God:the early answer to a problem?

[Enmos]

why is that fallacious?
can you indicate the sun without sunlight or sunlight without a sun?

(IOW can you indicate an energy source that doesn't have energy or an energy that doesn't have a source)
(Please don't mention exploded stars )

All wines contain alcohol, does that mean that everything that contains alcohol is wine ?

 

[Enmos]

Emnos

being permanently or irrevocably unconscious offers a good insight into the significance of death


of course there are other details bit it is sufficient for it to be clearly indicated.
In light of our discussions, I would have thought it would be quite clear how life is indicated

interesting how it opens up with what you have been trying to beat me over the head with for the past hundred posts



yes, there definitely is more to life

Opens up, yes... do you honestly not see that your definition is flawed ?

 

[lightgigantic]

All wines contain alcohol, does that mean that everything that contains alcohol is wine ?

No because I can indicate some types of alcohol that are not wine.
All suns emanate sunlight.
Can you indicate any sunlight that doesn't owe it's origin to a sun?

 

[lightgigantic]

Opens up, yes... do you honestly not see that your definition is flawed ?

I never said it was the complete definition
I said it was the simplest one.

If you can't come to terms with the simplest one, why on earth do you think that warrants moving onto to something a bit more complex?

 

[Enmos]

No because I can indicate some types of alcohol that are not wine.
All suns emanate sunlight.
Can you indicate any sunlight that doesn't owe it's origin to a sun?

Your comparison would be honest if you would call it for what it is, 'light'.

What you are saying is akin to this:

All wines contain wine-alcohol, so everything that contains wine-alcohol is wine.

 

[lightgigantic]

Your comparison would be honest if you would call it for what it is, 'light'.

What you are saying is akin to this:

All wines contain wine-alcohol, so everything that contains wine-alcohol is wine.

well if you can indicate consciousness outside of life, be my guest, but in the meantime consciousness is seen to be a contingent quality of life just as sunlight is seen to be a contingent quality of the sun

 

[Enmos]

well if you can indicate consciousness outside of life, be my guest, but in the meantime consciousness is seen to be a contingent quality of life just as sunlight is seen to be a contingent quality of the sun

Light, not sunlight.

 

[Enmos]

being permanently or irrevocably unconscious offers a good insight into the significance of death

So are you saying that such a person is not alive ?

 

[lightgigantic]

But not the other way around.

sure
what makes you think otherwise?

 

[lightgigantic]

So are you saying that such a person is not alive ?

if they are like that permanently and irrevocably, yes

 

[Enmos]

sure
what makes you think otherwise?

I misread...

Of course sunlight is a contingent quality of the sun.

To make an honest statement you have to use light, not sunlight. See my wine-alcohol explanation.

 

[Enmos]

if they are like that permanently and irrevocably, yes

 

[lightgigantic]

Light, not sunlight.

Its not clear what problems the wine-alcohol statement has. I mean if you can indicate any other sort of consciousness that is not contingent to life, be my guest, but I suspect that will also require you offering some sort of definition of life, which was an option that you guys were not particularly in favour of going ahead with.

 

[lightgigantic]

I misread...

Of course sunlight is a contingent quality of the sun.

To make an honest statement you have to use light, not sunlight. See my wine-alcohol explanation.

once again, if you can indicate any type of consciousness outside of that possessed by life, be my guest, but you will probably also require some definition of consciousness to boot

 

[Enmos]

Its not clear what problems the wine-alcohol statement has. I mean if you can indicate any other sort of consciousness that is not contingent to life, be my guest, but I suspect that will also require you offering some sort of definition of life, which was an option that you guys were not particularly in favour of going ahead with.

WTF !!

I'm done here.

 

[lightgigantic]

WTF !!

I'm done here.

whats the problem?
If wine-alcohol has a problem because other types of alcohol can be indicated, why does consciousness suffer the same problem when you are unable/unwilling to tenure any alternative source for consciousness?

 

[SnakeLord]

so does an opposite reduce the base rate or make it constant

There isn't an opposite of the base rate, merely changes to it. You even recognised this in your post 112:

"meaning only fools would not have a clear idea what the use of the word "nourishment" and "starvation" implies - provided they weren't in a perpetual state of starvation beforehand"

The fact that this persons base state is starvation means he would not recognise starvation if there is no negative change. If you stuff him full of food he will recognise nourishment in as much as it relates to that base. The reason of course is that 'starvation' means different things to different people dependant upon where their base is. A person that eats 10 main meals per day would probably consider 5 main meals a day as starvation. If you fed him 20 meals per day he would be no closer to understanding starvation.

actually I have experience of something like this
I was with an inspection crew that was going around in freezer yards constantly in about 5 degrees. They also had smaller one's maintained at about -10. After a few moments in one of those, the outside one's felt like the caribbean

What you're saying is that you recognised a change to your base rate of -5. You didn't recognise 'heat' because heat was nowhere in the equation unless you're using some damn dodgy meaning of the word heat which, given that it's you we're talking about, is more than likely.

so when he can contrast the two experiences, what prevents him from understanding heat exactly?

When there has been both a positive and negative change to the base.. nothing. But going in one direction from the base and then back to the base provides nothing but a change one way from the base.

well I guess illustrating the nature of heat used for cooking would require something else

According to your argument it would be best done by not cooking. You do claim the best way is to show the opposite remember?

it certainly is a valid explanation

"its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis" is a valid definition of consciousness? Give me a dictionary definition of consciousness that cocoon mush would fall under.

why is that fallacious?
can you indicate the sun without sunlight or sunlight without a sun?

You've made an error. Let me correct it for you in the context of what you said:

Every sun gives off light so therefore everything that gives off light is a sun.

In another way: Every bee has wings therefore everything with wings is a bee.

Basically your argument makes the presupposition that everything that is alive is conscious and in order to establish that you say that it must be conscious because it's alive, (yes, you incorrectly defined life as consciousness). It's a circular argument.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

so does an opposite reduce the base rate or make it constant
”
There isn't an opposite of the base rate, merely changes to it. You even recognised this in your post 112:

"meaning only fools would not have a clear idea what the use of the word "nourishment" and "starvation" implies - provided they weren't in a perpetual state of starvation beforehand"

The fact that this persons base state is starvation means he would not recognise starvation if there is no change. If you stuff him full of food he will recognise nourishment in as much as it relates to that base. The reason of course is that 'starvation' means different things to different people dependant upon where their base is. A person that eats 10 main meals per day would probably consider 5 main meals a day as starvation. If you fed him 20 meals per day he would be no closer to understanding starvation.

actually I was meaning starvation in the sense of not eating at all
IOW if a person is not eating, you can't indicate to them the nature of not eating since they are already doing that
:shrug:

“
actually I have experience of something like this
I was with an inspection crew that was going around in freezer yards constantly in about 5 degrees. They also had smaller one's maintained at about -10. After a few moments in one of those, the outside one's felt like the caribbean
”
What you're saying is that you recognised a change to your base rate of -5. You didn't recognise 'heat' because heat was nowhere in the equation unless you're using some damn dodgy meaning of the word heat which, given that it's you we're talking about, is more than likely.

erm - after entering the -10 freezer, I did feel warmer.
No matter what names you call me, you can't change that
:shrug:

“
so when he can contrast the two experiences, what prevents him from understanding heat exactly?
”
When there has been both a positive and negative change to the base.. nothing. But going in one direction from the base and then back to the base provides nothing but a change one way from the base.

if that was the case, a person would never be able to acclimatize to any changes in their environment

“
well I guess illustrating the nature of heat used for cooking would require something else
”
According to your argument it would be best done by not cooking. You do claim the best way is to show the opposite remember?

Once again, I never advocated it was the only suitable option for definition for all circumstances.
I just indicated how it could be a valid one in a particular circumstance.

“
it certainly is a valid explanation
”
"its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis" is a valid definition of consciousness? Give me a dictionary definition of consciousness that cocoon mush would fall under.

sure
compare it to cocoon mush that is totally bereft of the possibility of giving rise to a moth and get back to us with the results

“
why is that fallacious?
can you indicate the sun without sunlight or sunlight without a sun?
”
You've made an error. Let me correct it for you in the context of what you said:

Every sun gives off light so therefore everything that gives off light is a sun.

if you want to correct my errors please don't re-invent my language - I used the word "sunlight" for very good reasons

if you want to argue that there are different types of consciousness (some not dependent on life) just like there are different types of light (some not dependent on the sun) then feel free to indicate them.
Be warned that you may require to offer a definition of consciousness, which for some reason you were totally reluctant to offer

 

[SnakeLord]

actually I was meaning starvation in the sense of not eating at all

As stated, everyone has a different base. To the man that eats 10 meals a day starvation would be slightly more than nothing.

erm - after entering the -10 freezer, I did feel warmer.

You felt warmer after entering the colder freezer? :bugeye: O...k. However, feeling less cold than you were a moment ago does not equate to knowledge of "heat".

Once again, I never advocated it was the only suitable option for definition for all circumstances.

But you did say it was the easiest method. In saying, the easiest way to understand cooking is to not cook.

compare it to cocoon mush that is totally bereft of the possibility of giving rise to a moth and get back to us with the results

The same presupposition all over again.

if you want to correct my errors please don't re-invent my language - I used the word "sunlight" for very good reasons

Yes but your sunlight statement was inaccurate so I corrected it. It's about the presupposition and the following circular nature. That was not present in your sunlight statement but is present in your consciousness one and that is easily seen with your claim that "life=consciousness".

if you want to argue that there are different types of consciousness (some not dependent on life)

What are you talking about lol? You state that all life is conscious and try to support that by saying it's conscious because it's alive. When you're called on it you waffle on with this weird nonsense, oh and this nonsense:

Be warned that you may require to offer a definition of consciousness, which for some reason you were totally reluctant to offer

Dude, let's get this straight.. I had to ask you around 20 times to define life. When you finally got the guts you defined life as consciousness (which is wrong but nm). You were then asked by Enmos to define consciousness which you then defined as life, (you worded it not-death which is the same thing). Your entire argument is one gigantic circle of nonsense. Now, I have not been reluctant to offer anything, I have simply not been asked. Ask me to define consciousness and I will. So, in summary.. if anyone can be accused of being "totally reluctant" it is you that wasted 3 pages with non-answers.

What, given [valid] definition of consciousness does cocoon mush fall under?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

actually I was meaning starvation in the sense of not eating at all
”
As stated, everyone has a different base. To the man that eats 10 meals a day starvation would be slightly more than nothing.

once again, upping the ante on a person who is not eating doesn't amount to much

“
erm - after entering the -10 freezer, I did feel warmer.
”
You felt warmer after entering the colder freezer? O...k. However, feeling less cold than you were a moment ago does not equate to knowledge of "heat".

once again, I did come to appreciate the warmth of the standard freezer.
There was even one guy working who got around in a pair of pants and a t-shirt. Perhaps you should have gone there and explained to him how he wasn't feeling warm.
:shrug:

“
Once again, I never advocated it was the only suitable option for definition for all circumstances.
”
But you did say it was the easiest method. In saying, the easiest way to understand cooking is to not cook.

easiest in a certain circumstance
it still appears to remain valid, despite you trying to tell me that my experiences and the experiences of others in cool rooms is not valid ....

“
if you want to correct my errors please don't re-invent my language - I used the word "sunlight" for very good reasons
”
Yes but your sunlight statement was inaccurate so I corrected it.

sunlight is not unique?

It's about the presupposition and the following circular nature. That was not present in your sunlight statement but is present in your consciousness one and that is easily seen with your claim that "life=consciousness".

once again
rather than reinvent my language, just indicate a conscious source that is not based on life, then you can justify changing the word 'sunlight' to 'light'

“
if you want to argue that there are different types of consciousness (some not dependent on life)
”
What are you talking about lol? You state that all life is conscious and try to support that by saying it's conscious because it's alive. When you're called on it you waffle on with this weird nonsense, oh and this nonsense:

you state that 'sunlight' is not accurate because there are other varieties of light that come from the sun.
I'm just asking you to deliver the goods of your poetic license by indicating what other forms of consciousness you have in mind, since you seem to be feeling that attributing consciousness to life doesn't cater for all varieties of consciousness

“
Be warned that you may require to offer a definition of consciousness, which for some reason you were totally reluctant to offer
”
Dude, let's get this straight.. I had to ask you around 20 times to define life.

to which I offered - find a dead thing, compare it to a live thing, and get back to us with the results

When you finally got the guts you defined life as consciousness (which is wrong but nm)

did you come to a different conclusion from your results?

. You were then asked by Enmos to define consciousness which you then defined as life, (you worded it not-death which is the same thing).

actually it was that consciousness is a symptom of life

Your entire argument is one gigantic circle of nonsense. Now, I have not been reluctant to offer anything, I have simply not been asked. Ask me to define consciousness and I will. So, in summary.. if anyone can be accused of being "totally reluctant" it is you that wasted 3 pages with non-answers.

on the contrary you are trying to write off the sunlight to the sun/consciousness to life analogy by declaring there are other varieties of light. If you don't want to carry that through and indicate other varieties of consciousness, why are your queries valid?
Why must I use 'light' instead of 'sunlight'?

What, given [valid] definition of consciousness does cocoon mush fall under?

once again, compare it to cocoon mush that has no scope for metamorphism and get back to us with the results already
:shrug: