youre purporting the existence of a Soul?!

No I am not. I doubt the existence of a soul in the absence of evidence. I am merely pointing towards some simple observations which I have made regarding our abilities versues the abilities of atoms.

That's why "matter creating consciousness" is flawed.
An atom can not think. Groups of atoms can not think, unless you can logically explain the "jump" from non-conscious to conscious.

Again, it's as if youre purporting a Soul.

Why is it that we can think?

Because the sum is greater (or different) than it's parts. Hence, when we introduce the concept of composition in one of the premises of a syllogism, the conclusion does not follow from the premises - whether or not the conclusion is a true statement. The syllogism is invalid. That's the reason why we talk about the "Fallacy of Composition".

An atom cannot think - but it appears that a complicated structure of atoms can indeed give rise to an entity which does. That is where we (as in "modern science") are at for the moment. If you want to introduce a soul (or graviton or whatever) into the equation you have got to prove its existence, my friend.

?
We don't choose anything.
We all obey TLOP.

If youre saying that this is not the case, then why not? Does disobeying TLOP give you this "free-will"??

You have really bought into Franko's semantic nonsense games haven't you?

We don't "obey" TLOP in the sense that we "take orders from it". Matter and energy have certain properties, which naturally affect and constrain us. Within the realm of "available options" we may however (observably) make choices.

oh Im thinking

Oh I think you can think better.

 

[wraith]

No I am not. I doubt the existence of a soul in the absence of evidence. I am merely pointing towards some simple observations which I have made regarding our abilities versues the abilities of atoms.

From observations, how do you conclude that matter creates consciousness?

wraithThat's why "matter creating consciousness" is flawed.
An atom can not think. Groups of atoms can not think, unless you can logically explain the "jump" from non-conscious to conscious.

Again, it's as if youre purporting a Soul.

Why is it that we can think?

CWLBecause the sum is greater (or different) than it's parts. Hence, when we introduce the concept of composition in one of the premises of a syllogism, the conclusion does not follow from the premises - whether or not the conclusion is a true statement. The syllogism is invalid. That's the reason why we talk about the "Fallacy of Composition".

The sum is greater than it's parts?
How would this explain consciousness arising from matter?
If the conclusion is false due to the composition fallacy, then you should be able to show the flaw.

An atom cannot think - but it appears that a complicated structure of atoms can indeed give rise to an entity which does. That is where we (as in "modern science") are at for the moment. If you want to introduce a soul (or graviton or whatever) into the equation you have got to prove its existence, my friend.

Again, like Tricky, you see correlations as evidence for matter creating consciousness.

You have really bought into Franko's semantic nonsense games haven't you?

We don't "obey" TLOP in the sense that we "take orders from it". Matter and energy have certain properties, which naturally affect and constrain us. Within the realm of "available options" we may however (observably) make choices.

So whats something that is constrained by TLOP, but doesnt obey TLOP.

Oh I think you can think better.

[/B]

I second that

 

[CWL]

From observations, how do you conclude that matter creates consciousness?

1) I have never observed consciousness without the presence of matter.

2) Consciousness is clearly affected if the brain (=matter) is affected.

The sum is greater than it's parts?
How would this explain consciousness arising from matter?
If the conclusion is false due to the composition fallacy, then you should be able to show the flaw.

I never said that the conclusion is false due to the Fallacy of Composition. I said that the conclusion does not follow from the premises due to the Fallacy of Composition. The "conclusion" of such a syllogism is no conclusion, merely a statement. Do pay attention to what I am actually saying - that way we won't have to go around in circles all the time.

Again, like Tricky, you see correlations as evidence for matter creating consciousness.

Indications, yes. Weak evidence, maybe. Conclusive evidence, no. But I certainly see no evidence for any other theory. The fact that consciousness is affected when matter is affected is certainly a compelling indication that the theory that "consciousness creates matter" is not correct.

So whats something that is constrained by TLOP, but doesnt obey TLOP.

Do you take orders from TLOP - i.e. the properties of energy and matter? No more than a room takes orders from its walls, surely.

I second that

Again, I am certain you can think better than what your above posts indicate. Please do show me.

 

[Upchurch]

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

Sure, depending on the evidence that you have, you can think up different situations to try and solve something.....

You have offered nothing except for double standards and your unyielding word of ceasing to exist....based on what?

Logic? hahaha

What double standard are you talking about? I don't believe that LD can be assumed to be true because the premises of LD do not have evidence to support them. I don't believe that an afterlife can be assumed to be true because the premises of afterlife do not have evidence to support them. Sounds like the same standard to me.

Sure, killing is a form of control.
From the bear's point of view, all that he can do his strike and perhaps growl a bit...that's the extent of the bear's ability. You on the other hand can get yourself a gun...

I'm not talking about the scenerio where I have a gun. I'm talking about the scenerio where a bear has control of me. Does this make a bear more conscious than myself?

Then, for a moment, let's consider your scenerio. I have a gun and can kill the bear. Does this make me more conscious than a bear?

Why, or even how, does the presense of a gun determine our respective levels of consciousness? It makes no sense.

I my legs can be crushed by a rolling rock, does that make the rock more conscious than I am?

So when a rock lands on your foot, is that similar to saying that a rock is controlling you?

Who is keeping whom from moving? I cannot make the rock move but the rock keeps me from moving. Is that not control? By your reasoning, does this not 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.

So your actions are totally independent of TLOP?

If we are to continue to have a discussion, I do wish you would actually read what I write rather than just making things up.

I did not say that my actions are "totally independent of TLOP". I said that TLOP "define our limitations". Can you understand the difference?

Besides, I have told you why I think that TLOP is conscious.
Im not more conscious than the force controlling me.

But I have shown examples (i.e. bear and rock) where that is not the case. If greater consciousness is not required for control then TLOP need not necessarily be conscious to define our limitations. Do you have any actual reasons to believe TLOP is conscious?

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.

How is this an assumption?
My reasoning is TLOP controls ME controls BEAR
TLOP more conscious than ME more conscious than BEAR

Your examples dont show anything except for your feeble attempts

Scenerio: Bear kills you in hand-to-paw combat thus bear controls you. By your reasoning, bear is more conscious than you (b > y). In other words, consciousness is determined by physical capability rather than mental capability.

Control has nothing to do with level of consciousness or, really, consciousness at all, wraith. I've shown in the above example that it doesn't. Can you show that it does?

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

My understanding in this area is weak at this point.

No? So your statement is a matter of dogma rather than knowledge or logic?

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


Upchurch: Intentionally? zero. Unintentionally, non-zero.

What do you mean?

I mean that if you decide to live, the probability that you will decide to kill yourself is zero. The probability that you will accidently kill yourself is not zero, i.e. a number greater than zero.

In more general form: if you have made a decision, the probability that you have not made that decision is zero, by definition. The probability that having made that decision determines that the decision will come to pass is a number greater than zero. To what degree the probability is greater than zero is determined by the situation.

haha
WELL when im that familiar in this area but Im progressing.
It seems like youre saying that sums dont equal the whole?

No. I didn't say anything remotely like that. What makes you think that?

Anyhow, I have confidence in Franko's ability to reason which is infinitely more than what I can say about you

So, rather than think for yourself and come to your own conclusions, you accept the word of some guy on the internet? Why? Why believe Franko over anyone else, especially when he does not explain himself or provide support for what he says?

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Who is keeping whom from moving? I cannot make the rock move but the rock keeps me from moving. Is that not control? By your reasoning, does this not make the rock more conscious than I am?

Of course, if you'd thought to bring a pocket-knife, you could cut your legs off and escape.

Therefore a pocket-knife is more conscious than your legs.

 

[wraith]

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

What double standard are you talking about? I don't believe that LD can be assumed to be true because the premises of LD do not have evidence to support them. I don't believe that an afterlife can be assumed to be true because the premises of afterlife do not have evidence to support them. Sounds like the same standard to me.

Im talking about being more conscious than TLOP even though youre under it's absolute control. Your car, or the bear may be more conscious than you hey?

You seem to be stuck on this idea that TLOP only constrains your behaviour, yet you dont obey it.

I'm not talking about the scenerio where I have a gun. I'm talking about the scenerio where a bear has control of me. Does this make a bear more conscious than myself?

So what? The scope of the mind allows you to have a gun.
The scope of the bear is to growl and strike.

Then, for a moment, let's consider your scenerio. I have a gun and can kill the bear. Does this make me more conscious than a bear?

Why, or even how, does the presense of a gun determine our respective levels of consciousness? It makes no sense.

Because your mind has the ability to make a gun, which takes more reasoning than a bear has.

Killing is a form of control.
Perhaps if the bear was more conscious than you, that bear would pumle you haha

wraith:So when a rock lands on your foot, is that similar to saying that a rock is controlling you?

ChurchyWho is keeping whom from moving? I cannot make the rock move but the rock keeps me from moving. Is that not control? By your reasoning, does this not make the rock more conscious than I am?

They rock keeps you from moving, so a restriction of movement is a sign of something being more conscious? How about your attemps to move the rock? How about your feelings of anger of fear? Is the rock controlling your emotions too?

If we are to continue to have a discussion, I do wish you would actually read what I write rather than just making things up.

I did not say that my actions are "totally independent of TLOP". I said that TLOP "define our limitations". Can you understand the difference?

Church, thats exactly what youre saying.
Just what is meant "TLOP defines our limitations"?
So if not for TLOP, what makes us act within these "limitations"?

wraith: Besides, I have told you why I think that TLOP is conscious.
Im not more conscious than the force controlling me.

Church: But I have shown examples (i.e. bear and rock) where that is not the case. If greater consciousness is not required for control then TLOP need not necessarily be conscious to define our limitations. Do you have any actual reasons to believe TLOP is conscious?

Your examples dont show for this to be the case.
My reasons stand.

wraith: How is this an assumption?
My reasoning is TLOP controls ME controls BEAR
TLOP more conscious than ME more conscious than BEAR

Your examples dont show anything except for your feeble attempts

Church: Scenerio: Bear kills you in hand-to-paw combat thus bear controls you. By your reasoning, bear is more conscious than you (b > y). In other words, consciousness is determined by physical capability rather than mental capability.[/b]

Yes, but the reasoning potential for the bear is growl and strike.
A human on the other hand can go and make an a-bomb, or at least a spear.

If a bear does kill you, it doesnt mean that your ability to reason or your emotions are less than a bear's. Unless youre saying that the bear is controlling them too.

Control has nothing to do with level of consciousness or, really, consciousness at all, wraith. I've shown in the above example that it doesn't. Can you show that it does?

You havnt shown this to be the case slick

I mean that if you decide to live, the probability that you will decide to kill yourself is zero. The probability that you will accidently kill yourself is not zero, i.e. a number greater than zero.

But we're not talking what the probability is of accidentally killing yourself. If you kill yourself without intending to do so, your intent is still not to kill yourself when you want to live.

In more general form: if you have made a decision, the probability that you have not made that decision is zero, by definition.

?
That's not what im saying.

The probability that having made that decision determines that the decision will come to pass is a number greater than zero. To what degree the probability is greater than zero is determined by the situation.

sorry?

No. I didn't say anything remotely like that. What makes you think that?

This is about adding velocities.

So, rather than think for yourself and come to your own conclusions, you accept the word of some guy on the internet? Why? Why believe Franko over anyone else, especially when he does not explain himself or provide support for what he says? [/B]

The bottom line comes down to how YOU reason what someone else says. Im sure that Franko would frown upon such actions to believe in something without a logical reason to do so.

I see logic in his beliefs.
The "logic" in your beliefs I do not see....

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

wraithed

How would it equal 3 in another reality?

Because there math works different.

So if you cant get out of the car, the car is controlling you?

UMMMM I just said that. Pay attention.

That doesnt answer my question. It doesnt even make sense. Do you want to clarify?

Clarify what the fact that you're too dumb to understand?

No need. You don't make sense.

Explain it then.

Explain what? That you too damn dumb? That's a waste of electricity.

what the....?

Ohhhh good point.

Where did TLOP come from?

From nowhere. QM.

Before the sun dial was made, people had no sense of Time?

They had a sense of change but not time.

So why was the sun dial made in the first place?

To measure change.

Not sure. Check the history books.

Will do.....


After you learn how to read a history book.

I admit that I havnt looked at it in great detail, but maybe you can shed some light?

QM says things are funadmentally random.

How is "random" logical?

How is logical random?

 

[thaiboxerken]

It would be nice if Wraith went with Franko.

 

[Upchurch]

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

Im talking about being more conscious than TLOP even though youre under it's absolute control. Your car, or the bear may be more conscious than you hey?

Or anyone, if only that which is more conscious can control that which is conscious. Unless, of course, consciousness has nothing to do with control, eh?

You seem to be stuck on this idea that TLOP only constrains your behaviour, yet you dont obey it.

I'm guessing you don't quite get the concept of "counter example", huh? I'm trying to show you how your concept leads to logical paradoxes.

I'm not talking about the scenerio where I have a gun. I'm talking about the scenerio where a bear has control of me. Does this make a bear more conscious than myself?

So what? The scope of the mind allows you to have a gun.
The scope of the bear is to growl and strike.

Don't care to answer the question? Allow me to restate: If a bear mauls a person, which has been known to happen, does that make the bear more conscious than the person?

Who is keeping whom from moving? I cannot make the rock move but the rock keeps me from moving. Is that not control? By your reasoning, does this not make the rock more conscious than I am?

They rock keeps you from moving, so a restriction of movement is a sign of something being more conscious? How about your attemps to move the rock? How about your feelings of anger of fear? Is the rock controlling your emotions too?

That's what I'm saying. According to your rule that "only things more conscious can control that which is conscious", the implication is that the rock is more conscious than a person it has pinned. Not only is it nonsensical, it's incorrect. Consciousness is not a necessary component of control.

I did not say that my actions are "totally independent of TLOP". I said that TLOP "define our limitations". Can you understand the difference?

Church, thats exactly what youre saying.
Just what is meant "TLOP defines our limitations"?

Actually, aith, it isn't what I said at all. Acting within the bounds, or limitiations, of TLOP is not the same as acting "totally independent of TLOP". Going back to the room analogy, if I am in the room, I am acting within the boundries of its limitations or, in this case, walls. If I were to be acting independently of the room, I would be outside the room. I'm not claiming to be outside TLOP. I'm claiming that I work within TLOP. This does not mean that TLOP is responsible for all of my actions nor does it confine me only to one action. It only sets a limit to the range of actions I can take.

Do you see the difference?

So if not for TLOP, what makes us act within these "limitations"?

It is TLOP that defines the limitations. we act within the limitations because the nature of the universe provides us no other opportunity.

But I have shown examples (i.e. bear and rock) where that is not the case. If greater consciousness is not required for control then TLOP need not necessarily be conscious to define our limitations. Do you have any actual reasons to believe TLOP is conscious?

Your examples dont show for this to be the case.
My reasons stand.

I haven't seen you refute them, only claim they were wrong with no explination as to why. Care to give one?

Control has nothing to do with level of consciousness or, really, consciousness at all, wraith. I've shown in the above example that it doesn't. Can you show that it does?

You havnt shown this to be the case slick

Oh, and why not? You've not refuted my arguements.

I mean that if you decide to live, the probability that you will decide to kill yourself is zero. The probability that you will accidently kill yourself is not zero, i.e. a number greater than zero.

But we're not talking what the probability is of accidentally killing yourself. If you kill yourself without intending to do so, your intent is still not to kill yourself when you want to live.

Did you not read the my first sentence there? the probability is zero. How many more times must I repeat that?

?
That's not what im saying.



sorry?

You asked me what I meant, I explained. If you have a further question, could you be more specific than "?"

w: It seems like youre saying that sums dont equal the whole?

U: No. I didn't say anything remotely like that. What makes you think that?

This is about adding velocities.

Correct. I did say the sums equal the whole, just that the sum isn't a linear sum because a linear sum does not reflect reality. If it did, one could, in fact, travel faster than the speed of light. But it doesn't happen because velocities add relativisiticly instead of linearly.

Time to expand your horizens a little, aith.

I see logic in his beliefs.
The "logic" in your beliefs I do not see....

Perhaps there is logic in your beliefs, but there is no truth to them. But you'll have to discover that on your own. No one can force you to face it if you are not ready.

"Truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by persuading." --Quintus Septimius Tertullianus (160 AD - 230 AD), Adversus Valentinianos

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Perhaps there is logic in your beliefs, but there is no truth to them. But you'll have to discover that on your own. No one can force you to face it if you are not ready.

A large, hungry bear might do the trick.

 

[Upchurch]

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

A large, hungry bear might do the trick.

Hm... I dunno... I have no trouble believing that a large, hungry bear is more conscious than aith.

 

[c4ts]

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

A large, hungry bear might do the trick.

BEAR is made of ATOMS.
ATOMS obey TLOP.
Therefore BEAR is more conscious than AIIIIIIIEEEEEEE!!!!!

I would pay to see that.

 

[wraith]

Re: wraithed

Diklik

Because there math works different.

How?

wraith: So if you cant get out of the car, the car is controlling you?

Diklik: UMMMM I just said that. Pay attention.

lol
then youre an idiot

Clarify what the fact that you're too dumb to understand? No need. You don't make sense.

...looking at your responses, the only dumb sh1t around here is you.

Explain what? That you too damn dumb? That's a waste of electricity.

read the above post

wraith: Where did TLOP come from?

Dialect: From nowhere. QM.

QM came before TLOP? So QM doesnt come under TLOP according to you?

wraith: Before the sun dial was made, people had no sense of Time?

Dialect: They had a sense of change but not time.

LOL
Your as idiotic as they come

wraith: So why was the sun dial made in the first place?

Dialect: To measure change.

What do you mean by "change"?
What if you were looking at a blank wall...does Time exist?

QM says things are funadmentally random.

ok

How is logical random?

go back to sleep sunshine

 

[CWL]

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

You seem to be stuck on this idea that TLOP only constrains your behaviour, yet you dont obey it.

Wraith, since you haven't replied to my latest post you will forgive me for repeating myself.

Do you seriously believe that you "obey" that which the laws of physics reflect, i.e. the properties of energy and matter? Do you take orders from them? Does a room also take orders from its walls?

As to the "consciousness creates matter" bit - can you please demonstrate that consciousness may exist without the presence of matter? An example perhaps?

 

[wraith]

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

Or anyone, if only that which is more conscious can control that which is conscious. Unless, of course, consciousness has nothing to do with control, eh?

Why?

I'm guessing you don't quite get the concept of "counter example", huh? I'm trying to show you how your concept leads to logical paradoxes.

No it doesnt.

Don't care to answer the question? Allow me to restate: If a bear mauls a person, which has been known to happen, does that make the bear more conscious than the person?

No. Why would it?

That's what I'm saying. According to your rule that "only things more conscious can control that which is conscious", the implication is that the rock is more conscious than a person it has pinned. Not only is it nonsensical, it's incorrect. Consciousness is not a necessary component of control.

You havnt shown how a rock falling on your foot is the same as saying that the rock is controlling you.

wraith: Church, thats exactly what youre saying.
Just what is meant "TLOP defines our limitations"?

Church: Actually, aith, it isn't what I said at all. Acting within the bounds, or limitiations, of TLOP is not the same as acting "totally independent of TLOP". Going back to the room analogy, if I am in the room, I am acting within the boundries of its limitations or, in this case, walls. If I were to be acting independently of the room, I would be outside the room. I'm not claiming to be outside TLOP. I'm claiming that I work within TLOP. This does not mean that TLOP is responsible for all of my actions nor does it confine me only to one action. It only sets a limit to the range of actions I can take.

Do you see the difference?

Yes I see what youre saying, but youre not explaining how your actions are actually made. If not for TLOP then what?

It is TLOP that defines the limitations. we act within the limitations because the nature of the universe provides us no other opportunity.

So how does someone "act" within those limitations?
Whats an example of something constrained by TLOP, yet doesnt obey TLOP?

wraith: Your examples dont show for this to be the case.
My reasons stand.

Church: I haven't seen you refute them, only claim they were wrong with no explination as to why. Care to give one?

Which one were you referring to?

Oh, and why not? You've not refuted my arguements.

Well if thats what you tell yourself

wraith: But we're not talking what the probability is of accidentally killing yourself. If you kill yourself without intending to do so, your intent is still not to kill yourself when you want to live.

Church:Did you not read the my first sentence there? the probability is zero. How many more times must I repeat that?
You asked me what I meant, I explained. If you have a further question, could you be more specific than "?"

Got ya. So how do you have "free-will"?

Correct. I did say the sums equal the whole, just that the sum isn't a linear sum because a linear sum does not reflect reality. If it did, one could, in fact, travel faster than the speed of light. But it doesn't happen because velocities add relativisiticly instead of linearly.

Time to expand your horizens a little, aith.

By all means.

Perhaps there is logic in your beliefs, but there is no truth to them. But you'll have to discover that on your own. No one can force you to face it if you are not ready.

Yeah your beliefs are just filled Truth Church

"Truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by persuading." --Quintus Septimius Tertullianus (160 AD - 230 AD), Adversus Valentinianos

wow
thats deep

 

[wraith]

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

Wraith, since you haven't replied to my latest post you will forgive me for repeating myself.

Sorry!
It wasnt intentional

Do you seriously believe that you "obey" that which the laws of physics reflect, i.e. the properties of energy and matter? Do you take orders from them?

Sure I do.

Does a room also take orders from its walls?

What do you mean?

As to the "consciousness creates matter" bit - can you please demonstrate that consciousness may exist without the presence of matter? An example perhaps?

Well LD says that the Soul is linked to Gravity.
So consciousness does come from matter.
Just not in the sense that you think matter is.

 

[CWL]

Sorry!
It wasnt intentional

No worries, I didn't think so either.

Sure I do.

Ok. So you take orders from "TLOP". Do you take orders from anything else which is inanimate? Did TLOP give you some time off today so that you could post on this board?

What do you mean?

TLOP = a description of the properties and behaviour of energy and matter. These properties could be said to define energy and matter in the same way as walls define a room - in the same way that "red", "juicy", "tasty" and "fruitlike" define an apple.

Can you see why it is not relevant to talk about "obeying" or "disobeying"? That is just a semantic construct which Franko probably has concocted based on the circumstance that we happen to call our description of the properties of the Universe "the 'laws' of physics" - which is slightly misleading since they are not "laws" at all. The description could just as well have been called "the description of the properties of stuff" or "description of how things tend to behave".

Don't be so hung up on the "law" thingy, dude.

Well LD says that the Soul is linked to Gravity.
So consciousness does come from matter.
Just not in the sense that you think matter is.

Pardon my French, Wraithy but I do not offer a rodent's behind for what the LD says. I am concerned with tangible evidence.

I am happy you at least agree that "consciousness does come from matter". When you say "just not in the sense that you think matter is", what do you mean and where is the evidence for your assertion? What actual observations lead you (or the "LD") to assume whatever it is that you believe?

The Almighty Syllogism and "TLOP > YOU" simply doesn't do the trick. There must be more.

 

[Q-Source]

Re: Re: this guy is amazingly inconsistent!

Source, youre saying that man created TLOP.

YES!
YES!
YES!

How did mountains form if there wasnt man around to "create" TLOP?!

Mountains formed BEFORE men "created" TLOP.

Universe= terrain
TLOP= map

How many times do you want me to repeat that?

TLOP are a mathematical description of how the Universe behaves. Get a dictionary.

I give up with you.

Q-S