God's too great to communicate clearly with humans

[Rhea]

Yes. And that is probably correct for all of mankind except you. And your god.

That would be Thor. Thor is in charge of electromagnetism. Haha... the speakers near me just crackled and hummed.

I do love a good pun.

You believe in Thor?

 

[Kharakov]

I believe in working out until I am Thor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes. And that is probably correct for all of mankind except you. And your god.

That would be Thor. Thor is in charge of electromagnetism. Haha... the speakers near me just crackled and hummed.

I don't think I've ever seen a poster so in love with themselves.

 

[Kharakov]

That would be Thor. Thor is in charge of electromagnetism. Haha... the speakers near me just crackled and hummed.

I don't think I've ever seen a poster so in love with themselves.

If there was a poster of me, it would want to be positioned across the hall from a mirror. Reflect on that.

 

[bigfield]

I also have evidence of 'human' reactions that are conscious and non-conscious.

No. Every reaction in a human that they are not aware of is the reaction of something in the human other than their own consciousness.

Your use of the 'human' is identical to human consciousness.

So when you said the following...

You have evidence of non-human reactions.

What you actually meant was that I have evidence of reactions that do not involve human consciousnesses. In which case, so what?

Note that this also contradicts your claim that 'the one thing consciousness cannot eliminate is self'. Humans cannot dismiss empirical evidence out-of-hand, either.

A neuron reacting to something is not you reacting. The neuron may carry information to your autonomic nervous system. A cell may act without your awareness: this is not your reaction, it is the reaction of a cell.

That is also true of human consciousness, as well. Consciousness is contingent on that cell activity.

Of course the cell itself may simply be the reactions of smaller entities- or the actions of the cell, and smaller entities, may be the actions of a large entity with great skill. There are no indications of non-consciousness anywhere, with the exception of your lack of awareness of the consciousness of other entities that are interacting with you.

Still just a denial of the evidence on your part.

And yet your arbitrarily reject the empirical evidence for the existence of other consciousnesses, and the evidence of the lack of other consciousnesses. For example, the human mind and the rock's lack of a mind, respectively.

I accept the evidence, as do you. You appear to interpret evidence with a heavily anthropic bias.

Your claim of an 'anthropic bias' is incoherent. Stipulate what you mean by the term.

You have a bias towards believing that consciousness (awareness) has to be something like a humans- for something to be aware, you believe it has to have a complex nervous system or some feedback loop like a nervous system.

Then your use of 'anthropic' was incorrect. As is your characterisation of my position as the result of 'bias'.

It is not biased to eliminate possibilities based on empirical evidence. We know for a fact that every consciousness that we have observed is contingent on a functioning nervous system. Not merely in humans, but also in other species as well.

What you are proposing is a new kind of consciousness that is unlike any that we have observed in that they are not contingent on a nervous system.

You don't think things can have awareness at the level of an electron, even though an electron reacts to electromagnetism and it has certain self properties (spin, charge, mass).

You are using 'have awareness' as a synonym for 'react'. Reactiveness of any kind is not a sufficient condition for awareness. If it was, then everything is aware, including rocks. You have tried to avoid this specifying which things must be treated as entities (human minds) and which things must be treated as collections of entities (rocks), but claiming different rules in this way is a special pleading fallacy.

An electron's fundamental properties have no bearing on whether it has awareness or not.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Electrons do not have consciousness. But the fairies residing inside electrons do.

 

[Kharakov]

Electrons do not have consciousness. But the fairies residing inside electrons do.

That explains the tiny boots we keep detecting in our facilities.

Thanks, CERN.

 

[Kharakov]

As is your characterisation of my position as the result of 'bias'.

Of course you have a bias: You think that you (and other things with complex nervous systems) react with consciousness and other things (that lack a complex NS) do not, without any evidence that they do not.

You claim that the fact that they do not react with a complex nervous system indicates that their reactions are non-conscious- rather than simply indicating that primary conscious reactions exist prior to the existence of a nervous system.

It is not biased to eliminate possibilities based on empirical evidence. We know for a fact that every consciousness that we have observed is contingent on a functioning nervous system. Not merely in humans, but also in other species as well. What you are proposing is a new kind of consciousness that is unlike any that we have observed in that they are not contingent on a nervous system.

 Mechanosensitive channels, and at a more primordial level, the electromagnetic sensitivity of the primordial consciousnesses for one another.

Reactiveness of any kind is not a sufficient condition for awareness.

Your reactions to conscious beings do not require you to be aware that they are conscious beings in order for you to consciously react. So your reactivity to others is not an indication that you are aware of them or their properties.

An electron's fundamental properties have no bearing on whether it has awareness or not.

That is backwards. Whether or not it has awareness is one of it's fundamental properties.

Really, do you think the foundation of all being is something other than consciousness? Seriously?

 

[Mageth]

Really, do you think the foundation of all being is something other than consciousness? Seriously?

I don't think the foundation of all being is consciousness. For what reason would I?

That said, I don't have an answer to the question "What is the foundation of all being?" I can't even say that the question is meaningful, or if it is if it's answerable.

 

[Kharakov]

I don't think the foundation of all being is consciousness. For what reason would I?

Awareness is the simplest explanation for the reaction of anything to anything else.

 

[Rhea]

I don't think the foundation of all being is consciousness. For what reason would I?

Awareness is the simplest explanation for the reaction of anything to anything else.

No it's not. (face is scrunched with utter disbelief that you said that)

Valence is. Magnetism is. Energy disparity is. Temperature or speed disparity. It's more about simple physics and chemistry than awareness. See, with "awareness" you can make more than one decision. Electrons don't really have choices.

"Awareness"? What? No! That's so far off it's not even wrong! It's just silly.

 

[Kharakov]

Valence is. Magnetism is. Energy disparity is. Temperature or speed disparity. It's more about simple physics and chemistry than awareness.

You know when 1 and 2 make 3 or whatever, it is a consciousness following rules that does the action, not the rules, right?

See, with "awareness" you can make more than one decision. Electrons don't really have choices.

Are you absolutely sure? They could just be the fingers of a Goddess, I suppose, but they still would be moved by consciousness, even if the consciousness follows rules, or has a certain "bone structure" (natural law) that it acts through. 1 and 2 don't have choices, nor does 3.

 

[Mageth]

I don't think the foundation of all being is consciousness. For what reason would I?

Awareness is the simplest explanation for the reaction of anything to anything else.

No, awareness is just added complexity. Reaction without awareness is simpler.

 

[WAB]

Really, do you think the foundation of all being is something other than consciousness? Seriously?

I don't think the foundation of all being is consciousness. For what reason would I?

That said, I don't have an answer to the question "What is the foundation of all being?" I can't even say that the question is meaningful, or if it is if it's answerable.

I think Kharakov is on to something.

 

[Juma]

I don't think the foundation of all being is consciousness. For what reason would I?

That said, I don't have an answer to the question "What is the foundation of all being?" I can't even say that the question is meaningful, or if it is if it's answerable.

I think Kharakov is on to something.

He is rather on something...

 

[Juma]

I don't think the foundation of all being is consciousness. For what reason would I?

Awareness is the simplest explanation for the reaction of anything to anything else.

No. It is not. Awereness is a helluva complex thing to explain.

 

[bigfield]

Of course you have a bias: You think that you (and other things with complex nervous systems) react with consciousness and other things (that lack a complex NS) do not, without any evidence that they do not.

Complete absence of any sign of consciousness is evidence that they do not.

You claim that the fact that they do not react with a complex nervous system indicates that their reactions are non-conscious- rather than simply indicating that primary conscious reactions exist prior to the existence of a nervous system.

That's correct.

You are postulating the existence of the 'primary' consciousnesses without evidence. They have neither been observed, and they have not been predicted by quantum field theory.

It is not biased to eliminate possibilities based on empirical evidence. We know for a fact that every consciousness that we have observed is contingent on a functioning nervous system. Not merely in humans, but also in other species as well. What you are proposing is a new kind of consciousness that is unlike any that we have observed in that they are not contingent on a nervous system.

 Mechanosensitive channels, and at a more primordial level, the electromagnetic sensitivity of the primordial consciousnesses for one another.

As before, you're simply using the word 'consciousness' where it doesn't belong. Now you are attributing consciousness to something merely because it has sensors. If that is a sufficient for consciousness then cars are conscious, too. And since the definition of consciousness excludes cars and other automata, you are wrong.

Reactiveness of any kind is not a sufficient condition for awareness.

Your reactions to conscious beings do not require you to be aware that they are conscious beings in order for you to consciously react. So your reactivity to others is not an indication that you are aware of them or their properties.

Reactivity, not reactiveness, then. Reactivity of any kind is not a sufficient condition for awareness.

My point, which you appear to have missed entirely, is that if the only thing you know about a thing is that it reacts to other things, then you do not have sufficient information to conclude that it is aware.

In syllogistic form:
Some things that react are aware, and
All subatomic particles react, therefore
All subatomic particles are aware <- invalid conclusion

An electron's fundamental properties have no bearing on whether it has awareness or not.

That is backwards. Whether or not it has awareness is one of it's fundamental properties.

Then your comment about an electron's charge, spin etc. was irrelevant.

Really, do you think the foundation of all being is something other than consciousness? Seriously?

I don't know what caused everything to exist, or whatever it is you mean by 'foundation of all being'. Not even the leading scientists know.

I don't think the foundation of all being is consciousness. For what reason would I?

Awareness is the simplest explanation for the reaction of anything to anything else.

Not, it's not.

It's trivially obvious that things obey the laws of nature without consciousness. Throw a tennis ball at the ground and it will react by bouncing back. You will likely claim that the tennis ball is not a single entity and cannot be called non-conscious, but this is special pleading since you accept a human as an entity.

 

[Kharakov]

Awareness is the simplest explanation for the reaction of anything to anything else.

No, awareness is just added complexity. Reaction without awareness is simpler.

Things in nature must be aware of (or sense) other things in order to react, otherwise there has to be an additional entity of non-aware reactions.

Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.

OR

Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.


In other words, we either have non-conscious reactions magically changing to conscious reactions at some point in time, or conscious reactions evolving over time.

The whole reactions magically becoming conscious at some point seems like a bit of a stretch...

- - - Updated - - -

I think Kharakov is on to something.

He is rather on something...

a chair. It's called a "chair".

 

[Kharakov]

No. It is not. Awereness is a helluva complex thing to explain.

Awereness is the same as nonlycanthropy.

 

[Juma]

No. It is not. Awereness is a helluva complex thing to explain.

Awereness is the same as nonlycanthropy.

Non-wherewolfness?

N-only-can-throp-y?