pl0bs wrote:

ADParker wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

So you claim that ADParker and life are just quantities of PFST, but consciousness is not. Why? Beats me.

ADparker and life are arbitrary labels. Im fine if C is also just an arbitrary label. Problem for you is that arbitrary labels require consciousness in the first place, so consciousness remains intact. Simple, flawless logic.

So it is that semantic bullshit that thought it was way back.

Consciousness has to be fundamental because the LABEL "consciousness" requires consciousness? That is fucking stupid, laughably stupid!

Take your pick:

(1) consciousness is a quantity of PFST
(2) consciousness is just a label given to a quantity of PFST

If (1), then a quantity of C (aka PFST) has been around since the big bang
If (2), then the existence of C depends on some other C giving it a label

How about the existence of the label "C" depends on some other C giving it a label.
Otherwise this is as idiotic as claiming that the existence of grass depends on some consciousness to give it the label "grass".

By the way: trivializing it to just a "quantity of PFST" is fucking stupid as well.

pl0bs wrote:ADparker: fail
Pl0bs: win

I always laugh at how impressed you are with yourself.

Xaihe wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Xaihe wrote:

pl0bs wrote:And thats been happening since the big bang?

Warning: impending pwnage.

Happening doesn't exist. That is just a part of PFST. Impending implies a flawed view of PFST. Time is not something by itself. It's part of PFST.

Congrats youve learned well

So have you. You have finally learned that C doesn't exist. /thread

Burn.

pl0bs wrote:]But the burden is upon you, not me. Im simply being skeptical of paranormal claims.

So it's back to this poisoning the well claptrap again is it?

ADParker wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

ADParker wrote:

pl0bs wrote:
ADparker and life are arbitrary labels. Im fine if C is also just an arbitrary label. Problem for you is that arbitrary labels require consciousness in the first place, so consciousness remains intact. Simple, flawless logic.

So it is that semantic bullshit that thought it was way back.

Consciousness has to be fundamental because the LABEL "consciousness" requires consciousness? That is fucking stupid, laughably stupid!

Take your pick:

(1) consciousness is a quantity of PFST
(2) consciousness is just a label given to a quantity of PFST

If (1), then a quantity of C (aka PFST) has been around since the big bang
If (2), then the existence of C depends on some other C giving it a label

How about the existence of the label "C" depends on some other C giving it a label.
Otherwise this is as idiotic as claiming that the existence of grass depends on some consciousness to give it the label "grass".

Labeling is a conscious activity, and thus cannot be put forth as a materialist (non-C) origin of C.

By the way: trivializing it to just a "quantity of PFST" is fucking stupid as well.

Its genious.

pl0bs wrote:Labeling is a conscious activity, and thus cannot be put forth as a materialist (non-C) origin of C.

Why? How do you know that?

ADParker wrote:

pl0bs wrote:But the burden is upon you, not me. Im simply being skeptical of paranormal claims.

So it's back to this poisoning the well claptrap again is it?

Look its simple: many ppl have the undying faith that C originates in brains. Its been ingrained into their minds from birth and, like religion, is never doubted for a second. Also like religion, its a brand of supernaturalism. After all, emergence does not happen in nature, so how would C have emerged in brains? The burden is upon them.

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Labeling is a conscious activity, and thus cannot be put forth as a materialist (non-C) origin of C.

Why? How do you know that?

Which part?

Sendraks wrote:

pl0bs wrote:. Im simply being skeptical of paranormal claims.

Claiming that consciousness exists independently of the brain is paranormal. It is superstitious theist claptrap, which you cannot back up with evidence and so continue to shift the burden of proof.

Your intiution is speaking here, not your rational mind.

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:You mean that the quantities of PFST can differ?

Ah, so you mean humans do not arbitrarily label all quantities of PFST as "eels". Counterargument from pl0bs: im pretty sure i can find a human who will label all PFST as eels.

Why attach so much value to the psychological inclinations of some humans?

It doesn't matter if they call all PFST eels, not all PFST are eels.

Nice evasion on your main failure.

When is something an eel?

When it's an eel.

Circular reasoning.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:
It doesn't matter if they call all PFST eels, not all PFST are eels.

Nice evasion on your main failure.

When is something an eel?

When it's an eel.

Circular reasoning.

No it's not. An eel, as I define it, is a very specific grouping of fish. It's not a dog.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Labeling is a conscious activity, and thus cannot be put forth as a materialist (non-C) origin of C.

Why? How do you know that?

Which part?

You only wrote one sentence. All of it.

pl0bs wrote:

ADParker wrote:

pl0bs wrote:But the burden is upon you, not me. Im simply being skeptical of paranormal claims.

So it's back to this poisoning the well claptrap again is it?

Look its simple: many ppl have the undying faith that metabolism originates in cells. Its been ingrained into their minds from birth and, like religion, is never doubted for a second. Also like religion, its a brand of supernaturalism. After all, emergence does not happen in nature, so how would metabolism have emerged in cells? The burden is upon them.

FIFY

So there were cells metabolising at the Big Bang, right plobs?
Or is it that metabolism is a fundamental property like electric charge?
Or is it that metabolism is 'just a label', a pure abstract that has nothing to do with reality?
Or is it that pl0bs has been posting shit since before this forum began?

I think I understand now why everything pl0bs says is incoherent. He doesn't know what an eel is, even though he used an example of an electric eel previously, even showing a picture of one. I thought when he used the example he was speaking about a very specific thing, but now I realise he could be talking about literally anything, from a single particle to the entire cosmos! It's no wonder he seems to keep contradicting himself because he doesn't see discrete objects, just soup. C can be a quantity of something, or it can be a fundamental. Electrons can evolve, and their evolution can be denied. Losing can mean winning.

I don't think I can trust that anything he says can mean what I would think it means based on the standard English I use. Words, labels, are just slapped arbitrarily on everything and any word he uses can mean different things in different sentences. Even a word repeated in a sentence can mean two different things. It's like Alice talking to Humpty Dumpty.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:
It doesn't matter if they call all PFST eels, not all PFST are eels.

Nice evasion on your main failure.

When is something an eel?

When it's an eel.

Circular reasoning.

Technically it's just a tautology.

Teuton wrote:

pl0bs wrote:I've enlarged the text above where faulty reasoning begins. Ultimately its a string of assumptions, leading all the way back to what is the correlate of consciousness (which is undetectable). People tend to then just move on to their intuitions "oh plants couldnt possibly have experiences", and that settles it for them. Unfortunately the result is the mind/body problem.

First of all, I notice that you really tend to evade all objections. Why don't you tell me anything about how elementary particles could sense anything?!

That's because he has nothing more than an argument against hard emergence. He doesn't actually have anything to replace the boogeyman reductionist materialist he's arguing against. As has been shown many many times now.

Materialism fails to account for how subatomic interactions can lead to qualitatively new properties of matter (as he argues consciousness is), therefore, he argues, it must be a fundamental property. But simply moving C from some higher-order emergent phenomenon to a fundamental level does not account for it either.

He's complaining that C is unexplained on materialism. But it's also unexplained on his substitute explanation. There it just exists inexplicably and fundamentally, for no apparent reason, and it's apparent workings are not explained at all.

What's even worse, it is not at all analogous to his favorite example of electric charge, because electric charge is directly measurable.

pl0bs wrote:Labeling is a conscious activity, and thus cannot be put forth as a materialist (non-C) origin of C.

You think that someone (anyone) is putting forward the labeling of C as the origin of C?!

pl0bs wrote:

By the way: trivializing it to just a "quantity of PFST" is fucking stupid as well.

Its genious.

It certainly is!

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

ADParker wrote:

pl0bs wrote:But the burden is upon you, not me. Im simply being skeptical of paranormal claims.

So it's back to this poisoning the well claptrap again is it?

Look its simple: many ppl have the undying faith that metabolism originates in cells. Its been ingrained into their minds from birth and, like religion, is never doubted for a second. Also like religion, its a brand of supernaturalism. After all, emergence does not happen in nature, so how would metabolism have emerged in cells? The burden is upon them.

FIFY

So there were cells metabolising at the Big Bang, right plobs?
Or is it that metabolism is a fundamental property like electric charge?
Or is it that metabolism is 'just a label', a pure abstract that has nothing to do with reality?
Or is it that pl0bs has been posting shit since before this forum began?

When you talk about "metabolising", do you mean the quantity of PFST of which that consists? If no, what else? If yes, then of course a quantity of PFST has been around since the big bang. Most humans just dont label that "metabolising", but im sure someone will gladly call it just that (in other words, the label is irrelevant).

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

ADParker wrote:
So it's back to this poisoning the well claptrap again is it?

Look its simple: many ppl have the undying faith that metabolism originates in cells. Its been ingrained into their minds from birth and, like religion, is never doubted for a second. Also like religion, its a brand of supernaturalism. After all, emergence does not happen in nature, so how would metabolism have emerged in cells? The burden is upon them.

FIFY

So there were cells metabolising at the Big Bang, right plobs?
Or is it that metabolism is a fundamental property like electric charge?
Or is it that metabolism is 'just a label', a pure abstract that has nothing to do with reality?
Or is it that pl0bs has been posting shit since before this forum began?

When you talk about "metabolising", do you mean the quantity of PFST of which that consists? If no, what else? If yes, then of course a quantity of PFST has been around since the big bang. Most humans just dont label that "metabolising", but im sure someone will gladly call it just that (in other words, the label is irrelevant).

QED.

Rumraket wrote:

Teuton wrote:

pl0bs wrote:I've enlarged the text above where faulty reasoning begins. Ultimately its a string of assumptions, leading all the way back to what is the correlate of consciousness (which is undetectable). People tend to then just move on to their intuitions "oh plants couldnt possibly have experiences", and that settles it for them. Unfortunately the result is the mind/body problem.

First of all, I notice that you really tend to evade all objections. Why don't you tell me anything about how elementary particles could sense anything?!

That's because he has nothing more than an argument against hard emergence. He doesn't actually have anything to replace the boogeyman reductionist materialist he's arguing against. As has been shown many many times now.

Materialism fails to account for how subatomic interactions can lead to qualitatively new properties of matter (as he argues consciousness is), therefore, he argues, it must be a fundamental property. But simply moving C from some higher-order emergent phenomenon to a fundamental level does not account for it either.

He's complaining that C is unexplained on materialism. But it's also unexplained on his substitute explanation. There it just exists inexplicably and fundamentally, for no apparent reason, and it's apparent workings are not explained at all.

What's even worse, it is not at all analogous to his favorite example of electric charge, because electric charge is directly measurable.

Just because C isnt limited to brains, is no reason to throw the towel in the ring. In fact, it might open the door to much greater knowledge and insights about C. Just look at electric charge: do you think science would have progressed by assuming that it exists only in electric eels?

"Consciousness is a higher order emergent phenomenon" = "we humans are so special that we can break the laws of nature"