• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Consciousness

You think you are somehow exempt from having to provide evidence for your claims here.

You are bending over backwards to defend harassment.

Nothing can change that.
 
Just provide one where I attacked not because I was the victim of harassment but because I had some fear my precious idea was in trouble.

Just one example.

Ad homs, not long into the thread; Page 3, Post #30

''You don't understand anything.

You have some bad ideas you can't possibly defend.

The models tell us about what we can detect.

They do not in any way demonstrate that there are no others things out there that we can't detect.

You will actually have to think about that to understand it from your position of dogmatic certainty. ''
 
Attacking understandings and ideas are not ad homs.

Your understanding of ad homs is bad.

That is not an ad hom.

If all I did was hurl some insult and not provide an idea of my own you would have a point.

The models tell us about what we can detect.

They do not in any way demonstrate that there are no others things out there that we can't detect.

This is the salient point of the post.

Can you address it?
 
Attacking understandings and ideas are not ad homs.

Your understanding of ad homs is bad.

That is not an ad hom.

If all I did was hurl some insult and not provide an idea of my own you would have a point.

If you care to notice, your comments were directed at the poster, which by definition is an ad hom.
 
Attacking understandings and ideas are not ad homs.

Your understanding of ad homs is bad.

That is not an ad hom.

If all I did was hurl some insult and not provide an idea of my own you would have a point.

If you care to notice, your comments were directed at the poster, which by definition is an ad hom.

Directed at their understandings and ideas, not their person.

If a person has a bad understanding telling them that is not an ad hom.
 
Ofo course they have to believe the deception. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of having carried out a masquerade with, in part, is to be convincing about what one believes of oneself. There are them damn squirts yano. They get going actions of all kinds of bad times like when one is confronting danger or when one is in a low percentage situation from which she might not survive, etc.

The point is all sorts of objective data shows that the beast is going before the beast thinks he is going. Besides there's that logical impossibility that one has current worldview and answers answers before one has information is just, well, not objectively possible. One can't be logical or rational if things aren't physically possible. Conscious thoughts are after the fact. You believe you willed your arm to rise, but, geez, there it is above your head before you realize it is there.

Consider: you notice Randy is (apparently) acting out across the room. You develop a plan of action and begin to more toward him when nurse Joan arrives on the scene and gives him a cup of cold water. Well you had a plan, a good plan, so you go over to Joan and suggest she should do this and so - carry out your plan - when she interrupts you to tell you that Randy wanted to get his hand out of the small jar in which he had inadvertently trapped it. You wander away saying to yourself your plan was appropriate anyway which is exactly the way you report it in Randy's activity log possibly omitting the fact that his hand had been trapped in a small jar..

Never happens doe it?

Of course it does.

If there is no deception there is no need to believe in one.

If consciousness actually has some control then there is no need for a deception.

The deception might be that the control cannot be taken away in times of extreme stress.

But like the dog that can be trained to not lose control at the sound of a vacuum cleaner a human can learn to maintain control when under stress. If it is practiced.
 
Attacking understandings and ideas are not ad homs.

Your understanding of ad homs is bad.

That is not an ad hom.

If all I did was hurl some insult and not provide an idea of my own you would have a point.

If you care to notice, your comments were directed at the poster, which by definition is an ad hom.

Directed at their understandings and ideas, not their person.

If a person has a bad understanding telling them that is not an ad hom.

Your comment ''You don't understand anything'' is clearly directed at the person.

Your comment ''You have some bad ideas you can't possibly defend'' is directed at the person.


Your comment ''You will actually have to think about that to understand it from your position of dogmatic certainty '' is directed at the person.

None of these comments address the issues being raised.

These comments are ad homs. They are not rational arguments.
 

But memories themselves are unconscious. In fact, learning is the act of making things unconscious.

Either you know/remember how to pronounce Cholmondley or you do not. Using consciousness to sound it out is not successful. Similarly Cockburn Town.

Here is the OP again:

The conscious is a passenger on a bus it is not driving; the spokesman for the body/mind responsible for explaining why the body/mind did what it did. Responsible for telling the driver where to go. Consciousness is the on-board computer capable of reasoning, capable of drawing inferences, capable of making plans but not always capable of carrying them out (when in conflict, the unconscious, the driver, wins). The mind is embodied. No body, nobody, no mind. Never mind.
The driver is responsible for taking input from the environment and remembering patterns so the next time that pattern is seen it may be avoided, altered or repeated depending on the feedback from the environment, and presenting it to the conscious for decision-making.
 
In the side discussion about "ad homs" I would like to add my understanding.

The Ad Hominem Fallacy is dismissal of a proposition because of who said it, not what was said.

In that other thread you were proven wrong, so anything you say here must be wrong, too.
He is a homosexual child rapist, so what he says about taxes must be wrong.
She sold her sex for money, so she can't be kind to dogs.
He fondled a 14-yr-old when he was 18, so he can't be a good legislator.​

A personal attack (ad hominem) rather than attacking another's argument (ad argumentum) is frequently seen on discussion forums.
 
Only a specific number of days could have occurred before any day.
why? it isnt a fact just because you think it is. you have to provide a complete argument.

So you are saying it is possible for the number of days before some given day to be without end, without limit?

How is that possible?

Please explain.

- - - Updated - - -

Directed at their understandings and ideas, not their person.

If a person has a bad understanding telling them that is not an ad hom.

Your comment ''You don't understand anything'' is clearly directed at the person.

All my comments were directed at the person.

But they were about the person's ideas and understandings, not their person.
 
It’s quite simple, if time and space began with the Big Bang then sure, there’s only a finite number. If however there was time and space before the Big Bang then it’s perfectly possible that there were infinite days and, indeed infinite Big bangs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

So if you want to prove there were a finite number of days, you need to prove Einstein’s conjecture wrong. Good luck with that.
 
I don't know untermensche- unless you're defending the idea that you can't successfully put together a logical argument to defend your ideas, you're not defending any idea very well.
You cannot address the absurdity of saying a real infinity has somehow completed.
I suppose you could say that morons* can't differentiate between an infinite length of time that has an end, but no start, and an infinite length of time that has a start, but no end.

*I don't know if morons have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference or not. I would think an idiot savant might. Maybe a genius anti-savant couldn't. A genius anti-savant is a genius who just doesn't get certain concepts. If they understand what a genius anti-savant is, they can sometimes come to the understanding that they aren't correct about everything... especially when a lot of intelligent people say "hey buddy, your one idea is pretty fucking stupid".

It takes understanding the difference between imaginary infinities that never actually complete, you can never actually display all the fractions between zero and one, but their completeness can be imagined and a real infinity. And imagining completeness just isn't good enough for something real. To have a real infinity every element has to be expressed. None can just be imagined to exist.
Sure, but we don't have to count them all for them to exist, sort of like we don't have to know every atom in an apple on a one to one basis to know it's a fucking apple. Which makes it evil, according to G's US.

The point is, if things are basically the same at a certain level (all field strengths are similar), then you aren't going to consider the point .00000000001 meters away from the other point as different, even if it is unique- it's basically the same due to the various interacting forces.
 
I suppose you could say that morons* can't differentiate between an infinite length of time that has an end, but no start, and an infinite length of time that has a start, but no end.

Let's say the number of days before yesterday was "without start". An imaginary absurd state and no better than saying "god did it" but let's entertain the possibility.

If we count those days beginning with yesterday as day #1 how many days must pass before yesterday can occur?

How many days do you think occurred before yesterday occurred?

An uncountable number of days or a countable number?
 
So you are saying it is possible for the number of days before some given day to be without end, without limit?
Dont try to swing this around:
You are saying it isnt possible.
So it is up to you to show that statement is true.
 
So you are saying it is possible for the number of days before some given day to be without end, without limit?
Dont try to swing this around:
You are saying it isnt possible.
So it is up to you to show that statement is true.

I am not allowed to ask questions?

I am saying the number of days in the past had to be countable.

If somebody wants to make the positive claim that the number of days before yesterday is uncountable they have to prove it some way. They have to prove it is possible for an uncountable number of days to have occurred before yesterday.
 
I suppose you could say that morons* can't differentiate between an infinite length of time that has an end, but no start, and an infinite length of time that has a start, but no end.

*I don't know if morons have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference or not. I would think an idiot savant might.

Let's say the number of days before yesterday was "without start".
Days didn't exist until planets existed. There was a start to days. I'll edit your comment appropriately to reflect the correct question:
If we pretend count those days beginning with time ended yesterday as day #1 how many days much time passed before yesterday can occur considering the fact that time did not begin to pass?
An infinite amount. Existence, which has no beginning, but always was, has an infinite past.

How many days do you think occurred before yesterday occurred? An uncountable number of days or a countable number?
On what planet? Mercury is tidally locked- it only experienced 1 day for a while now.

I don't know how you'd count days anyway- did the sun ignite first, or did planets form first? If the planets formed afterwards, at what point do you consider the coalescing matter cloud to be defined enough to have a day and night?


In other words, don't say days. Say "how much time has passed" instead. At any point in eternal existence, infinite time has passed. It's just the way it is.
 
I am not allowed to ask questions?
You need to try not to ask stupid ones. The "there are no stupid questions" applies to those who are trying to learn or teach, and you don't seem like you're trying to learn or like you're learning about this subject...
 
Days didn't exist until planets existed. There was a start to days. I'll edit your comment appropriately to reflect the correct question:

I am not using "day" as a movement of the earth.

I am using it as an amount of time.

But I don't need days.

Is the total time before yesterday a measurable amount of time, like a day?

Or is it immeasurable like infinite days?
 
Back
Top Bottom