So just who are you people and why do you think the way you do?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Whew! This is my first winter with you guys and the heat from Global Animosity is keeping the US snow free far too long![Poll #1810231]

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

As far as you know I could just be an elaborate turring test.

Likewise how do I know you're not one yourself?

Afterall, on the internet no body knows you're a dog.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I wasn't asking what I know. I was asking what you know. Do you not believe you are conscious?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I believe that I am conscious but without a way to quantify or otherwise prove consciousness the only support I can offer is my own subjective opinion.

Same with issues of good and evil.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

No, that's silly. Your consciousness is not a matter of subjective opinion. Either you're conscious or you're not.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

But can you prove it? ;P

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

That's not the question, is it? The question is whether your consciousness can be something other than a fact or a falsehood.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Without proof a statement either way is just an opinion.

Or in the case of one's own consciousness, a belief.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I understand you have a rather significant cognitive and/or language deficit, so this is feeling more and more futile. But let's see if we can't teach you how to differentiate what we can prove from what is true.

You say that you can't prove whether you're conscious or not. Let's assume, for the moment, that this is in fact the case.

This does not change the fact that either you are conscious or you are not.

Hence there is an objective reality -- either 1) sandwichwarrior is conscious or 2) sandwichwarrior is not conscious. This objective reality exists independent of our epistemological challenges regarding consciousness.

With me so far?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Sure.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Great. So we can agree that certain things are objectively true or false, regardless of our ability to prove them -- the facticity of your consciousness being a good initial example of such a thing.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I guess that would depend on your criteria for consciousness.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't at all. Either you are are conscious by whatever criteria might be appropriate or you are not.

It's too bad you slid back into irrationality. You were about to make a great leap forward.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Either you are are conscious by whatever criteria might be appropriate or you are not.

Well that's the problem isn't it?

My criteria may be different form yours.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

But it doesn't matter what criteria we choose. You're casting phantoms at the wall. Either you are conscious or you are not -- regardless of how you might choose to nuance the definition of "conscious."

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

For the sake of communication and understanding it matters very much.

How can I debate the issue of consciousness with you if I don't know what your idea of consciousness is?

How can you expect me to support your vision of some "greater good" without first knowing if it anything in common with mine?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

No, it doesn't matter at all to the point in question.

Let's say your criteria for consciousness are blargy, foo-foo and sm14g8. Either you possess blargy, foo-foo and sm14g8 or you don't. This is the only issue at hand.

Try to focus. The particular criteria one might or might not argue for consciousness are entirely irrlevant to the question of whether consciousness is a state which objectively either exists or does not exist. We are not currently discussing whether or not Being X is conscious. We are discussing whether consciouness -- regardless of what silly games obfuscators like yourself might want to play in defining it -- can rightly be said to have an objective reality.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

For the sake of communication and understanding it matters very much.

My criteria for consciousness may be "blargy", "foo-foo" and "sm14g8". But yours might be "blargy", "pinky", and "sue".

You can't have a rational debate about whether or not something objectivly posses such criteria without first understanding what the criteria are.

To illustrate...

I may say that opposing lanes of traffic are seperated by lines that are "X". Now when I say "X" i'm thinking parralel, but when you hear "X" you're thinking reflective yellow paint.

We may agree that traffic lines are "X" but the moment I point to a set of red parralel lines and say "these lines are also X" you're going to look at me like I'm a retard.

This is why I'm harping on about definitions and criteria.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

No, that makes no sense. I don't care what definition of "conscious" you use. It will still always be a binary, objective state.

We are not discussing whether you are conscious or not. We are discussing whether consciousness is an objectively real state.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

We are discussing whether consciousness is an objectively real state.

What we are discussing is the distinction between objective truth and subjective judgment, which if you think about it, is largly dependant on the definitions being used.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

No. We are discussing whether objective reality exists -- and whether it is limited to things you can quantify. The reality of consciousness disprovesbthis absurd assertion.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I never denied the existance of objective reality.

What I've been asking you to do is "Define your terms". There is a reason that it is the first step of the scientific method.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

What does the scientific method have to do with this?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Maybe it will help you if I use your own odd analogy. Sure, if you use a ridiculous term like "X" to describe that which separates lanes, it might be unclear whether you're reffering to parallel lines or lines drawn in orange paint. But, either way, the attributes of "parallel" or "orange" are objectively real.

The same is true of consciousness. It is an objectively real phenomenon, regardless is of whether you want to claim it is a matter of being "parallel" or being "orange."

The difference is that we can measure parallelism and the wavelength of light. Consciousness does not submit to the same type of measurement.

Hence, there are things that are objectively real -- but not measurable.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The difference is that we can measure parallelism and the wavelength of light. Consciousness does not submit to the same type of measurement.

And I would argue that this is what makes having a clearly stated definition so important.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

That is not an argument. It's a non sequitur assertion.