pl0bs wrote:In short: your worldview was debunked 5 years ago by me.

Only in pl0bsland. No one else accepts this claim.

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

So if half the brain is Christian, and the other half atheist, where does his soul go when he dies? An interesting one for the supernaturalists.

I don't think it correct to say C IS physical. C is a physical activity if it is the result of material process. If you're not using that definition you can't be said to be arguing against any material view. You're arguing against yourself, pl0bs.
Stop hitting yourself.

Animavore wrote:I don't think it correct to say C IS physical. C is a physical activity if it is the result of material process. If you're not using that definition you can't be said to be arguing against any material view. You're arguing against yourself, pl0bs.
Stop hitting yourself.

Can you give an example of a "physical activity that isnt physical"?

pwn...

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Pay attention my son. From 2010:

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.

I dont care if C is physical or not (which of course it isnt), im just showing that C isnt limited to brains. It is you chaps that claim brains have something special which rocks do not. This is irrational and based on religion.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:
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.

I dont care if C is physical or not (which of course it isnt), im just showing that C isnt limited to brains. It is you chaps that claim brains have something special which rocks do not. This is irrational and based on religion.

Some brains certainly seem to be rather like rocks.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:
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.

I dont care if C is physical or not (which of course it isnt), im just showing that C isnt limited to brains. It is you chaps that claim brains have something special which rocks do not. This is irrational and based on religion.

Living thing have loads of processes and moving parts rocks do not. They have metabolism, chemical reactions, electric pulses etc. Rocks don't pump blood, they don't slither, and they show no sign of brain activity.
You're very confused if you can't tell a rock from a living thing. Careful what you eat.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:I don't think it correct to say C IS physical. C is a physical activity if it is the result of material process. If you're not using that definition you can't be said to be arguing against any material view. You're arguing against yourself, pl0bs.
Stop hitting yourself.

Can you give an example of a "physical activity that isnt physical"?

pwn...

Yes. Walking. Walking is a physical activity, but not a physical thing.

That was easy.

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:I don't think it correct to say C IS physical. C is a physical activity if it is the result of material process. If you're not using that definition you can't be said to be arguing against any material view. You're arguing against yourself, pl0bs.
Stop hitting yourself.

Can you give an example of a "physical activity that isnt physical"?

pwn...

Yes. Walking. Walking is a physical activity, but not a physical thing.

That was easy.

Perhaps he was just playing a word game, on the basis that nothing can actually be physical, yet not physical.

pl0bs wrote:I dont care if C is physical or not (which of course it isnt), im just showing that C isnt limited to brains. It is you chaps that claim brains have something special which rocks do not. This is irrational and based on religion.

Brains have a special structural complexity and energetic dynamics that rocks lack. That is, what makes the difference are different configurations of and interactions between atoms and molecules. There is nothing irrational about believing that the natural manifestation conditions of consciousness are fulfilled only by brains. On the contrary, to believe otherwise is an act of faith. Brains aren't just "amplifiers" of consciousness, they are the (only) generators of consciousness. Panpsychism is both metaphysically and scientifically implausible.
On the one hand, a brain is just a piece of meat consisting of ordinary matter. On the other hand, it's a marvelous dynamic system of astronomical complexity that is unique in the known universe.

pl0bs wrote:I dont care if C is physical or not (which of course it isnt), im just showing [/b]that C isnt limited to brains. It is you chaps that claim brains have something special which rocks do not. This is irrational and based on religion.

Brains have a number of neurons, with many potential & actual connections between them. The brain is plastic & will change & grow to adapt to new learning. Damage to the brain can be seen to alter consciousness. We can scan the brain and see in real time, the changes in its activity, in response to changing stimuli. In entities with neural nets, we can witness activities that are indicative of consciousness. We see none of this in rocks.

Our conclusions are drawn from empirical evidence, are rational, and are absolutely not based on religion. Furthermore, whatever our disagreements on consciousness, the suggestion that the difference is based on religion, is deeply fuckwitted.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:
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.

I dont care if C is physical or not (which of course it isnt), im just showing that C isnt limited to brains. It is you chaps that claim brains have something special which rocks do not. This is irrational and based on religion.

Please provide us with your own definition of C.
Also, your final sentence is bizarre, and needs explanation, because, as others have already said, linking C to brains is not a religious thing - it's a science thing.

A simple question: How could something without sense organs have any sensations? How could an eyeless thing see anything, have any visual impressions? How could an earless thing hear anything, have any auditory impressions? How could a noseless thing smell anything, have any olfactory impressions? How could a tongueless thing taste anything, have any gustatory impressions?
Panpsychists aren't fool enough to seriously assert that single cells, molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles have tiny eyes, ears, noses, and tongues, are they?

There really are no scientifically or metaphysically plausible reasons to believe that consciousness occurs brain- and sense-organ-independently on suborganismic levels.

pl0bs wrote:Compare it to jumping into a bathtub. Before you jump in, the water is calm and homogeneous, but when you jump in the shape of the water becomes complex and it splashes everywhere.

I don't jump in to bathtubs, since that would be a moronic thing to do for full-sized grown-ups, who would be at meaningful risk of damaging themselves as well as making a mess.

felltoearth wrote:The point, if you can't discern between walking and jet propulsion I have no idea why you get out of bed in the morning.

To avoid Mummy getting cross, perhaps?

pl0bs wrote:It is you chaps that claim brains have something special which rocks do not.

All kinds of information processing units known, whether evolved or designed, run hot when they process information. It takes energy to process information. Rocks don't have any metabolism that can run any kind of information processing system, they can't expend any energy to process information, and they don't have the requisite structural or interaction capable complexity to do anything but just sit there with all their atoms locked in place in their crystal grid. Leave a rock alone and it's temperature will equilibrate with it's environment, no matter how cold or hot. This is evidence from thermodynamics that rocks don't do any information processing.

There is no special areas devoted to processing sensory information from their eyes, skin, ears or nose. They don't have any of the things that makes organisms percieve anything. Not only are all our experiences rooted in our senses, all our senses connect to our brain through the central nervous system.

You'll notice how there isn't a large rock in your head connected to your sense organs. Though that last one I do have doubts about.

Animavore wrote:.....
You're very confused if you can't tell a rock from a living thing. Careful what you eat.

Maybe that's the issue with our thread started and his irrational and fanatical focus on this topic.

I say:

Teuton wrote:A simple question: How could something without sense organs have any sensations?

When is something a sense organ? Did our human sense organs not evolve over time, meaning that as we go back in time, they get simpler and simpler? Does this not go all the way back to microbes? Exactly which part of humans do materialists deem so special that it did not evolve from a simpler form?

How do microbes find food? Do they not sense their environment?

Panpsychists aren't fool enough to seriously assert that single cells, molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles have tiny eyes, ears, noses, and tongues, are they?

There really are no scientifically or metaphysically plausible reasons to believe that consciousness occurs brain- and sense-organ-independently on suborganismic levels.

I think you are relying on an emotional argument: it seems absurd that other things have experiences, thus it is false. This is basically the result of anthropomorphizing consciousness, and is no different from assuming that dolphins are always happy because of the shape of their mouth, or that birds have dreams about the fate of their children.

Btw, im not claiming particles have minds. I think particles are just our current best known view of physical reality, but they they in turn will consist of something else (like strings, or loops of spacetime), and those in turn will consist of something else, and so on. Also, looking at known examples of consciousness (the human mind), its clear that "1 experiencer" does not equal "one physical particle". After all, our brains have many particles and we experience only one unified perspective. Furthermore, it just doesnt make sense to talk about consciousness and give it a spatial shape (what shape is pain?).

Teuton wrote:

pl0bs wrote:I dont care if C is physical or not (which of course it isnt), im just showing that C isnt limited to brains. It is you chaps that claim brains have something special which rocks do not. This is irrational and based on religion.

Brains have a special structural complexity and energetic dynamics that rocks lack. That is, what makes the difference are different configurations of and interactions between atoms and molecules. There is nothing irrational about believing that the natural manifestation conditions of consciousness are fulfilled only by brains. On the contrary, to believe otherwise is an act of faith. Brains aren't just "amplifiers" of consciousness, they are the (only) generators of consciousness. Panpsychism is both metaphysically and scientifically implausible.
On the one hand, a brain is just a piece of meat consisting of ordinary matter. On the other hand, it's a marvelous dynamic system of astronomical complexity that is unique in the known universe.

Ive underlined a few words, here goes:

Special / unique: every physical thing in the universe is special
Complexity: the very term denotes that simpler forms exist. Why would simpler brains exist, but not simpler consciousness?
Marvelous: this is an appeal to emotion
Astronomical: this is a quantitative measure. Yes, the brain may be very complex and its conscious states too. But there are simpler forms and simpler conscious states too. It makes no sense to say that the brain can be less complex, but that consciousness cannot and instead just vanishes. This conflicts with how all known natural phenomena work.

I can show you a simpler version of your argument (that consciousness stems from complexity), which is principally equivalent but exposes the flaw clearly:

Imagine you have 3 particles in a straight line. They are not conscious. Now add a 4th. Suddenly they are conscious. So, where did C come from, if the only physical difference is the 4th particle? The complexity of the system has increased, yet this offers absolutely no logical reason to suppose C would pop up. Im sure you would not accept the claim that C pops up in this scenario. The only reason people do accept it with the brain, is because it is so complex that they are overwhelmed: "wow, its so amazing, something new must be going on, i dont know how, but it just does".

pl0bs wrote:Im sure you would not accept the claim that C pops up in this scenario.

You are the only person here who thinks that a magical 'C' pops up. Have you forgotten you've already pwned yourself on this?

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Is waking the same a jet propulsion?

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 think there is a new "walking" force in the physical working of legs, but you do think you have to add a new, invisible, undetectable and intangible force into the phsyical working of the brain!


Huh? Where did this pop-up from? Why has this been introduced? It's all just particles and forces acting on each other; why the extra ingredient?