SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Do you think that anyone reading these posts are confused by the phrase 'chemical impulses' as opposed to chemical signals?

Maybe not confused but certainly questioning your qualifications to have this discussion.

This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Regina wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

The question is quite simple: Did your brain originate consciousness? You seem to be saying that no other explanation than brains are required. So please explain exactly how brains originated consciousness.

Regina-brain is responsible for Regina-consciousness. No Regina-brain, no Regina-consciousness.
Neurology is not my area of research, so why should I come up with an explanation on that level? Start reading what I linked to. That approach works for me, as I said.
If you don't think your consciousness is a function your brain, then happy hunting in the big open spaces.

Neuroscience, unfortunately, will not help you in the knowledge that brains equate to consciousness. So, you need to be prudent when speaking, unless you are prepared to be challenged and made a fool of!

And you know this how? Please explain how you know this.

I know this because neither you, nor any neuroscientist, are capable of producing any robust knowledge of consciousness. All that you have are apparent correlations.

Destroyer wrote:
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Where would you start looking?
Where are the results of research usually found, in your opinion?

Destroyer wrote:
Neuroscience, unfortunately, will not help you in the knowledge that brains equate to consciousness. So, you need to be prudent when speaking, unless you are prepared to be challenged and made a fool of!

Sorry, I overlooked that one.
I'm very relaxed about being made a fool of. Sometimes it's a compliment to be made a fool of. It all depends on who tries it and how!

Regina wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Where would you start looking?
Where are the results of research usually found, in your opinion?

Start by examining how 'one who behaves by deliberation before action', actually measures up to 'one who behaves by blind unconscious impulses' only. Then ask if the one who behaves by deliberation actually harmonizes with a universe that consists of nothing but blind signals; or whether that one has to pretend in order to harmoinze with that universe.

Edit: spelling

Destroyer wrote:...
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Oh really? Have you read the books? Do you have some knockout argument for why you don't have to be bothered with the books?

Or are you like another recent poster here who 'just knows... derp'?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:...
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Oh really? Have you read the books? Do you have some knockout argument for why you don't have to be bothered with the books?

Or I you like another recent poster here who 'just knows... derp'?

No one - like yourself - who are already familiar with my entire philosophy need ask me any further questions.

Destroyer wrote:

Regina wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Where would you start looking?
Where are the results of research usually found, in your opinion?

Start by examing how 'one who behaves by deliberation before action', actually measures up to 'one who behaves by blind unconscious impulses' only. Then ask if the one who behaves by deliberation actually harmonizes with a universe that consists of nothing but blind signals; or whether that one has to pretend in order to harmoinze with that universe.

What exactly are blind signals?
On what basis does the one who behaves by deliberation act, according to your philosophy? And how do you distinguish the two types, meaning, how exactly do you examine? How do you get your data? I mean in practical terms. What is the set up of the experiment?

Regina wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Regina wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Where would you start looking?
Where are the results of research usually found, in your opinion?

Start by examing how 'one who behaves by deliberation before action', actually measures up to 'one who behaves by blind unconscious impulses' only. Then ask if the one who behaves by deliberation actually harmonizes with a universe that consists of nothing but blind signals; or whether that one has to pretend in order to harmoinze with that universe.

What exactly are blind signals?
On what basis does the one who behaves by deliberation act, according to your philosophy? And how do you distinguish the two types, meaning, how exactly do you examine? How do you get your data? I mean in practical terms. What is the set up of the experiment?

Ask Cito what blind signals are? I do believe that he is a scientist.

If you do not have any awareness of one who behaves by deliberation then so be it. If you are not aware of how there is a distinction between blind impulses and deliberation, again, so be it.

You either examine the behaviour of the consciousness associated with your own brain, or you continue to read books and believe in foolishness. The choice is yours.

Little Idiot wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:ok my idea that since it's self evident that self evident things exist it is also self evident that non-self evident things don't exist.

Thats simply a logical error.

If every A is B, then every not-A is not B may seem fair enough on first glance.
in asdfjkl's case A= self evident thing, B= exist.

But that cant work with exist, because exist is not a category of things which excludes other things - or in other words, all things exist, because things in this context means 'things which exist'.

Nope, that does not work because "all not-A are not-B" is never the logical equivalent of "all A are B".

All Frenchmen are human.
All non-Frenchmen are non-human. < bzzzzzz

The logical equivalent of "all A are B" is:
all non-B are non-A

All Frenchmen are humans.
All non-humans are non-Frenchmen

Every cat is feline, dogs are not cats, therefore no dogs are feline. - Thats fine.

Tisn't fine, see above. The logical structure there is the same as:

All cats are animals, dogs are not cats, therefore no dogs are animals.

Not fine.

And its fine because feline is defined as being 'only cats'.

Nope. What you're looking for here would be:

All non-cats are not felines.
Dogs are non-cats.
Therefore dogs are not felines.

(I don't know what a biologist would say about cats and felines, we're talking about the logic here.)

Every cat exists, dogs are not cats, therefore no dogs exist. - Thats clearly rubbish. And its rubbish because exists is not defined as being 'only cats'.

You're mixing up validity and soundness, at the least. It's rubbish because ~A > ~B is not the logical equivalent of A > B.

Destroyer wrote:

Ask Cito what blind signals are? I do believe that he is a scientist.

If you do not have any awareness of one who behaves by deliberation then so be it. If you are not aware of how there is a distinction between blind impulses and deliberation, again, so be it.

You either examine the behaviour of the consciousness associated with your own brain, or you continue to read books and believe in foolishness. The choice is yours.

You can't explain the words you use?
I'm not talking about my anecdotal experience of how people behave. I'm talking of the application of the scientific method.
I don't believe in anything. I know, or don't know, sometimes I assume, or hope or fear. I don't believe.
So are you going to answer my questions or not?

Regina wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Ask Cito what blind signals are? I do believe that he is a scientist.

If you do not have any awareness of one who behaves by deliberation then so be it. If you are not aware of how there is a distinction between blind impulses and deliberation, again, so be it.

You either examine the behaviour of the consciousness associated with your own brain, or you continue to read books and believe in foolishness. The choice is yours.

You can't explain the words you use?
I'm not talking about my anecdotal experience of how people behave. I'm talking of the application of the scientific method.
I don't believe in anything. I know, or don't know, sometimes I assume, or hope or fear. I don't believe.
So are you going to answer my questions or not?

No! I shall leave you to stew.

You are quite amusing.

Regina wrote::rofl:
You are quite amusing.

Tell that to your consciousness.

Not necessary. My consciousness doesn't need telling.

Regina wrote:Not necessary. My consciousness doesn't need telling.

Technically that is correct: One whose nature is knowledge already knows.

asdfjkl wrote:ok awhile ago i was asking whether existence=self-evidence.
the main reason why i might think it is is this:
the only thing that is self evident is the self (and its perceptions of course)
these things we can perceive directly, ie there is no doubt that they exist.
now it seems to me that existence=direct perception (=self evidence)
it seems that just like you're certain these things exist you should be certain nothing else does.
anyone else think this way or are you non solipsist?

How does certainty of one's own existence imply non-existence of anything else? "I am" demonstrates "it is possible for something to be"; the inference from there is "it is possible for something else to be". "I am, therefore it is possible for something to be, therefore only I exist" is simply not reasonable.

How do you go from the deductively discerned possibility of existence to inferred impossibilities of existence?

And note that it is not necessarily the case that "I am" precedes "other things are". It is more likely the case that it is the other way around.

If you are shopping for a mental illness, a less truculent and more succulent one than solipsism would be to be sure of everyone else's existence and doubtful of your own.

OK I am tired of people criticizing the way I post (no one on other forums does it) so I'll talk normally.
At first I believed that everything in the universe obeyed 1 law (the law of identity) and the logic that complements that law.
Then I realized that there are paradoxes that are self-evident. That would mean that logic is not a universal absolute and that self-evidence trumps it. Then I realized that self-evident things (the ones you directly perceive) are irrefutable; eg no matter how you put it, when you're observing a computer you're not observing a goose. Self-evident things exist for sure and self-evidence and existence sort of became synonymous in my mind, with logic becoming a flawed process.
Now with an object that is NOT self-evident, I'm not perceiving it in any way. I'm not touching it, seeing it, feeling it, etc. To me, it self-evidently makes no difference whether it exists or not. This is my worry: if the existence of self-evident objects is 100% irrefutable, is the nonexistence of non-self-evident objects equally 100% irrefutable?
The main reason it worries me is if it also applies to time (temporal solipsism) then that would mean that I am alone PLUS I'm eternally frozen in time (no past no future, just the present self-evident moment).
I actually had various other reasons to worry about this idea before (paradoxes of motion) so I got used to the idea (it isn't THAT bad) but an eternity of anything isn't exactly present.
So, do you think that this proves solipsism or not? And why?

Destroyer wrote:

Regina wrote:Not necessary. My consciousness doesn't need telling.

Technically that is correct: One whose nature is knowledge already knows.

If by that you mean that my neurons are firing along nicely, we are in agreement.
But I suspect you don't.

I made a new thread, go there.