GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Sure, english labels are done only by english speaking minds, but labeling in general is a more abstract principle, like representations and illusions, which are stacked on top of eachother over and over again. Similarly, the human mind is just one illusion stacked ontop of the other, on top of other ones, etc.

That is good! Human consciousness is an illusion. product of quantitative 'labelling'.
It's shame you based all your bollox on an stack of illusory labels.

Illusions require C. Simple C is at the bottom of the stack.

tolman wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Actually, they are fully accounted for by quantities of particles, forces, spacetime. If you think they consist of something other than that, please explain to the scientific community what that other thing is.

Particular arrangements aren't accounted for by 'a quantity of spacetime', so every time you regurgitate your mantra about spacetime, you are simply displaying your ignorance.

They sure are fully accounted for by quantities of particles, forces, spacetime. What else do you think they consist of? Little bigfoots?

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:A label is a pattern that matches some other pattern. An identifier. A molecular bond - a quantitative a of energy/space-time - is a pattern that identifies another pattern. No 'C' required.

So lets take a random rock. What does it identify? Does it know it identifies something else?

Good question! You claim 'simple C' 'labels'. Does a rock have 'simple C'? If so, what does a rock label?

How should i know? Do you know what a bat experiences?

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:A label is a pattern that matches some other pattern. An identifier. A molecular bond - a quantitative a of energy/space-time - is a pattern that identifies another pattern. No 'C' required.

So lets take a random rock. What does it identify? Does it know it identifies something else?

Good question! You claim 'simple C' 'labels'. Does a rock have 'simple C'? If so, what does a rock label?

How should i know? Do you know what a bat experiences?

Yet you are quite sure that rocks label things? And you ask me, who makes no such claim, what a rock 'identifies'?

The attempt to play the Galileo Gambit and suggest people are frightened by the idea exposes the pointlessness at the heart of the issue.

Even if everyone were to humour plobs and pretend to take him seriously, it would make no difference.
If people adopted the idea that 'C' is universal and magically inherent in all matter (despite not being a fundamental property, and despite not showing the slightest sign of existence in other than fairly rare situations), that would make 'C' itself essentially dull and uninteresting.
What would be interesting in that scenario would be trying to understand why only some things seemed to have some nonzero level of 'apparent consciousness', which would be exactly the same as someone currently trying to understand why only some things seem to have some nonzero amount of 'consciousness'.

Just like the most moronic of amateur philosophy, what is actually being suggested is effectively a futile renaming exercise masquerading as insight.
Or, at least, possibly masquerading as insight to a sufficiently retarded audience.
An audience which, it seems clear, is, among other things, not here.

pl0bs wrote:

newolder wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

newolder wrote:
You only brought in the idea of labelling at complex C (check your own posts). Prior to that there was no labelling nor mention of labels.

I never said simple C doesnt label.

Nor have you demonstrated that it does.

Pwned.

As i said, labeling is a more general principle of representations: you see something, attach a label to it, and the label represents the thing you saw.

Where did you say simple C = you? Oh, that's right you didn't, you said complex C = you.

Indeed i didnt say that, just like you didnt say that dolphins exist on mars.

Why do you get so defensive? Perhaps you are simple C.

pl0bs is just a stack of illusions (according to pl0bs)

GrahamH wrote:pl0bs is just a stack of illusions (according to pl0bs)

I'm not sure pl0bs has said it is human, yet.

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Sure, english labels are done only by english speaking minds, but labeling in general is a more abstract principle, like representations and illusions, which are stacked on top of eachother over and over again. Similarly, the human mind is just one illusion stacked ontop of the other, on top of other ones, etc.

That is good! Human consciousness is an illusion. product of quantitative 'labelling'.
It's shame you based all your bollox on an stack of illusory labels.

Illusions require C. Simple C is at the bottom of the stack.

Simple C is favourite, hitherto.
(It would go some way towards explaining the incoherence of its posts.)

newolder wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

newolder wrote:

pl0bs wrote:I never said simple C doesnt label.

Nor have you demonstrated that it does.

Pwned.

As i said, labeling is a more general principle of representations: you see something, attach a label to it, and the label represents the thing you saw.

Where did you say simple C = you? Oh, that's right you didn't, you said complex C = you.

Indeed i didnt say that, just like you didnt say that dolphins exist on mars.

Why do you get so defensive? Perhaps you are simple C.

Pwned is defensive? Pwned.

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:So lets take a random rock. What does it identify? Does it know it identifies something else?

Good question! You claim 'simple C' 'labels'. Does a rock have 'simple C'? If so, what does a rock label?

How should i know? Do you know what a bat experiences?

Yet you are quite sure that rocks label things? And you ask me, who makes no such claim, what a rock 'identifies'?

You think rocks identify things no?

tolman wrote:What would be interesting in that scenario would be trying to understand why only some things seemed to have some nonzero level of 'apparent consciousness', which would be exactly the same as someone currently trying to understand why only some things seem to have some nonzero amount of 'consciousness'

What do you mean with "apparent"?

Btw, i think what you are saying actually entails that my idea fits with all of known science (including neuroscience).

My idea is of C is more natural than the ones which are based on emergence, since emergence doesnt happen anywhere in nature.

pl0bs wrote:Illusions require C.

Can you justify that?

'Conscious illusions' 'require C', but any false identification can be called 'illusion'. If something other than smoke sets of your smoke detector, an entirely quantitative event, that can be classed as 'illusory smoke'. It's just 'mislabelling' of some sort/
[/quote]

pl0bs wrote:

newolder wrote:...
Why do you get so defensive? Perhaps you are simple C.

Pwned is defensive? Pwned.

It's easy to imagine how simple C would get stuck in such a recursive loop. Are you simple C?

newolder wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

newolder wrote:...
Why do you get so defensive? Perhaps you are simple C.

Pwned is defensive? Pwned.

It's easy to imagine how simple C would get stuck in such a recursive loop. Are you simple C?

I am simple C complexified.

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Illusions require C.

Can you justify that?

'Conscious illusions' 'require C', but any false identification can be called 'illusion'. If something other than smoke sets of your smoke detector, an entirely quantitative event, that can be classed as 'illusory smoke'. It's just 'mislabelling' of some sort/

Classed by who?

The smoke detector just interacts with the particles. It doesnt say "you PARTICLE! you are a LIAR!".

pl0bs wrote:

tolman wrote:What would be interesting in that scenario would be trying to understand why only some things seemed to have some nonzero level of 'apparent consciousness', which would be exactly the same as someone currently trying to understand why only some things seem to have some nonzero amount of 'consciousness'

What do you mean with "apparent"?

'Apparent consciousness' in your mind-world would be what normal people currently call 'consciousness'.

pl0bs wrote:Btw, i think what you are saying actually entails that my idea fits with all of known science (including neuroscience).

In the sense that what you say is entirely irrelevant and just a moronic and futile relabelling exercise, it certainly doesn't affect anything.
It neither overturns anything nor provides any new insight, as one might expect from a dim renaming exercise.

pl0bs wrote:My idea is of C is more natural than the ones which are based on emergence, since emergence doesnt happen anywhere in nature.

If everyone tried to humour you and pretend there was no such thing as 'emergence', they'd simply have to come up with another name for the process by which things that people currently call properties of things* are apparently present in some things but not present in others.
And if everyone humoured you and pretended there were no such things as 'properties' beyond some fundamental ones**, they'd simply have to come up with another name for the 'property-like features' they currently call properties.

Again, another entirely futile exercise in renaming, as believed of clueless amateur metaphysicians who want to pretend insight while actually doing nothing of value.

(*It is, of course, irrelevant that such things are ultimately the result of highly complex interactions of fundamental particles including much nonlinear and possibly much chaotic behaviour)

(**It is also obvious that had you been wibbling a century ago, the particles and their properties you thought 'fundamental' and comprehensive would actually have turned out not to be fundamental or comprehensive, merely 'apparently' so. Just as potentially may be the case now if viewed with hindsight in another century. Yet you are prepared to declare current fundamental particles and their properties 'exist', just as you would have done a century ago.)

pl0bs wrote:...
I am simple C complexified.

Good for you. After you've grown up passed the incoherent, "pwnage" stage of complexification maybe you'll emerge as human. Who can tell? Come back in 5 years time and we'll see how you are getting on.

If a scientist were to try to measure simple C, how would they go about doing that? If it can't be measured, why is that? Is there an equation that can be used to calculate the quantity of simple C by plugging in measured values of other things?

tolman wrote:'Apparent consciousness' in your mind-world would be what normal people currently call 'consciousness'.

So you decided to rebrand consciousness as "apparent consciousness". You are truly (d)evolving into a splendid philosopher.

If everyone tried to humour you and pretend there was no such thing as 'emergence', they'd simply have to come up with another name for the process by which things that people currently call properties of things* are apparently present in some things but not present in others.
And if everyone humoured you and pretended there were no such things as 'properties' beyond some fundamental ones**, they'd simply have to come up with another name for the 'property-like features' they currently call properties.

The scientific world has been humouring me by calling it "physics".

(**It is also obvious that had you been wibbling a century ago, the particles and their properties you thought 'fundamental' and comprehensive would actually have turned out not to be fundamental or comprehensive, merely 'apparently' so. Just as potentially may be the case now if viewed with hindsight in another century. Yet you are prepared to declare current fundamental particles and their properties 'exist', just as you would have done a century ago.)

Yubs, thats the beauty of science, it keeps improving its knowledge.

psēlaphaō wrote:If a scientist were to try to measure simple C, how would they go about doing that? If it can't be measured, why is that? Is there an equation that can be used to calculate the quantity of simple C by plugging in measured values of other things?

They cant even measure complex (human) C.