Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Both are a bunch of particles moving about, just different quantities.

You can give them different names, but its still just motion. Ever heard of the phrase "swing a rope fast enough and it'll go conscious"? Google it.

Nah, don't need to. You're talking shit.

There is no new "walking"-force inside legs. But at least youve made peter pan proud of you.

You don't explain why walking doesn't need and extra force to explain it but the workings of the brain does (C)!

Yubs! I think you just pwned yourself!

Cue the goalpost shifting.

Are the goalposts jet propelled or do they walk when they move?

Onyx8 wrote:Are the goalposts jet propelled or do they walk when they move?

It doesn't matter. It's all just "shifting force".

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Both are a bunch of particles moving about, just different quantities.

You can give them different names, but its still just motion. Ever heard of the phrase "swing a rope fast enough and it'll go conscious"? Google it.

Nah, don't need to. You're talking shit.

There is no new "walking"-force inside legs. But at least youve made peter pan proud of you.

You don't explain why walking doesn't need and extra force to explain it but the workings of the brain does (C)!

Yubs! I think you just pwned yourself!

You guys are the ones saying the brain has an extra force (C) that rocks do not.

You know what im going to say, so im not going to say it: (pwned)

felltoearth wrote:If it's all just particles and there's no difference, how about you give a 100 for this 5 dollar bill?

Quantitative differences.

2 apples is different from 3 apples. You think its rational that 3 apples are conscious, but 2 are not? The only difference is 1 apple. Where did the difference in conscious state come from?

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Nah, don't need to. You're talking shit.

There is no new "walking"-force inside legs. But at least youve made peter pan proud of you.

You don't explain why walking doesn't need and extra force to explain it but the workings of the brain does (C)!

Yubs! I think you just pwned yourself!

You guys are the ones saying the brain has an extra force (C) that rocks do not.

You know what im going to say, so im not going to say it: (pwned)

Nope. We're not saying that at all. The physical view is that the mechanical functioning of the brain can be possibly be described by known, physical laws and forces. Not that any extra force appears.

Is this what you really thought all along? That we were suggesting positing an extra force which materialises somehow to describe the brain's function?

Oh you precious little button. No wonder you've been arguing so wrongheadedly all this time.

No, pl0bs. Only you are positing some extra, undetectable force to describe how the brain works.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Nah, don't need to. You're talking shit.

There is no new "walking"-force inside legs. But at least youve made peter pan proud of you.

You don't explain why walking doesn't need and extra force to explain it but the workings of the brain does (C)!

Yubs! I think you just pwned yourself!

You guys are the ones saying the brain has an extra force (C) that rocks do not.

You know what im going to say, so im not going to say it: (pwned)

Pl0bs, C is not some "extra force", it is one result of the functioning of a very lage neural net, which makes up much of our brain.

pl0bs wrote:You guys are the ones saying the brain has an extra force (C) that rocks do not.

No, no one is saying that. You know that no one is saying that, so stop lying. Admittedly your posting behaviour here suggests you may find that difficult, but give it a try.

chairman bill wrote:

pl0bs wrote:You guys are the ones saying the brain has an extra force (C) that rocks do not.

No, no one is saying that. You know that no one is saying that, so stop lying. Admittedly your posting behaviour here suggests you may find that difficult, but give it a try.

He understands the concept perfectly when it comes to things which aren't the brain -

pl0bs wrote:There is no new "walking"-force inside legs. But at least youve made peter pan proud of you.

So he says there's no new 'walking' force inside the legs to explain walking, he thinks this is absurd by the sound of it, and so do we; but he doesn't think it's absurd to inject a new 'consciousness' force, 'C', inside the brain to explain consciousness.

Yubs! He has contradicted himself. Or, in pl0bsian terms, he has pwned himself.

Game over, man.

... Anyway, on the subject of "Multiple consciousnesses in one body", I remember the case of one person with a severed corpus callosum (the neural structure linking the two hemispheres of the brain). He/she had arguments with his/herself! Having said that, the only cases of severed corpus callosum I can find on the internet at the moment mention only such effects as epileptic seizures.

Here's described a person who had an atheist and a theist within him after a severing of the corpus callosum..

Animavore wrote:Here's described a person who had an atheist and a theist within him after a severing of the corpus callosum..

Superb find, Ani! Thanks!

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:If it's all just particles and there's no difference, how about you give a 100 for this 5 dollar bill?

Quantitative differences.

2 apples is different from 3 apples. You think its rational that 3 apples are conscious, but 2 are not? The only difference is 1 apple. Where did the difference in conscious state come from?

No. There is in fact no real material quantities difference. For all intents and purposes the bills are materially the same. Wherein then does the difference reside? Where is the "force" that makes a 5 dollar bill different from a 100 dollar bill.

pl0bs wrote:Space began.

It is unknown whether it did. The Big Bang theory doesn't entail that the Big Bang is the absolute beginning of space and time.

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:There is no new "walking"-force inside legs. But at least youve made peter pan proud of you.

You don't explain why walking doesn't need and extra force to explain it but the workings of the brain does (C)!

Yubs! I think you just pwned yourself!

You guys are the ones saying the brain has an extra force (C) that rocks do not.

You know what im going to say, so im not going to say it: (pwned)

Nope. We're not saying that at all. The physical view is that the mechanical functioning of the brain can be possibly be described by known, physical laws and forces. Not that any extra force appears.

Is this what you really thought all along? That we were suggesting positing an extra force which materialises somehow to describe the brain's function?

Oh you precious little button. No wonder you've been arguing so wrongheadedly all this time.

No, pl0bs. Only you are positing some extra, undetectable force to describe how the brain works.

Those known physical laws and forces happen to be universal. So take your pick, is consciousness electromagnetism? Is it gravity? Once again: pwned

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:
You don't explain why walking doesn't need and extra force to explain it but the workings of the brain does (C)!

Yubs! I think you just pwned yourself!

You guys are the ones saying the brain has an extra force (C) that rocks do not.

You know what im going to say, so im not going to say it: (pwned)

Nope. We're not saying that at all. The physical view is that the mechanical functioning of the brain can be possibly be described by known, physical laws and forces. Not that any extra force appears.

Is this what you really thought all along? That we were suggesting positing an extra force which materialises somehow to describe the brain's function?

Oh you precious little button. No wonder you've been arguing so wrongheadedly all this time.

No, pl0bs. Only you are positing some extra, undetectable force to describe how the brain works.

Those known physical laws and forces happen to be universal. So take your pick, is consciousness electromagnetism? Is it gravity? Once again: pwned

I don't have to take my pick on any single thing. The brain does generate electricity, but it also has chemistry, which involves some atomic theory, and some other physics thrown in.

Anyway, the fact is you misunderstood what the physical view of consciousness is all this time. How many words have you wasted on this site arguing against a mistaken view?

Animavore wrote:Anyway, the fact is you misunderstood what the physical view of consciousness is all this time. How many words have you wasted on this site arguing against a mistaken view?

Pay attention my son. From 2010:

pl0bs wrote:[...]So C has causal power. Now what causal power would that be? The laws of physics are universal. C either has causal power over one of them, or is one of them. Either option is a deathblow to materialism.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:Anyway, the fact is you misunderstood what the physical view of consciousness is all this time. How many words have you wasted on this site arguing against a mistaken view?

Pay attention my son. From 2010:

pl0bs wrote:[...]So C has causal power. Now what causal power would that be? The laws of physics are universal. C either has causal power over one of them, or is one of them. Either option is a deathblow to materialism.

So. Five years you've been wrongheadedly arguing against a position no one holds. That's a fair bit of life to waste.
At least you've been put straight and can begin to move on. Don't fear the change.

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:Anyway, the fact is you misunderstood what the physical view of consciousness is all this time. How many words have you wasted on this site arguing against a mistaken view?

Pay attention my son. From 2010:

pl0bs wrote:[...]So C has causal power. Now what causal power would that be? The laws of physics are universal. C either has causal power over one of them, or is one of them. Either option is a deathblow to materialism.

So. Five years you've been wrongheadedly arguing against a position no one holds. That's a fair bit of life to waste.
At least you've been put straight and can begin to move on. Don't fear the change.

In short: your worldview was debunked 5 years ago by me. So many think that they are arguing in favor of materialism by saying that C is physical. Only to discover that brains arent the only physical things out there... theres a whole physical universe!

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:Anyway, the fact is you misunderstood what the physical view of consciousness is all this time. How many words have you wasted on this site arguing against a mistaken view?

Pay attention my son. From 2010:

pl0bs wrote:[...]So C has causal power. Now what causal power would that be? The laws of physics are universal. C either has causal power over one of them, or is one of them. Either option is a deathblow to materialism.

So. Five years you've been wrongheadedly arguing against a position no one holds. That's a fair bit of life to waste.
At least you've been put straight and can begin to move on. Don't fear the change.

In short: your worldview was debunked 5 years ago by me. So many think that they are arguing in favor of materialism by saying that C is physical. Only to discover that brains arent the only physical things out there... theres a whole physical universe!

I already know there's a physical universe out there, and I suspect the workings of the brain are physical too.
You're the one citing something 'extra' on top of that. Something non-physical.