Consciousness

[Kharakov]

You could not be more lost.

There is no connection between this and the impossibility of infinite time in the past.

...

If that's in reply to my last post then you've definitely lost me.

He's lost himself.

One of his bigger problems is that he seems to think that there exist unconnected facts, explanations and events.

He's completely clueless about the simple fact that all knowledge is interrelated by universally applicable physical laws and principles. Unter inhabits a weird multiverse, in which each subject area has its own unique set of rules, and its own logic, unrelated to those that exist in any other subject area.

It's truly bizarre; and it leads to some hilarious contradictions that he somehow manages to ignore completely - although to do so he basically has to shut down any and all discussion with endless repeats of 'nobody knows anything, therefore I know everything and you are all lost sheep'.

I thought he was special. Like, you know, sarcastic all the time because he had a railroad spike driven through his brain special.

 

[Kharakov]

Look- anything eternal is not controlled, since it wasn't caused. Since the universe wasn't caused, it's eternal... so it isn't controlled.

You're just arguing the same stupid idea from a different angle.

There is no connection between this and the impossibility of infinite time in the past.

Well, except for the connections between the concepts of an eternally existing something that was not caused and that thing not being controlled, since it preexisted causality (although it does respond to what it causes).

This is about what is neccessary for complicated activity to create a consistent and complicated result.

A continuum. You know, with the implication of infinitely precise gradients, and quantum gradient collapse when a gradient change is perceptible, which results in a "sharp boundary condition" like a particle.

That cannot happen by magic.

Sure it can. Your responses are formed by magic, since you are not a conscious being.

It can only happen when the activity has precise controls on it's behavior.

Sure, if by controls, you mean something entirely different than controls. What do you mean by the word controls?

 

[untermensche]

Well, except for the connections between the concepts of an eternally existing something that was not caused and that thing not being controlled, since it preexisted causality (although it does respond to what it causes).

So now you are babbling something about causes? You are so fucking lost I have no desire to find you.

This is about how a complicated and consistent effect could be achieved.

It might be achieved by magic.

Or it might be achieved by rigid controls of activity.

Take your pick.

 

[Kharakov]

Well, except for the connections between the concepts of an eternally existing something that was not caused and that thing not being controlled, since it preexisted causality (although it does respond to what it causes).

It might be achieved by magic.

Or it might be achieved by rigid controls of activity.

My pen is both.

 

[ruby sparks]

My penis both.

Just sayin'.

 

[Kharakov]

My penis both.

Just sayin'.

That's kind of the point. Everything's easy when it's hard. Well, except public speaking, arraignments, riding a subway...

 

[untermensche]

You offer me nothing to care about.

What I need is somebody who is actually able to visualize brain activity. Billions of cells. Trillions of connections. But in action. Neurotransmitters flowing. Electrical impulses flowing. Blood flowing.

And when the thing is running a consciousness emerges.

From the activity of trillions of elements a stable and long lasting phenomena emerges.

Some think this phenomena can somehow just appear by magic.

But people who can think understand that if complicated activity is producing a complicated and lasting effect that activity needs to have precise controls over it's behavior.

 

[Kharakov]

Ok, define controll. Are there joysticks that someone is using to controll stuff?

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok, define controll. Are there joysticks that someone is using to controll stuff?

Will you just stop with the dirty talk?





Sorry. Will stop interrupting. Just finished work for the year today and have had a few gins.

 

[untermensche]

Ok, define controll. Are there joysticks that someone is using to controll stuff?

So you have been arguing against some insane strawman?

Control over activity is not defined.

All that is known is that it is needed.

I am not thinking about anything external to the brain.

But that is possible since nothing is known but I do not think that is the answer.

Controls over activity most likely are contained within the cells. Within the neurons.

It is the most likely place they will be found.

But the controls have to be incredibly precise to create such a long lasting and complicated effect.

 

[Kharakov]

Ok, define controll. Are there joysticks that someone is using to controll stuff?

Will you just stop with the dirty talk?





Sorry. Will stop interrupting. Just finished work for the year today and have had a few gins.

OOhhh... we get to see you drunk post. And aren't they called wet martinis?

 

[Kharakov]

Ok, define controll. Are there joysticks that someone is using to controll stuff?

So you have been arguing against some insane strawman?

Are you an insane strawman?
You know what insane strawmen say...

I am not thinking about anything external to the brain.

A zombie strawman walked into a bar. The horse said "Why are you beating me?"

 

[untermensche]

Present one idea and I will respond.

Since you say nothing of any substance I guess you agree.

Good.

 

[ruby sparks]

OOhhh... we get to see you drunk post. And aren't they called wet martinis?

Ok. But getting back on topic....

Can you think the unthinkable?












(yes, with an itheberg).

 

[George S]

OOhhh... we get to see you drunk post. And aren't they called wet martinis?

Ok. But getting back on topic....

Can you think the unthinkable?












(yes, with an itheberg).

Yeth

 

[ruby sparks]

Drat. I mithed that.

 

[Kharakov]

That was cool.

 

[Kharakov]

Present one idea and I will respond.

Respond to what? It's not like you have a good track record of responding to ideas presented to you.

Since you say nothing of any substance I guess you agree.

Meth is fun, but it's extremely dangerous, like climbing Everest so you can tell a chick you climbed Everest.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You offer me nothing to care about.

What I need is somebody who is actually able to visualize brain activity. Billions of cells. Trillions of connections. But in action. Neurotransmitters flowing. Electrical impulses flowing. Blood flowing.

Have you tried Tinder?


Or just get Febble over here, if anyone can, she can. Mind you, I'm pretty sure you run up against a kinda Dunbar's number sort of problem as you try to keep track of all the variables in play. Sure you can sit there and imagine imagining it, but that's not quite the same. Of course, if you are imagining in it are you imagining it stochastic or deterministic, is cholecystokinin an agonist to oddi and an antagonist to vagus or the other way around? I don't know, whenever I'm visualising something like this I find my working memory slightly flooded by the amount detail I have to bear in mind.


Some people think that this phenomena can emerge through cause, effect and rather a lot of evolving, learning and so on. Lots of simple interactions leading to complex emergent behaviour. The fools.

 

[untermensche]

Present one idea and I will respond.

Respond to what? It's not like you have a good track record of responding to ideas presented to you.

So you have some objective report of my track record?

You want things pulled from your ass to pass as knowledge.

Your track record with me is you make very bad arguments and have trouble understanding arguments.