(August 26, 2015 at 3:07 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Energy vs matter, if only they could be consolidated somehow.  Of course there is chemical as well as electrical energy taking place in the brain.  No doubt all that stuff is important.  I mean you can barely start yanking out bits of the brain before some functions start shutting down.

I agree that the chemicals are important and have to be included as making up the "I." It would be interesting if scientists explored it that way and began to study how different parts of the "self" are stored in different parts of the brain. Much more interesting than dismissing the "self/I" as some ineffable illusion.

Unfortunately, I've neither offered an argument, nor rested my non-argument on any such assumption.  I don't know whether or not the energy flowing through the light bulb is sentient, I don't think that we've been presented with adequate means to determine that, nor have I made any such claim..........along some ridiculous, well, the lightbulb energy aint sentient so neither is the brain energy.......wtf? I was asking about the reverse......assuming the brain energy -is- sentient....what rules out the lightbulb energy? 3 and 4 doesn't rescue that..because it's the brain we observe responding to stimuli....and that's just an organ (which is a candidate for 5...lol), 1 is irrelevant in the case of the lightbulb - but amusingly it fits just as well, 2 is as true for the bulb as the brain (or anything).

As mentioned before, it seems -in your "theory"- that some energy is sentient whilst other energy is not.  Tell me how to determine that?  That failure condition is really, really important right about now.  I need to know how to tell that it's the energy, specifically, and not something else or some combination, that's sentient, and how to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient energy. I;m not trying to argue -against- your theory here, I'm trying to help make it more resistent to objection......after simply accepting sentient energy as a given.

(August 26, 2015 at 11:10 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(August 26, 2015 at 11:06 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: The true scientist avoids words like "forever" and "never."

Never.

I always do that.

Here's another way of addressing what I'm asking Rhonda.  Since response to stimuli doesn't work as a reason for accepting that the brain is aware or sentient.....why does it work as a reason for the same in sentient energy's case?  Why is it relevant at all, and so why would a lack of response, for example.... rule out a lightbulb or lightbulb energy? 

I'm assuming that it's true, that this response business is indicative of sentience in the case of "sentient energy" but not in the case of the brain or of a lightbulb..or....mystifyingly, of "lightbulb energy"........

We obviously have a special case here, so, I need to know the criteria of what makes it special...and here again I'm making a friendly assumption...that there is such an explanation.....so...what is it?

(as a minor aside, pursuant to your last post....might there be such a thing as sentient chemicals..as well?)

(August 26, 2015 at 3:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Unfortunately, I've neither offered an argument, nor rested my non-argument on any such assumption.  I don't know whether or not the energy flowing through the light bulb is sentient, I don't think that we've been presented with adequate means to determine that, nor have I made any such claim..........along some ridiculous, well, the lightbulb energy aint sentient so neither is the brain energy.......wtf?  I was asking about the reverse......assuming the brain energy -is- sentient....what rules out the lightbulb energy? 3 and 4 doesn't rescue that..because it's the brain we observe responding to stimuli....and that's just an organ (which is a candidate for 5...lol), 1 is irrelevant in the case of the lightbulb - but amusingly it fits just as well, 2 is as true for the bulb as the brain (or anything).

As mentioned before, it seems -in your "theory"-  that some energy is sentient whilst other energy is not.  Tell me how to determine that?  That failure condition is really, really important right about now.  I need to know how to tell that it's the energy, specifically, and not something else or some combination, that's sentient, and how to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient energy.  I;m not trying to argue -against- your theory here, I'm trying to help make it more resistent to objection......after simply accepting sentient energy as a given.

Rhythm Wrote:Remember, the campfire isn't sentient, the light from the bulb, nor the bulb (both, ultimately, made of energy) aren't sentient. So energy doesn't simply, by virtue of being energy, satisfy your 1, 2 and 3 (or possible 4). Nor does the brain, by virtue of being an organ..also ultimately made of energy, get itself ruled out by 1, 2...or 3.

I gather you are using some specialized definition for the word "argument." Nevertheless, that doesn't change what you said. Such a denial is worthy of GC or even Drippy.

Do you see me claiming, anywhere in there, that there is no sentient energy, that any of that rules it out, or offering you any resistance whatsoever, or balking against any of those givens we agreed to?  No, you do not.  I'm only extrapolating on the argument -you- offered....those aren't my bulleted points, are they?  You're the one that told me the campfire energy isn't sentient. I'm running with it. You layed out the bullets and the brain fits...I'm agreeing with the argument, and then agreeing, beyond all logic and reason, that somehow the brain is -still- ruled out, just wondering by what.

If you'd like to hear -my- argument.............I can oblige.

Or, you can be pissy because your argument is inconsistent, and hearing me agree with all of these plainly contradictory things in a single post exposes that.

The only person in this discussion who's disagreed, or argued against you thusfar in this conversation, is you. I'd hardly call insisting that you remain faithful - to your own damned argument...arguing with you...or offering my own argument. More like forceful agreement.

(August 26, 2015 at 4:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Do you see me claiming, anywhere in there, that there is no sentient energy, that any of that rules it out, or offering you any resistance whatsoever, or balking against any of those givens we agreed to?  No, you do not.  I'm only extrapolating on the argument -you- offered....those aren't my bulleted points, are they?  You're the one that told me the campfire energy isn't sentient.  I'm running with it.  You layed out the bullets and the brain fits...I'm agreeing with the argument, and then agreeing, beyond all logic and reason, that somehow the brain is -still- ruled out, just wondering by what.

If you'd like to hear -my- argument.............I can oblige.

Or, you can be pissy because your argument is inconsistent, and hearing me agree with all of these plainly contradictory things in a single post exposes that.

The only person in this discussion who's disagreed, or argued against you thusfar in this conversation, is you.  I'd hardly call insisting that you remain faithful - to your own damned argument...arguing with you...or offering my own argument.  More like forceful agreement.

What would you like to talk about, daddy?

I'm not sure I understand.  Those bulleted points were your givens.  The brain exhibits what you determined to be the qualifying characteristic of sentience in those points, of your choosing.  If you claim that the brain is not sentient...you, not I, are arguing against those points.  Having this pointed out to you seems to have had a pretty sorry effect. The situation regarding campfires is in the same camp. Your claims.

Rather than respond, you decided to pull the ole "drippy/GC" card. Now you're calling me daddy, which is fitting..because you acted like a child...rather than a person looking to demonstrate or prove something.

I thought that we were working on a theory.......was I wrong?

(August 26, 2015 at 6:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not sure I understand.  Those bulleted points were your givens.  The brain exhibits what you determined to be the qualifying characteristic of sentience in those points, of your choosing.  If you claim that the brain is not sentient...you, not I, are arguing against those points.  Having this pointed out to you seems to have had a pretty sorry effect.  The situation regarding campfires is in the same camp.  Your claims.

Rather than respond, you decided to pull the ole "drippy/GC" card.  Now you're calling me daddy, which is fitting..because you acted like a child...rather than a person looking to demonstrate or prove something.

I thought that we were working on a theory.......was I wrong?

I specifically said the electrical impulses that flow through the brain are sentient. It's no inconsistency when I differentiate between the impulses and the brain itself. When Whatsoeverist reminded me that the chemicals play a part as well, I conceded. But is still separate from the fleshy part of the brain which dies when there are no impulses.

I hope we will be able to understand one another. We were doing so well. We can get back towhee we were.

Right, and specifically saying that doesn't help to establish it, nor does saying that establish that the energy in the light bulb or fire isn't, or that the brainmeat isn't (and it does this while begging the -entire- question, and simultaneously assuming the conclusion..you don't need to argue it or demonstrate it if you are comfortable with just saying it....).  When asked about -that- we had to make an addition to the givens.  The brain satisfies both givens regarding sentience.  To claim that the brain is not sentient argues against your givens.....so either they -can- be used to establish this sentient energy...as well as sentient brains, or they can't be used to establish sentient brains.....or sentient energy, after all.  As I already mentioned, it's a case of special pleading unless you can explain why it's -actually- special.  

This bit about there being no sentience when there are no impulses does not help either.....because there -are- "impulses" in the lightbulb, in the campfire...and yet still no sentience, presumably - again according to you. So the presence, or lack thereof is no indication of sentience.

Again, these are yours, I gave them from the outset, I have accepted your further comments regarding campfires, lightbulbs, brains, etc - even when they are demonstrably inconsistent or invalid. I insist that you remain within the boundaries you have set, or I see no reason to give you these things in the first place. I'm still not looking to disagree, I'm just looking to get a better explanation for what I have agreed to, making sure that you will adhere to your explanation in a situation you did not conceive of previously.

- I could not take what you've offered, and attempt to convince another person with it, for reasons now explained at length and in different ways. That's where we're at. Where I would like to see us go, is a place that doesn't scuttle the givens or previous statements so completely. Or, as I mentioned all the way back at the beginning, I can just accept sentient energy as a given entirely....absolving you of these problems in your argument completely...and we can come up with some pass and fail criteria for determining what does, and doesn't have this sentient energy business. What energy is, and what energy -isn't- sentient.