Existence...

[WendyDarling]

The fact is that it was you who introduced the modern logic, in post 99, that we are simply analyzing. Here it is again:

A)Existence=perceivable/observable stuff and imaginings/ideas
B)Non-existence is only an idea.
Are you understanding those assertions, A and B?

You introduced these "word games", as you call them - also apparently considered by you as "dung".



The OP has acknowledged that his/her own arguments are merely "word games" and are wrought with "dung". And I heartily agree. There's no constructive content here to interfere with.

The logic is sound. Your play on the meaning of words, makes it a game. Between actual and figurative. Ideas are figurative.

The way I wrote it is right. Your reframing is wrong.

Drop your vendetta.

 

[DaveC426913]

Between actual and figurative. Ideas are figurative.

Indeed. You used the same word twice in those assertions, and meant two different things. (These are called "weasel-words" - words that have multiple meanings and used ambiguously as a smoke screen in a flawed argument. Now you know.)

That's your word play. Don't add hypocrite to your list of faults.

It's a pity you didn't heed the advice offered 20 posts ago to revise your assertions to remove the problem. That's exactly what I was trying to draw your attention to. Instead, you wasted 20 posts defending your ego, only to admit now that you screwed up and didn't take the advice.

 

[WendyDarling]

Indeed. You used the same word twice in those assertions, and meant two different things*.

That's your word play. Don't add hypocrite to your list of faults.

It's a pity you didn't heed the advice offered 20 posts ago to revise your assertions to remove the problem. That's exactly what I was trying to draw your attention to. Instead, you wasted 20 posts defending your ego.


*These are called "weasel-words" - words that have multiple meanings and used ambiguously as a smoke screen in a flawed argument. Now you know.

All you are doing is hindering progress with your wrong think theatrics.

Do you realize that you are crossing the line into harassment?

You have repeatedly claimed to leave instead lurking, only to keep rejoining the thread to beat me with your genius.

Agree to disagree and let’s wave at one another from a distance.

 

[DaveC426913]

All you are doing is hindering progress with your wrong think theatrics.

Being wrong does not constitute 'progress'. If you don't want to be corrected, don't say wrong things. Maybe start a blog instead, and turn off comments.

Also, maybe don't use logic in your own argument, then call it "dung". That's a credibility landmine.

Do you realize that you are crossing the line into harassment?

Don't be ridiculous. This is a public discussion forum.

You have repeatedly claimed to leave instead lurking, only to keep rejoining the thread to beat me with your genius.

You keep calling me back. When you use my name, I see it in my alerts.
If you don't want to hear from me, stop responding when I correct you.

Also, stop saying wrong things. Those show up in my alerts too.

 

[WendyDarling]

Being wrong does not constitute 'progress'. If you don't want to be corrected, don't say wrong things. Start a blog instead, and turn off comments.


Don't be ridiculous. This is a public discussion forum.


You keep calling me back. When you use my name, I see it in my alerts.
If you don't want to hear from me, stop responding when I correct you.

Also, stop saying wrong things. Those show up in my alerts too.

You literally cannot stop harassing me, can you?

You will not be mentioned or addressed again.

 

[DaveC426913]

You literally cannot stop harassing me, can you?

You don't really know how discussion fora work, do you?

You should. It works the same here as the other ones you've been booted off.

 

[WendyDarling]

Panentheism instead of pantheism minus any religion is more apropos to cover my aim. Having to use the traditional concept of “God,”
may be a hinderance until I can formulate an alternative.

Any suggestions of what to name absolute consciousness?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Panentheism instead of pantheism minus any religion is more apropos to cover my aim. Having to use the traditional concept of “God,”
may be a hinderance until I can formulate an alternative.

You may be right as only you can know...

Any suggestions of what to name absolute consciousness?

yes ... replace the word "Absolute" with the word "Universal" and it will make more sense to those who believe it exists, as I do.

"Absolute consciousness => Universal consciousness"

 

[WendyDarling]

You may be right as only you can know...

yes ... replace the word "Absolute" with the word "Universal" and it will make more sense to those who believe it exists, as I do.

"Absolute consciousness => Universal consciousness"

How is universal consciousness separate from our semi-consciousness?

I consider humans semi-conscious due to our limited perceptions and I might add our questionable ability to retain memories precisely.

I believe that this thread ties in nicely,
"If No Consciousness Exists, By What Right Does The Universe?"

 

[Quantum Quack]

How is universal consciousness separate from our semi-consciousness?

I consider humans semi-conscious due to our limited perceptions and I might add our questionable ability to retain memories precisely.

Briefly as I have an appointment to attend.
The term consciousness is a rather large encompassing term.
To be conscious does not necessarily mean cognitive etc.

Try:
A rock is conscious but not a cognitive thinking entity.
The sun is conscious but beyond that it has no capacity to make use of it's consciousness.
A lump of coal is conscious but feels nothing, thinks nothing, does nothing ( volition)
Pure unhindered consciousness....

What you are referring to is mostly cognition or the capacity to react to what you may be conscious of
Universal consciousness is entirely innate, passive....

Humans among many life forms has the capacity to react or be cognitive of what they are conscious of. A brain to render sense to what the human is conscious of.

till later...

 

[WendyDarling]

Briefly as I have an appointment to attend.
The term consciousness is a rather large encompassing term.
To be conscious does not necessarily mean cognitive etc.

Try:
A rock is conscious but not a cognitive thinking entity.
The sun is conscious but beyond that it has no capacity to make use of it's consciousness.
A lump of coal is conscious but feels nothing, thinks nothing, does nothing ( volition)
Pure unhindered consciousness....

What you are referring to is mostly cognition or the capacity to react to what you may be conscious of
Universal consciousness is entirely innate, passive....

till later...

Waiting on your return. Are you saying that a rock is essentially in a brain dead, coma? Clarification needed.

Non-volitional "things" passively participate in our memories, but why? Not sure what I am trying to realize here. Confused. Rocks, the sun, etc. retain no memory, are only memory retained.

 

[Tiassa]

Any suggestions of what to name absolute consciousness?

Temosticles.

Actually, call it whatever you want, since it's make-believe.

If "panentheism instead of pantheism minus any religion" is what you're after, stop using the word, "consciousness". Furthermore, tying on some variation of anthropic principle↗ is extraneous and even more finitizing than sequential and differentiated "consciousness".

†​

As I was traveling to St. Ives—er, I mean, reading through to figure out what the deal is with your attitude problem, a couple details about #47↑ stand out. One speaks for itself, and I'm not even going to bother because there is nothing to be done but maybe turn to the fourth wall and shrug like what the phuck.

However, on the question of how anything can not exist, your error is a fallacious requirement of finitude.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Waiting on your return. Are you saying that a rock is essentially in a brain dead, coma? Clarification needed.

Obviously a rock as no brain to be dead or in a coma... thus it can be claimed that consciousness is not dependent on cognition. However being conscious of something requires some sort of ability to react ( ie. a brain)
I see that the other thread is providing a lot of complexity that I consider unnecessary so I will stand back and read what happens.

 

[Baldeee]

Wow, I actually bought the above load of dung for a hot second. I'm losing my edge.

The above example signifies modern logic, ie. word games.

Just two things wrong with this last sentence:
Such deductive syllogisms are NOT "modern logic", being pretty much defined by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, c.350 BC).
Syllogisms are not "word games" but help look at the form of an argument rather than semantics.
The form of your assertions leads to a conclusion you didn't intend, presumably due to the equivocation of "idea", which you have failed thus far to resolve.
Maybe deal with that first before throwing your toys out of the pram.
And please do grow up.

For those who can only think in terms of word games, I'll make a concerted effort to provide entertainment in the form of what you can appreciate.

Please note that incoherence is rarely appreciated.

 

[Yazata]

A discussion about this exact topic is going on over at ilovephilosophy.com

My handle there is WendyDarling.

Hi Wendy.

I was unaware of that board. I just signed up there.

 

[Yazata]

Yazada,

"Parmenides probably would have agreed, but I'm not willing to go that far. Reality certainly seems to display order, what physics tries to uncover and what the ancient Greeks called "logos". But order isn't the same thing as consciousness nor does it necessarily imply it."

Why does order not imply consciousness?

I'm not clear what the word 'consciousness' means. It seems to have at least two meanings, 1) a system's responsiveness to its environment, and 2) some kind of inner-theater of "self awareness" that we humans believe that we enjoy.

But it seems to me that the first sense of 'consciousness' is only found in systems of suitable functional complexity (biological organisms and perhaps in some electronic devices and whatever). I'm inclined to think that it's basically just causality at its core. 'Consciousness' in the second sense seems to be restricted to a smaller subset of biological organisms. Worms react to their environment but probably aren't conscious in the second sense of having a robust sense of 'I'.

Order is a much broader category than that. Inanimate physics is orderly, chemistry is orderly, mathematics is nothing if not orderly. A circle is an orderly geometric figure, but it isn't thereby conscious.

Is consciousness not understanding?

Maybe, I don't know. This is why much of the philosophy of mind sounds like gibberish to me, because they talk about 'consciousness' incessantly without ever defining or otherwise clarifying what they are talking about. Exercise of reason might not have a whole lot to do with consciousness in the self-awareness sense. Computers are nothing if not rational. (And yes, understanding might involve a lot more than just the exercise of reason. So I'm not really sure what 'understanding' means either.)

Is understanding perfect?

In probably every real life instance it isn't. Outside mathematics which deals in conceptual objects that only have those properties that we define, I think that it's safe to say that we don't possess a complete or absolutely correct understanding of anything.

The order chaos/complexity theories need resolving, so both can be removed from discussion once and for all.

What do you mean by "order chaos/complexity theories"? Can you give an example? I'm not sure what you are talking about or why I would want to remove them from discussion.

 

[SciWriter]

Why Something?

Quantum states melt via uncertainty,
And this means that no quantum property
Can e’er be zero—a precise amount,
And so it is that motion can ne’er cease.

The Something

The quantum field is the bridge between ‘Nil’
And basic matter, and can ne’er be still;
Thus the ‘vacuum’ is the quietest field—
The closest approach to ‘Nothing’ that can be.

No ‘Null’ nor Matter Full

‘Nothing’ had no chance to be the hero,
And QM scrubs the idea of zero
Out of the physical world of being;
‘Zilch’ ne’er sleeps, but is e’er up to something.

A Mere Blip

But for the small quantum uncertainty,
The Cosmos sums to naught, its lunch being free:
No net electric charge; a weightless brick;
Minus-potential = plus-kinetic.

 

[WendyDarling]

I'm not clear what the word 'consciousness' means. It seems to have at least two meanings, 1) a system's responsiveness to its environment, and 2) some kind of inner-theater of "self awareness" that we humans believe that we enjoy.

But it seems to me that the first sense of 'consciousness' is only found in systems of suitable functional complexity (biological organisms and perhaps in some electronic devices and whatever). I'm inclined to think that it's basically just causality at its core. 'Consciousness' in the second sense seems to be restricted to a smaller subset of biological organisms. Worms react to their environment but probably aren't conscious in the second sense of having a robust sense of 'I'.

Order is a much broader category than that. Inanimate physics is orderly, chemistry is orderly, mathematics is nothing if not orderly. A circle is an orderly geometric figure, but it isn't thereby conscious.



Maybe, I don't know. This is why much of the philosophy of mind sounds like gibberish to me, because they talk about 'consciousness' incessantly without ever defining or otherwise clarifying what they are talking about. Exercise of reason might not have a whole lot to do with consciousness in the self-awareness sense. Computers are nothing if not rational. (And yes, understanding might involve a lot more than just the exercise of reason. So I'm not really sure what 'understanding' means either.)



In probably every real life instance it isn't. Outside mathematics which deals in conceptual objects that only have those properties that we define, I think that it's safe to say that we don't possess a complete or absolutely correct understanding of anything.



What do you mean by "order chaos/complexity theories"? Can you give an example? I'm not sure what you are talking about or why I would want to remove them from discussion.

Prima facie- (the or an) idea/s.

 

[WendyDarling]

Hi Wendy.

I was unaware of that board. I just signed up there.

Thanks for dropping by. Wish you'd have stayed logged in longer.

 

[WendyDarling]

Be wild if everything, and I mean everything, was one big idea happening eternally.