Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Oh? So some biology textbook has proven consciousness to be physical?

*flabbergasted*

Of course you havent!

Where does the OP mention consciousness?
Like I said, you've ne real interest. Troll someone who cares.

Consciousness = having experiences. The OP is about sensory experiences.

So do you go for option A or B? Or if you claim the issue has already been resolved by biology, can you provide a quote?

Sure. Here's a quote for you.

You come here asking for teaching, but your cup is full; I can't put anything in. Before I can teach you, you'll have to empty your cup.

Heres another one "You tried to mess with the wrong one, and got pwned. Justice is sweet".

pl0bs wrote:Yet here you are, thinking and talking about the different senses you have (btw look up synestesia).

Something tells me that this point of reasoning isn't going to end well for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

My bold

Synesthesia (also spelled synæsthesia or synaesthesia; from the Ancient Greek σύν syn, "together", and αἴσθησις aisthēsis, "sensation") is a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.[1][2][3][4] People who report such experiences are known as synesthetes.

ETA plobs quote for accuracy because Tapatalk.

felltoearth wrote:Something tells me that this point of reasoning isn't going to end well for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

My bold

Synesthesia (also spelled synæsthesia or synaesthesia; from the Ancient Greek σύν syn, "together", and αἴσθησις aisthēsis, "sensation") is a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.[1][2][3][4] People who report such experiences are known as synesthetes.

It just ended perfectly for me.

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Something tells me that this point of reasoning isn't going to end well for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

My bold

Synesthesia (also spelled synæsthesia or synaesthesia; from the Ancient Greek σύν syn, "together", and αἴσθησις aisthēsis, "sensation") is a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.[1][2][3][4] People who report such experiences are known as synesthetes.

It just ended perfectly for me.

How so. Explain your understanding of synesthesia and how it supports the op, and why it's a rare phenomenon in human minds.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:Are you looking for a philosophical answer to a biological question? Does this need to be moved to the biology sub-forum?
Otherwise state your intentions here clearly. I'm not playing any games.

Btw, it looks like you misread the topic. Its about the senses (the experiences), whereas you probably assumed it was purely about the biological sensory organs.

What's the difference?

felltoearth wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Something tells me that this point of reasoning isn't going to end well for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

My bold

Synesthesia (also spelled synæsthesia or synaesthesia; from the Ancient Greek σύν syn, "together", and αἴσθησις aisthēsis, "sensation") is a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.[1][2][3][4] People who report such experiences are known as synesthetes.

It just ended perfectly for me.

How so. Explain your understanding of synesthesia and how it supports the op, and why it's a rare phenomenon in human minds.

The OP is a question, what do you mean to support it?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:Are you looking for a philosophical answer to a biological question? Does this need to be moved to the biology sub-forum?
Otherwise state your intentions here clearly. I'm not playing any games.

Btw, it looks like you misread the topic. Its about the senses (the experiences), whereas you probably assumed it was purely about the biological sensory organs.

What's the difference?

Between physical and experiental? They have virtually no similarities.

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Something tells me that this point of reasoning isn't going to end well for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

My bold

It just ended perfectly for me.

How so. Explain your understanding of synesthesia and how it supports the op, and why it's a rare phenomenon in human minds.

The OP is a question, what do you mean to support it?

For the concept of synesthesia to exist it requires that senses are indeed separate phenomena. I thought that would be obvious.

Unfortunately reason won't work here, because of how Pl0bs approaches any given subject.

1 - Pl0bs makes a statement that he thinks is unerringly correct.
2 - People disagree with the statement.
3 - But Pl0bs thinks he is unerringly correct.
4 - Therefore Pl0bs has PWN'd you.

Repeat, ad nausem, for every subject on which Pl0bs post.

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:Are you looking for a philosophical answer to a biological question? Does this need to be moved to the biology sub-forum?
Otherwise state your intentions here clearly. I'm not playing any games.

Btw, it looks like you misread the topic. Its about the senses (the experiences), whereas you probably assumed it was purely about the biological sensory organs.

What's the difference?

Between physical and experiental? They have virtually no similarities.

Seem the same to me.

That pl0bs repeatedly trots out pwned, a failure to spell owned, whenever he trots out an "idea" that fails to make any sense, will never cease to be amusing.

felltoearth wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

pl0bs wrote:It just ended perfectly for me.

How so. Explain your understanding of synesthesia and how it supports the op, and why it's a rare phenomenon in human minds.

The OP is a question, what do you mean to support it?

For the concept of synesthesia to exist it requires that senses are indeed separate phenomena. I thought that would be obvious.

Not sure what constitutes a seperate phenomenon, but do you think synesthesia supports option A, or B? Or neither?

Sendraks wrote:Unfortunately reason won't work here, because of how Pl0bs approaches any given subject.

1 - Pl0bs makes a statement that he thinks is unerringly correct.
2 - People disagree with the statement.
3 - But Pl0bs thinks he is unerringly correct.
4 - Therefore Pl0bs has PWN'd you.

Repeat, ad nausem, for every subject on which Pl0bs post.

Or:

1. Pl0bs asks a simple question.
2. Because the horde here knows pl0bs is not a materialist, they will troll and disagree with everything pl0bs says, even though pl0bs is just following cold hard logic and by now it should be clear pl0bs doesnt care if the horde wont befriend him.
3. Pl0bs pwns the horde once again.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Btw, it looks like you misread the topic. Its about the senses (the experiences), whereas you probably assumed it was purely about the biological sensory organs.

What's the difference?

Between physical and experiental? They have virtually no similarities.

Seem the same to me.

Examples?

pl0bs wrote:

Sendraks wrote:Unfortunately reason won't work here, because of how Pl0bs approaches any given subject.

1 - Pl0bs makes a statement that he thinks is unerringly correct.
2 - People disagree with the statement.
3 - But Pl0bs thinks he is unerringly correct.
4 - Therefore Pl0bs has PWN'd you.

Repeat, ad nausem, for every subject on which Pl0bs post.

Or:

1. Pl0bs asks a simple question.
2. Because the horde here knows pl0bs is not a materialist, they will troll and disagree with everything pl0bs says, even though pl0bs is just following cold hard logic and by now it should be clear pl0bs doesnt care if the horde wont befriend him.
3. Pl0bs pwns the horde once again.

Or:

1. pl0bs asks a predictably loaded question that doesn't make any sense.
2. pl0bs plays innocent despite his tedious, obvious ploy, trotting out the martyr card as soon as possible.
3. pl0bs performs exactly what I pointed out a couple posts ago, to the amusement of everyone.

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

How so. Explain your understanding of synesthesia and how it supports the op, and why it's a rare phenomenon in human minds.

The OP is a question, what do you mean to support it?

For the concept of synesthesia to exist it requires that senses are indeed separate phenomena. I thought that would be obvious.

Not sure what constitutes a seperate phenomenon, but do you think synesthesia supports option A, or B? Or neither?

You introduced both the OP and synesthesia into the mix. You tell me.

SafeAsMilk wrote:3. pl0bs performs exactly what I pointed out a couple posts ago, to the amusement of everyone.

^this.

It's Friday Eve; time for a beer folks.

It's Thursday. I think you've already had too many

Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately? pl0bs frequently asserts that consciousness is experiences so we can rewrite as: Did our consciousness originate separately? and ask, "Separately from what?"

In a related topic, we got this:

pl0bs wrote:Heres my position:

- we experience the world around us and this set of experiences is also known as consciousness

This gets repeated a lot so it must be true. However, it does allow the following clarifying rewrite...

- the experiences have consciousness has causal power or they it and our sense organs could not have evolved

In other words, consciousness and sense organs could not have evolved without consciousness. Circular reasoning is circular and error-prone.

Here is pl0bs' “position”, aka Option C for the op: assertion + circular reasoning => word salad.

A beer with salad?