Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/29/14 04:04 PM, Tankdown wrote: What's everyone's thoughts on consciousness?

The expression of life through the physical body!

At 1/29/14 05:27 PM, Tankdown wrote: A little narrow don't you think? You don't include AI in that at all. (Future computers that think like human)

Well, those don't exist yet (and it remains to be seen if they will ever exist), so what would be the point of including future hypotheticals in a definition of current reality?

I'm asking simple questions so not to expand into ridiculous arguments. Why complicate things right?

At 1/29/14 06:42 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Well, those don't exist yet (and it remains to be seen if they will ever exist), so what would be the point of including future hypotheticals in a definition of current reality?

I don't care. A bear isn't in the room, but everyone can agree there can be a bear in the room. Hypothetical is scientific thinking at the first step. Whatever or not it is present doesn't eliminate scientific understanding. Unless universal laws change over time, completely absurd. If I understand anything now I will apply it to the past or future. Unless you thought of "evidence" as the determining factor. Also doesn't apply that what I determine now can be applied to the future and what I expect to get from the future. As it is the matter of waiting for the evidence rather than having the evidence. You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

....So you admit consciousness doesn't rely on biological life? If consciousness doesn't need to exist along side biological life. Why state neurons and chemicals at all? Stating intelligence, self awareness, or attention spans hits closer to what makes up a consciousness. What you did was mention the instruments rather than the functions. It be like arguing how to screw in a screw by describing what makes up a screwdriver. Rather how to handle a screwdriver. A clever mind knows a thin coin can work just the same, as the laws do not necessary apply to the screwdriver.

At 1/29/14 05:58 PM, NightmareWitch wrote: The expression of life through the physical body!

So...someone sleeping counts as being conscious? :p

At 1/30/14 04:00 PM, Tankdown wrote:

At 1/29/14 05:58 PM, NightmareWitch wrote: The expression of life through the physical body!

So...someone sleeping counts as being conscious? :p

Ohh I see.. yeah I'd say someone sleeping is a conscious being.. like sentient. But maybe a different definition would be someone who is aware.

At 1/30/14 04:00 PM, Tankdown wrote: I don't care. A bear isn't in the room, but everyone can agree there can be a bear in the room. Hypothetical is scientific thinking at the first step. Whatever or not it is present doesn't eliminate scientific understanding. Unless universal laws change over time, completely absurd. If I understand anything now I will apply it to the past or future. Unless you thought of "evidence" as the determining factor. Also doesn't apply that what I determine now can be applied to the future and what I expect to get from the future. As it is the matter of waiting for the evidence rather than having the evidence. You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Your bear in the room analogy falls through, because we have a good understanding of what a bear is and what characterizes a bear. Not so when it comes to artificial intelligence, which only exists in rudimentary and primitive forms as of today - far from being in any way similar to the cognitive abilities of a human mind. It would be more like inventing a new species unknown to man, like an extraterrestrial alien, and saying it could be in your room. Sure, alien life COULD exist, and it could be interesting to speculate about what such a life form might look like, but you can't include speculation about things unseen when you try to establish a definition of what could be in your room. Artificial consciousness doesn't currently exist. That might change sometime in the future, at which point we might need to reevaluate our definition of what consciousness is, but we're not there yet.

....So you admit consciousness doesn't rely on biological life?

What? No. I'm saying that it IS dependent on biological life. I'm conceding that given time that might change (if and when we've invented artificial minds), but that currently consciousness is limited to physical brains.

What you did was mention the instruments rather than the functions. It be like arguing how to screw in a screw by describing what makes up a screwdriver. Rather how to handle a screwdriver. A clever mind knows a thin coin can work just the same, as the laws do not necessary apply to the screwdriver.

I don't know what you're talking about. You just asked what consciousness was, so I tried to give as good of a definition as I could. Consciousness is not a tool, but an effect. It's the sum of all of the things a brain is able to perceive about its surroundings. It's an experience, one that has only ever been linked to physical brains.

At 1/31/14 08:05 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: I don't know what you're talking about. You just asked what consciousness was, so I tried to give as good of a definition as I could. Consciousness is not a tool, but an effect. It's the sum of all of the things a brain is able to perceive about its surroundings. It's an experience, one that has only ever been linked to physical brains.

Exactly, consciousness is an effect. Yet you put in it in the terms of the brain as the cause. The logical fallacy of confusing cause and effect. Going back to my analogy we do have the reorganization to know what is consciousness. Despite whatever or not it is made of. You didn't deny computers could be like this, only that we do not know enough to make computers like this. A practical assumption. We do not need to know the cause if we have the understanding of the effect.

At 2/1/14 01:50 PM, Tankdown wrote: Exactly, consciousness is an effect. Yet you put in it in the terms of the brain as the cause. The logical fallacy of confusing cause and effect. Going back to my analogy we do have the reorganization to know what is consciousness. Despite whatever or not it is made of. You didn't deny computers could be like this, only that we do not know enough to make computers like this. A practical assumption. We do not need to know the cause if we have the understanding of the effect.

I have no idea what you're trying to say with this post. This comes off as pure gibberish. Also, I'm not entirely sure how this is supposed to be related to the topic of atheism vs. theism.

At 2/1/14 02:39 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

I have no idea what you're trying to say with this post. This comes off as pure gibberish. Also, I'm not entirely sure how this is supposed to be related to the topic of atheism vs. theism.

Pseudo intellectual jargon.

At 2/1/14 02:39 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: I have no idea what you're trying to say with this post. This comes off as pure gibberish. Also, I'm not entirely sure how this is supposed to be related to the topic of atheism vs. theism.

Building up an argument of my beliefs by starting small. Saves time and effort. Why defend every premises if it only takes one to be wrong.

No idea how else to explain it to you. There is a difference from giving and receiving, cause and effect. I want to know what you expect to look for, not to what comes prior.

By the long shot I'm wrong. I accept my stupidly with stoicism. Somehow I doubt it's the neurons fault. :D

Yeah, again, this is just pure gibberish I'm reading. I invite you to make a cogent and coherent argument relating to the topic of this thread. If you can't manage to do so then I suggest you take your nonsense elsewhere.

At 2/1/14 05:22 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Yeah, again, this is just pure gibberish I'm reading. I invite you to make a cogent and coherent argument relating to the topic of this thread. If you can't manage to do so then I suggest you take your nonsense elsewhere.

You don't try....I recommend reading John Dewy.

At 2/1/14 05:30 PM, Tankdown wrote:

At 2/1/14 05:22 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Yeah, again, this is just pure gibberish I'm reading. I invite you to make a cogent and coherent argument relating to the topic of this thread. If you can't manage to do so then I suggest you take your nonsense elsewhere.

You don't try....I recommend reading John Dewy.

How about you start over and rephrase. He's not the only one that can't make sense of your point.

Are there any good reasons for thinking God does not exist?

Serious question.

At 2/2/14 08:18 PM, DOGOGBYN wrote: Are there any good reasons for thinking God does not exist?

Serious question.

"I don't listen to anybody's rules. Not even my own."

At 2/2/14 08:18 PM, DOGOGBYN wrote: Are there any good reasons for thinking God does not exist?

Serious question.

A serious question deserves a serious response, which is what I will give you.

Generally, in a debate, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the affirmative claim(In this case, the theist claiming God exists) to prove or substantiate to some degree their claim and not on the person making the negative claim or the person who simply doesn't believe that negative claim.

In essence, when it comes to debate, the atheist has no responsibility, logically speaking, to defend his/her views unless he/she is a "strong atheist"—one who negatively claims that God does not exist. "Weak atheists" such as myself have no such responsibility because we do not deny the existence of God outright, but find insufficient evidence to believe in His existence, and so we don't believe he exists.

This principle exists in the world of science; it isn't up to the scientists who don't believe, for example, that vaccines cause autism to disprove that claim. It's up to those who do believe that vaccines cause autism to prove it. So far, they have failed miserably.

This principle also exists in philosophy. Debates about the existence of God fall under the domain of philosophy and so we come full-circle and show that the burden of proof falls upon theists to prove their claims right and not on atheists to prove the theists' claims wrong.

With that said, there are many excellent arguments against the existence of God. I suggest you read them. They're not necessary to justify support for atheism, but they are worth reading in my opinion.

Organized religion, especially here in the south is just awful. To associate yourself with Christianity in the south is to project yourself as ignorant and a bigot (not too different from the rest of the world). If there were nice Catholic Cathedrals here I'd go to church, but wouldn't associate with anyone else. I just think it would be a good idea to keep your own believes concerning the supernatural to yourself.

At 2/4/14 01:03 PM, Saen wrote: I just think it would be a good idea to keep your own believes concerning the supernatural to yourself.

As far as organized religion goes, belief in the supernatural, the dogma, and the mythology is just a part, and dare I say a smallish part, of why people take part.

While such things may be the root of the religion and the beacon that brings people to the religion, the community, the support, and the moral guidance are why people stay.

At 2/1/14 07:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: How about you start over and rephrase. He's not the only one that can't make sense of your point.

Where I look when something shows consciousness, I don't look for what's causing it. Rather to know if it's awake. I can't imagine how that's confused.

Also what do you think? I'm more curious about you.

At 2/3/14 12:11 AM, Light wrote: This principle exists in the world of science; it isn't up to the scientists who don't believe, for example, that vaccines cause autism to disprove that claim. It's up to those who do believe that vaccines cause autism to prove it. So far, they have failed miserably.

Pragmatist Karl Popper disagrees.

Proving exists in the negative as well as in the positive. A constructionist argument says a double negative necessarily prove a positive. In the vaccine example neither group have committed an act of science. Science cannot rely on the fact it does not exist for it has not tested that it does not exist. While the other could not prove it does exist. There is not information that says that it couldn't. What you are describing is agnosticism, not science.

A theists proves to himself god exists with undeniable axioms he/she tests. An atheist proves god does not exists with axioms that are either not tested or cannot be tested. Rationally an atheist can be agnostic as some theists are, but deep down (personal belief) no one is truly agnostic. As William James try to argue about by saying no one is agnostic, but you certainly can change your belief.

At 2/4/14 03:36 PM, Tankdown wrote: A constructionist argument says a double negative necessarily prove a positive.

I'm so sorry, I meant to say does not prove a positive

At 2/4/14 03:36 PM, Tankdown wrote:

A theists proves to himself god exists with undeniable axioms he/she tests.

No they use faith not proof of any sort.

At 2/2/14 08:18 PM, DOGOGBYN wrote: Are there any good reasons for thinking God does not exist?

Serious question.

Why do there have to be reasons? I didn't personally choose not to have a belief in a god, you know. That's just how it is.

At 2/4/14 04:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: No they use faith not proof of any sort.

Proof is by faith or reason.

At 2/4/14 03:36 PM, Tankdown wrote: Where I look when something shows consciousness, I don't look for what's causing it. Rather to know if it's awake. I can't imagine how that's confused.

Your going to have to say much more than one or two sentences here. Your simple analogy of "awake = consciousness" is quite shallow and incorporates millions upon millions of things that, collectively, we do not consider to have consciousness.

Your analogy would posit that jelly fish, ants, worms, bacteria, and every self moving organism has a consciousness by virtue of its "being awake".

I would posit the line between no consciousness and consciousness to be somewhere just below that of self awareness. This would only include the more intelligent animals (i.e. the ones who can actively think out problems and not just respond to stimuli with a set of instinctual reactions and procedures) and up.

So before you even get to explaining the source of consciousness, you must first define your parameters of it.

Also what do you think? I'm more curious about you.

I staed my rather live and let live views before. Consciousness exists. I don't know where its origin lies, or where it comes from. Sometimes it's a fun exercise to ponder the roots, but as a whole, I don't care. My care with consciousness, as with most religious based why questions, is not with the why, but with the existence itself. That is the key to living a fulfilling and virtuous life.

Personally, I find the question why to be a horrific and destructive question in about 95% of the cases people use it. Asking why so often misses the mark of life.

At 2/4/14 05:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Your analogy would posit that jelly fish, ants, worms, bacteria, and every self moving organism has a consciousness by virtue of its "being awake".

I meant awake literally. Someone who woke up from a nap. Other than someone who is still sleeping and not talking to you.

So before you even get to explaining the source of consciousness, you must first define your parameters of it.

I don't care about the source.

Personally, I find the question why to be a horrific and destructive question in about 95% of the cases people use it. Asking why so often misses the mark of life.

It's more of a matter of "what" rather than "why." Not "what is the cause," rather "what am I looking for" when it happens.

At 2/4/14 03:36 PM, Tankdown wrote:

At 2/3/14 12:11 AM, Light wrote:

This principle exists in the world of science; it isn't up to the scientists who don't believe, for example, that vaccines cause autism to disprove that claim. It's up to those who do believe that vaccines cause autism to prove it. So far, they have failed miserably.

Pragmatist Karl Popper disagrees.

Proving exists in the negative as well as in the positive. A constructionist argument says a double negative necessarily prove a positive. In the vaccine example neither group have committed an act of science. Science cannot rely on the fact it does not exist for it has not tested that it does not exist. While the other could not prove it does exist. There is not information that says that it couldn't. What you are describing is agnosticism, not science.

Karl Popper was a philosopher of science who advanced certain views about what science should be and how it should work. Keep in mind that what he says is his own philosophy, so it's certainly disputable. In Popper's view, my example may be flawed, but in the eyes of the scientific community and in my view, the example is flawless. That's how the scientific process currently works and that's how the scientific community currently does things. That is how it should work. I see no need for it to be changed.

A theists proves to himself god exists with undeniable axioms he/she tests.

No they don't. They just take a leap of faith and rationalize their decision after the fact. I know it's blunt, but it's true.

And I've never heard of these so-called undeniable axioms proving the existence of God. Tell me about them.

An atheist proves god does not exists with axioms that are either not tested or cannot be tested.

What? I don't know what you're talking about. I can't speak for other atheists, but I did not do this t oarrive to the conclusion that I did. I don't claim that God doesn't exist. I just see no reason to believe in him because I see no evidence for his existence. I think most other atheists think the way I do. .

Rationally an atheist can be agnostic as some theists are, but deep down (personal belief) no one is truly agnostic. As William James try to argue about by saying no one is agnostic, but you certainly can change your belief.

What does this even mean?

Angry-Hatter is right; you're terrible at coherently expressing your views.

At 2/4/14 06:30 PM, Light wrote: Angry-Hatter is right; you're terrible at coherently expressing your views.

That's why I'm staying out of this. I've had half a mind to respond to some of the stuff he's written, but I decided against it because of his difficulties with communicating clearly. I wish you the best of luck, Light.

At 2/4/14 06:30 PM, Light wrote: What does this even mean?

Don't worry about it, read some of William James works if you care.

Angry-Hatter is right; you're terrible at coherently expressing your views.

Story of my life, terrible at words. Doctor tests prove my logic is perfectly fine, or above normal in other regards. It must have been hardwired in me as a child. I didn't speak much.

Certainly you're a blunt person. Not sure how to get to you, maybe I'll sit back and study you some more. All I can say you are wrong about the scientific community.

At 2/4/14 04:34 PM, Tankdown wrote:

At 2/4/14 04:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: No they use faith not proof of any sort.

Proof is by faith or reason.

"Faith - belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

In other words faith is a matter of opinion not quantifiable fact.

At 2/4/14 09:00 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: "Faith - belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

In other words faith is a matter of opinion not quantifiable fact.

My philosophy teacher would hate you.

At 2/4/14 05:48 PM, Tankdown wrote: I meant awake literally. Someone who woke up from a nap. Other than someone who is still sleeping and not talking to you.

Again, what do you mean by awake? Jellyfish go through up and down cycles akinto being awake and sleeping. Do they have consciousness?

It's more of a matter of "what" rather than "why." Not "what is the cause," rather "what am I looking for" when it happens.

It is what it is. Consciousness is consciousness.