pl0bs wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I have done this above and in other posts. Eye-spots, nerve ganglia, neither of which are 'true" eyes or true brains. A plant can detect sunlight without eyes. This is an emergent process.

I cannot absolutely disprove that consci9usness is not present in rocks. But I do not have to, it is you, in the absence of demonstrating that rocks have a seat of consciousness [such as a brain] it is you that has to provide the burden of proof.

An insect has small ganglia, even a small brain, and therefore we can argue some level of awareness and consciousness. With a rock you cannot.

You talk about "true" eyes. "True" is a subjective classification. It has no physical basis. You cannot point to an eye that has no simpler evolutionary ancestor, unless you reject evolution.

Previously ive explained why evolution is incompatible with materialism.

Btw you asked me for evidence of consciousness in atoms. Just to make sure this question even makes sense, can you give me evidence of consciousness in humans? Last i checked, consciousness is invisible to any measuring device. Which, btw also renders moot, even irrational, the argument methodological naturalism is a good reason to believe in materialism.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Ah, the "no true Scotsman fallacy". If I say that one person is taller than another, then this is subjective? There may be a continuum of heights, where it may be difficult to distinguish or classify two people of nearly equal height, but we can still group the continuum at intervals. In a similar manner, we can group light sensitive cells, eye, spot, pinhole eyes, and "true eyes" according to type. We can define a true eye as having a lens, and a pin-hole eye or an eye spot as being "not true eyes". Subjective the boundaries may be, but they are still useful.

pl0bs wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Ah, the "no true Scotsman fallacy". If I say that one person is taller than another, then this is subjective? There may be a continuum of heights, where it may be difficult to distinguish or classify two people of nearly equal height, but we can still group the continuum at intervals. In a similar manner, we can group light sensitive cells, eye, spot, pinhole eyes, and "true eyes" according to type. We can define a true eye as having a lens, and a pin-hole eye or an eye spot as being "not true eyes". Subjective the boundaries may be, but they are still useful.

The keyword here is "continuum". Materialists dont think there is a continuum of consciousness. The think it stops at some point. I disagree, i think that, like all things in nature, there is a continuum of C.

The boundaries are useful yes, but since subjectivity is at their root, subjectivity itself cannot have such a boundary.

byofrcs wrote:That is a wrong interpretation - you can have different salinity levels but you only get salt when you combine sodium and chlorine. You seem to be thinking that sodium is salt in some small way. It has the potential to be a salt but it is not in on itself.

pl0bs wrote: Materialists dont think there is a continuum of consciousness. The think it stops at some point.

pl0bs wrote:

byofrcs wrote:That is a wrong interpretation - you can have different salinity levels but you only get salt when you combine sodium and chlorine. You seem to be thinking that sodium is salt in some small way. It has the potential to be a salt but it is not in on itself.

Sorry, but physically speaking, salt is just configuration of a bunch of atoms. Move the atoms around a tiny bit and you have a different configuration. There is no extra "salt property" that completely vanishes.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote: Materialists dont think there is a continuum of consciousness. The think it stops at some point.

What? This is just not true in any way. Show me where you are getting this idea from.

debunk wrote:Hogwash. Melt salt, stick in 2 electrodes, apply a current and just watch that salt property vanish.

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:Hogwash. Melt salt, stick in 2 electrodes, apply a current and just watch that salt property vanish.

Im afraid the atoms just change configuration a bit. There is no extra salt property that vanishes.

debunk wrote:Before it's a salt, afterwards it's no longer a salt. The salt property vanished. You're talking complete nonsense again, plobs.

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:Before it's a salt, afterwards it's no longer a salt. The salt property vanished. You're talking complete nonsense again, plobs.

This salt/non-salt schism exists purely inside your mind.

Its as arbitrary as saying that the dividing line between short and tall is 1 meter. Then you say person X is tall, person Y is short. This short/tall schism is an artifact of your mind setting an arbitrary boundary. Physically speaking its a continuum of length. There is no magic tall/short boundary floating in the middle.

debunk wrote:No, it doesn't. A salt is an ionic compound. By applying a current to molten salts you de-ionise the ions. It's no longer an ionic compound afterwards, meaning it's no longer a salt. The "salt" property disappeared.

Words have meaning, plobs.

There is no continuum between salt and non-salt. Stop barfing up this completely meaningless drivel.

Edit: I dare you to swallow a tablespoon of Na and inhale a breath of Cl2. Come on, plobs, together they're just salt, right?

debunk wrote:Edit: I dare you to swallow a tablespoon of Na and inhale a breath of Cl2. Come on, plobs, together they're just salt, right?

GrahamH wrote::lol:
It might affect his life property, but no matter, that is just an arbitrary label on a continuum.

Nurse:"Doctor, pl0bs has stopped breathing!"
Dr: "Don't worry, the atoms are still moving about, no change there then."

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote::lol:
It might affect his life property, but no matter, that is just an arbitrary label on a continuum.

Nurse:"Doctor, pl0bs has stopped breathing!"
Dr: "Don't worry, the atoms are still moving about, no change there then."

Did you just embrace vitalism?

GrahamH wrote:No. You have vitalism insoles in those tatty fake materialist shoes you like to wear.

I think there are significant boundaries between alive and dead or conscious and non-conscious, even though its all material.

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:No. You have vitalism insoles in those tatty fake materialist shoes you like to wear.

I think there are significant boundaries between alive and dead or conscious and non-conscious, even though its all material.

"significant boundaries", huh?
Either there is a boundary or there is a continuum. Make your choice.

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote: Materialists dont think there is a continuum of consciousness. The think it stops at some point.

What? This is just not true in any way. Show me where you are getting this idea from.

This is good. It happens every now and then. You realise that, yes, continuums are the way nature works.

Now you try to reconcile it with materialism. Materialism thinks apes are conscious too right, so there is some continuum no? Phew, what a relief. Its true that the continuum is violated, raped and killed when it comes to non-brains, but lets not talk about that.

I apologise for my rude behaviour, but im going to talk about it. So SoS, is there a continuum of consciousness in non-brains? What do materialists think?

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:No, it doesn't. A salt is an ionic compound. By applying a current to molten salts you de-ionise the ions. It's no longer an ionic compound afterwards, meaning it's no longer a salt. The "salt" property disappeared.

Words have meaning, plobs.

Again, an arbitrary schism of ionised/deionised. The electrons dont vanish, they move to different atoms.

There is no continuum between salt and non-salt. Stop barfing up this completely meaningless drivel.

Edit: I dare you to swallow a tablespoon of Na and inhale a breath of Cl2. Come on, plobs, together they're just salt, right?

You think there is a salt property that doesnt consist of a configuration of ordinary physical ingredients, i dare you to show it to the world. A nobel prize is waiting for you.