Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

Discussion in 'Linux Networking' started by Aunty Kreist, Jan 20, 2005.

  1. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    OK. I agree with you and John Woodgate and Kevin that color is a
    continuum, but I don't agree that separate consciousnesses spring into
    being indiscriminately across the spectrum.
    ---
    ---
    What I'm _trying_ to do is to point out that I believe that
    consciousness arises after a discrete period of development, that
    period of development being akin to walking down an avenue with
    intersecting streets, each intersection being where a particular
    consciousness occurs. As far as I recall, you posted that it was
    "more like" consciousnesses traversing a spectrum and I took exception
    to that and used the single-electron analogy to show what I consider
    to be the discrete nature of the event. Then, the discussion abrubtly
    changed from one of the discrete VS continuous nature of bugeoning
    consciousness to "this is what color really is". Fair enough, but I
    _still_ think it's a discrete event, and I don't believe you've proved
    that it isn't.
    ---
    ---
    You should, since you're claiming to that Kevin _hasn't_ contradicted
    himself, and your argument is based on that claim.
    ---
    ---
    Either one is just fine with me, but if you want to discuss the
    so-called "refutation", I suggest you acquaint yourself with the
    earlier material of Kevin's which took a position opposite to the one
    you're referring to.
    ---
     
    John Fields, Jan 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

     
    John Fields, Jan 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
    Neither do I. For me, the continuum indicates the different levels of
    consciousness exhibited by different life-forms. It isn't anything to do
    with 'springing into being'.

    How are you on evolution? That could affect your concept of
    consciousness as a continuum.
     
    John Woodgate, Jan 30, 2005
  4. Aunty Kreist

    Willem Guest

    John wrote:
    ) OK. I agree with you and John Woodgate and Kevin that color is a
    ) continuum, but I don't agree that separate consciousnesses spring into
    ) being indiscriminately across the spectrum.

    I've never said that consciousnesses spring into being period, let alone
    indiscriminately across the spectrum. 'spring into being' implies some
    kind of timescale, which is totally irrelevant when measuring if an entity
    is conscious or not.

    ) What I'm _trying_ to do is to point out that I believe that
    ) consciousness arises after a discrete period of development, that
    ) period of development being akin to walking down an avenue with
    ) intersecting streets, each intersection being where a particular
    ) consciousness occurs.

    Are you talking about consciousness in an individual during his lifespan,
    or consciousness on the evolutionary scale, as a measurement ? I think the
    former. Doesn't really matter anyway, because either way the arguyments
    are pretty much the same.

    ) As far as I recall, you posted that it was
    ) "more like" consciousnesses traversing a spectrum and I took exception
    ) to that and used the single-electron analogy to show what I consider
    ) to be the discrete nature of the event. Then, the discussion abrubtly
    ) changed from one of the discrete VS continuous nature of bugeoning
    ) consciousness to "this is what color really is". Fair enough, but I
    ) _still_ think it's a discrete event, and I don't believe you've proved
    ) that it isn't.

    Where did this 'event' business come from ? Is it an event in the lifespan
    of an individual ?

    Anyway, what I'm talking about is that viewing a certain entity as either
    conscious or not conscious is strictly less general than viewing it as
    having a certain degree of consciousness. This stems from the fact that
    you can easily go from a spectrum to a discrete yes/no result by imposing a
    certain threshold.

    In other words: viewing consciousness as a spectrum is more general,
    and therefore more useful.


    )>) If you're interested in what he thinks, it would probably be a good
    )>) idea to read the relevant post or get _him_ to clear it up instead of
    )>) guessing about it.
    )>
    )>I don't care.
    )
    ) ---
    ) You should, since you're claiming to that Kevin _hasn't_ contradicted
    ) himself, and your argument is based on that claim.

    Nonsense. I don't need to know what someone thinks to be able to decide
    if some of his statements contradict each other or not. All I need is to
    investigate those statements. Which I did adequately.

    )>I refuted your assertion that Kevin has contradicted himself.
    )>Would you care to actually address this point, or are you just going
    )>to attack me on meaningless side points ?
    )
    ) ---
    ) Either one is just fine with me, but if you want to discuss the
    ) so-called "refutation", I suggest you acquaint yourself with the
    ) earlier material of Kevin's which took a position opposite to the one
    ) you're referring to.

    What you did was paraphrase some of Kevins statements, and then claim that
    these statements contradict each other. I refuited that claim, based
    solely on your paraphrasing.
    If there is some other material that you did not mention in your original
    claim that he contradicted himself, it is your fault for not quoting or
    paraphrasing it.

    Put more simply:

    K: 'statement 2'.
    J: K said 'statement 1' some while back which contradicts 'statement 2'.
    me: Those two statements do not contradict one another.

    )>Prove it. Refute my argument that shows you can support both viewpoints.
    )
    ) ---
    ) OK, refresh my memory. What are the two viewpoints?

    Here's the quote:
    ----- Start quote -----
    ---
    Yet, in an earlier post, you stated:

    "Complete nonsense. We only need you be concerned about a "life" after
    it has first become *conscious*. Before something becomes conscious it
    is no more then a carrot. What *makes* a life, that needs
    consideration for its *own* sake, is a brain. Period."

    Which seems to indicate that you _do_ consider there to be a period
    before which consciousness occurs and a period after. Such being the
    case, then there must necessarily be a threshold between the two
    states, that threshold being when consciousness occurs.

    I don't believe you can support both viewpoints simultaneously, so
    when do you suppose you'll waffle back to your earlier so-firmly-held
    belief?
    ----- End quote -----

    To paraphrase, the two viewpoints are:

    1 -
    There is a period when something is not conscious, and a period when it is.

    2 -
    Conscionsness does not have a threshold.


    These are not contradictory because, as I have said earlier, the existence
    of the points 'not conscious' and 'conscious' do *not* imply that there is
    a threshold where 'not conscious' suddenly becomes 'conscious'; there can
    also be a gradient somewhere between those two points.


    There. Refute that.


    ) That's not a reason. I'll act as I please and comment on the behavior
    ) of others whenever and however I please, with or without your
    ) approval, thank you very much.

    Most people would call that two-faced and quite arrogant, and I would
    have to agree. Anyway, I'll consider this statement an admission that
    anyone can dismiss your comments on their behaviour, as you do theirs.


    SaSW, Willem
    --
    Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    drugged or something..
    No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    #EOT
     
    Willem, Jan 30, 2005
  5. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    But, because the person can't differentiate between a parlor trick and
    a supernatural event, their interpretation of what _either_ event was
    would be worthless. Read the sentence before your last again; I said
    the same thing there.
    ---
    ---
    Well, first things first. Since you seem to be so intent on
    procedure, I suggest that if you expect an answer to your question,
    you answer my earlier one; specifically, "Do you believe in miracles?"
    ---
     
    John Fields, Jan 30, 2005
  6. Aunty Kreist

    Willem Guest

    John wrote:
    ) On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:29:50 +0000 (UTC), Willem <>
    ) wrote:
    )>The person *has* very clearly interpreted what they saw.
    ) ---
    ) But, because the person can't differentiate between a parlor trick and
    ) a supernatural event, their interpretation of what _either_ event was
    ) would be worthless. Read the sentence before your last again; I said
    ) the same thing there.

    So why did you respond in disagreement when someone said that a person
    who can't see the difference has no credibility ?

    I should note also that if a person interprets an event, his description
    of that event will very probably be influenced by that interpretation.

    )>) However, even if they _could_ tell the difference, their credibility
    )>) would be suspect because of the nature of the claim. For instance,
    )>) so-called "miracles" are supposed to have happened from time to time,
    )>) and even when "verified" by those who can allegedly tell the
    )>) difference, their credibility is denied by those who simply don't
    )>) believe in the existence of supernatural events. You, for instance?
    )>
    )>This is a very bold assertion. Basically, you are accusing people who
    )>don't believe in miracles of dismissing any evidence contrary to their
    )>belief. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim ?
    )
    ) ---
    ) Well, first things first. Since you seem to be so intent on
    ) procedure, I suggest that if you expect an answer to your question,
    ) you answer my earlier one; specifically, "Do you believe in miracles?"

    I'm mostly an agnostic, although I do have some things that I take on
    faith. I do that mostly because otherwise life would be unreasonably
    difficult. One of the things I take on faith is that everything in the
    universe is bound by the laws of nature.

    This means that I believe anything that can be classified as a miracle
    is an indication that our understanding of the laws of nature is not
    complete enough.

    I also believe that our understanding of the laws of the universe is not
    complete, so yes, I do believe in miracles, but I don't believe these
    miracles actually defy the laws of nature.

    And finally, I believe that

    )>Any examples of such miracles ?
    )
    ) ---
    ) Yes, but first answer the question.
    ) ---
    )
    )>By the way, your black-and-white thinking show up clearly here.
    )>You seem to be assuming that people either can or cannot distinguish
    )>between parlor tricks and supernatural events. Has it ever occurred
    )>to you that people can usually identify some but not all parlor tricks
    )>as such, and that some people can distinguish more than others ?
    )
    ) ---
    ) Geez, no, that _never_ crossed my mind... Neither did the possibility
    ) that visiting extraterrestrials could perform parlor tricks which none
    ) of us would be able to explain as other than miracles...

    But which _are_ parlor tricks. Bound by the laws of nature.
    No proof of the supernatural whatsoever.
    In other words, you're saying that *everything* that could be considered
    a miracle could very well be a parlor trick. That would indicate that
    you think no miracle is proof for the existence of the supernatural.


    SaSW, Willem
    --
    Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    drugged or something..
    No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    #EOT
     
    Willem, Jan 30, 2005
  7. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    Yes, <G>

    However, what I had in mind, from a previous post, was:

    Me:
    " We live in a universe in which we are bound by laws which
    _it_ made, not that we made, and if we can't understand the laws by
    which _it's_ governed, that doesn't mean that those laws don't exist.


    Kevin:
    But these laws contradict everything we now accept as true, and what
    work.


    Me:
    So what? Its laws can work for it and our laws can work for us, and
    they don't have to be the same set of laws.

    For instance, take a look at Asimov and Campbell's laws of robotics."


    My allusion was to the relationship between the god(s) and us being
    like the relationship between us and robots where, as far as the
    robots are concerned, laws which we made and which bind them don't
    bind us.
     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  8. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  9. Aunty Kreist

    Noah Roberts Guest

    I of course mean exacly what I said but it is quite pointless to argue
    that fact isn't it...
     
    Noah Roberts, Jan 31, 2005
  10. Aunty Kreist

    Noah Roberts Guest

    Only the part I quoted.
    No, that is stupid. If he chooses not to be omnipotent then he is no
    longer omnipotent. Previous to that decision he could alter time and
    cause himself to be omniptotent during the time he is not. But he made
    the choice, why does he HAVE to take it back?
    No, not really.

    But the whole thing is stupid anyway. The definition of omnipotence
    defies logic. Anything logically said is therefore fallacy. Including
    its ability to stop being omnipotent.
     
    Noah Roberts, Jan 31, 2005
  11. Aunty Kreist

    Noah Roberts Guest

    So, by your own admission your point is pointless.
     
    Noah Roberts, Jan 31, 2005
  12. Aunty Kreist

    Parse Tree Guest

    I alter the meaning of your words, because you don't seem to be meaning
    what you said.

    For instance, just above, you said that an omnipotent being defies
    logic, which I agree with completely. Logic does demonstrate that an
    omnipotent being is impossible.
    I am trying to understand what you're trying to say.
    Which is why I was interpretting your words based on what you've meant
    in the past, and not what you're saying.
     
    Parse Tree, Jan 31, 2005
  13. Aunty Kreist

    Parse Tree Guest

    No, that's exactly what I have stated previously.
    Stating it is irrelevant. We know that logic is both consistent and
    complete.
    Not at all. The completeness theorem proves completeness. I brought it
    in because you were stating that logic was somehow 'incomplete'.
    Yes, and we are talking about logic. When I say that something is
    logically impossible, I am talking about logic, not talking about magic,
    or farting. Do you still not understand?
     
    Parse Tree, Jan 31, 2005
  14. Aunty Kreist

    Noah Roberts Guest

    Why do you guys insist that everything has to be analyzed by logic?!
    Logic works in math because math is fundamentally a logical construct.
    Same with physics and quantum mechanics.

    Any reputable scientist or logician will tell you that logic is a good
    tool but they won't try to tell you everything has to be logical because
    that is just silly.
     
    Noah Roberts, Jan 31, 2005
  15. Aunty Kreist

    Parse Tree Guest

    Acquiring knowledge rationally is always more certain than acquiring it
    empirically.

    Deductive truths have a greater degree of validity than empirical ones.
    That has always been the case, ever since the Taoists questioned whether
    they were a man dreaming they were a butterfly, or the other way around.
    No, you're talking about too different groups of people. There are
    atheists that value deductive truths over the inductive, and apparently
    some that value inductive truths over deductive.
    Necessarily illogical.
    No, you're incorrect. Logic is rational, and believing in your senses is
    inherently less rational.
    If you agree that dreams and hallucinations can disrupt your senses,
    then why would you think that logic is more fallible?
    Except that that's not true at all. If I know something is a table, then
    using logic I can also know that it is not not a table.
     
    Parse Tree, Jan 31, 2005
  16. Aunty Kreist

    Noah Roberts Guest

    Heh...nobody ever said logic was incorrect either. Logically, logic
    doesn't function with the definition of omnipotence, that is all.

    I certainly don't see that to mean that logic is completely invalid and
    in fact have repeatedly stated that it is a good tool.

    But you insist on attacking a straw man.
     
    Noah Roberts, Jan 31, 2005
  17. Aunty Kreist

    Parse Tree Guest

    Ok, I'll explain it in more detail.

    If something is all powerful, then it must have that power in all
    situations. That means that that power must be retained if he moves a
    few feet to the left, and if he moves a minutes into the future. If he
    gives it up, he must be able to reclaim it. And if he's all powerful, he
    must be able to make himself all powerful all the time.

    Do you agree with all of that?
    And he can't choose not to be omnipotent and then choose to be
    omnipotent again? Is that beyong his omnipotence?
    The argument always presupposes that you can get the being to act
    however we choose in order to expose the contradictions.
    It's also good to note that if a being is not omnipotent in all places
    and all times, then they are less potent than one who is.
     
    Parse Tree, Jan 31, 2005
  18. Aunty Kreist

    Noah Roberts Guest

    Obviously not, since the human mind has constructed several illogical
    constructs.

    The fact that paradoxes exist is ample proof, since paradoxes are illogical.

    Also see my previous argument about John, who both wants to talk with
    Scott but also doesn't.
     
    Noah Roberts, Jan 31, 2005
  19. Aunty Kreist

    Noah Roberts Guest

    You sure?
     
    Noah Roberts, Jan 31, 2005
  20. Aunty Kreist

    Parse Tree Guest

    No, it's only a step removed from what you said.

    Let X be an impossible action.
    Let Y be an omnipotent being.

    Y -> X (Y implies X, which means that if there's an omnipotent being, it
    can do X)
    ~X (logically false)
    Y (omnipotent being exists)
    --
    Contradiction.

    Which premise do you disagree with?
    The premise 'an omnipotent being exists' is logically false. That's what
    I mean.
    Yes, he did say that too. One of the reasons that I'm not a fan, because
    he lacked a great deal of rigour and was often changing what he said.

    But he could not eliminate the cogito, for example.

    I think I may be misremembering his stuff anyway. Maybe I'm thinking of
    something he deduces after he decides that god is benevolent. Oh well.
    This is just an aside.
    There are similar impossibilities with omniscience. Being all knowing is
    very problematic. Let's pretend that I didn't mention this, however, and
    continue on with me just mentioning omnipotence.
     
    Parse Tree, Jan 31, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.