![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
rick-day.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWhew! 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]
rick-day.livejournal.com posting in talkpoliticsrick-day.livejournal.com posting in talkpolitics
Credits & Style Info
DAILY QUOTE:
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."
Links
Summary
- pastorlenny.livejournal.com - (no subject) +32 responses
(no subject)
Date: 13/1/12 22:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/1/12 22:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/1/12 23:29 (UTC)It's too bad you slid back into irrationality. You were about to make a great leap forward.
(no subject)
Date: 14/1/12 00:49 (UTC)Well that's the problem isn't it?
My criteria may be different form yours.
(no subject)
Date: 14/1/12 01:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/1/12 08:50 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 15/1/12 17:53 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 15/1/12 20:29 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 15/1/12 22:29 (UTC)We are not discussing whether you are conscious or not. We are discussing whether consciousness is an objectively real state.
(no subject)
Date: 15/1/12 22:42 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 15/1/12 23:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/1/12 20:57 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 16/1/12 21:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/1/12 21:38 (UTC)The question "are you conscious?" can not be answered without first defining consciousness.
Likewise the "Greater Good" is a meaningless platitude without first defining "Good".
(no subject)
Date: 16/1/12 22:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/1/12 01:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/1/12 00:03 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 16/1/12 21:03 (UTC)And I would argue that this is what makes having a clearly stated definition so important.
(no subject)
Date: 16/1/12 21:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/1/12 21:47 (UTC)I can point to a ruler and say "this is one foot long" and you will imdeiatly understand what I mean when I use feet as a measure of distance.
Without a comparable measurment of Consciousness (or Good) your stated definition must fill this role.
(no subject)
Date: 16/1/12 22:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/1/12 00:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/1/12 04:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/1/12 07:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/1/12 15:31 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: