Except that I don't have to make assumptions about what does and does not exhibit consciousness. Mollusks interact with their environment and octopus are among the most neurologically advanced of all invertebrates. Demonstrably capable of problem solving and memory. That doesn't qualify as consciousness to you? Is "consciousness" synonymous with human in your dictionary?

What was that again? If you'd stop typing up responses like this maybe I'd stop poking you.

---

I found a great definition of philosophy as I was rereading material on mollusks, fantastic creatures btw.

Philosophy- Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
(there are many more, I like these two)

In that vein, isn't my little tidbit about the octopus so much more valuable to philosophy than the assumption you made in the post prior?

And from this belief in "god" in the existence of consciousness as the primary function of the universe from which everything is created I proceed. I believe everything which I can possibly perceive within my own imagination exists, even if only as an idea. Faries, unicorns, leprechauns all exist as possibilities of an infinite consciousness. That they are not physically real does not negate their existence. Skyscrapers, humans, anything, at one point were not physical realities. These things nevertheless exist (apart from time or space) Some have been created by humans (which were created by, or through, depending on how you want to think about it,God) others have been created by "god". Again this is a belief which stems from my belief that consciousness is universal law, which I can not prove.

Does anyone want to continue?

---

Um I don't know what your point is. It very well may be that octopi are conscious. Many animals are considered conscious.

---

Are you claiming that you have some insight into the consciousness of mollusks and whether or not they form assumptions rhythm. Scientific breakthrough. Call... I dunno, call guiness I guess.

---

Time and space are necessary constructs in which physical reality is possible

(December 23, 2011 at 10:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Except that I don't have to make assumptions about what does and does not exhibit consciousness. Mollusks interact with their environment and octopus are among the most neurologically advanced of all invertebrates. Demonstrably capable of problem solving and memory. That doesn't qualify as consciousness to you? Is "consciousness" synonymous with human in your dictionary?

What was that again? If you'd stop typing up responses like this maybe I'd stop poking you.

---

I found a great definition of philosophy as I was rereading material on mollusks, fantastic creatures btw.

Philosophy- Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
(there are many more, I like these two)

In that vein, isn't my little tidbit about the octopus so much more valuable to philosophy than the assumption you made in the post prior?

I assumed because I didn't know the answer, and I thought you were making a point that they didn't possess consciousness. So are you finally seeing my point about assumption being the root of everything? Is that why the subject was changed?

What subject has been changed? You made an assumption about consciousness, and then used this assumption to draw an inference. The assumption was not a very good one, the inference (a justification of assumptions no less) a bad one. I couldn't have asked for a better example.

What on earth made you think that I was implying that mollusks lacked consciousness? That would be where your argument for the justification of assumptions would lead. That assumptions and axioms about the "fundamental blah blah....." are required or we would be unable to do anything. Well, show me a mollusks assumptions, a mollusks axioms, and yet they are able to do many things. You replied that mollusks did not have consciousness (apparently because you thought that I would make such a strange claim....), and that as such they did not perceive things the way that we do. I wouldn't argue on the latter, but the former can be discredited via evidence. They solve problems, can learn to perform tasks, remember those actions, and some even have a wonderful little camo routine that is the very definition of awareness of self and surroundings. No change of subject, and still no assumptions, at least not coming out of this corner.

Before you respond....again...with "you're assuming the axiom of reason". Not quite. I'm applying reason to evidence and reaching a conclusion based off of a starting point called observation. If reason would lead me to conclude that an octopus did not posess consciousness I would doubt my use of reason first, then the evidence, then reason itself, then evidence itself again, and at some point something would have to break, or I would have to admit that the phenomena was in-explicable. That I did not possess enough knowledge about the subject, or the proper tools, and could not proceed. See all of that going down that has nothing to do with assumptions?

Or....I could go on until the end of time with a philosophical argument, full of assumptions......likely learning nothing whatsoever.

This is precisely why I continue to attempt to explain to you why a conclusion reached by the use of philosophy alone is not equivalent to a conclusion reached by science. That the limits of philosophy begin and end with the fact that it deals merely in concepts, whereas other methods continue further to establish whether or not a concept has application outside of our own minds.

(December 21, 2011 at 11:34 pm)Epimethean Wrote: The trinity is working on a new teleprompter which is said to be positively angelic.

Good thing Lucy's back with the tetrahedron. The trine no longer applies.

---

(December 23, 2011 at 11:05 pm)amkerman Wrote: And from this belief in "god" in the existence of consciousness as the primary function of the universe from which everything is created I proceed. I believe everything which I can possibly perceive within my own imagination exists, even if only as an idea. Faries, unicorns, leprechauns all exist as possibilities of an infinite consciousness. That they are not physically real does not negate their existence. Skyscrapers, humans, anything, at one point were not physical realities. These things nevertheless exist (apart from time or space) Some have been created by humans (which were created by, or through, depending on how you want to think about it,God) others have been created by "god". Again this is a belief which stems from my belief that consciousness is universal law, which I can not prove.

Does anyone want to continue?

Then what is the difference between this and my naive acausal philosophy that states awareness proceeds existence? I'm not the first naive philosopher who was certain of the primacy of awareness; others are just now seen as formal philosophy.

Atheism does not take away from this. In my view, identifying "awareness" as agency has been shown by the historical record to be a detrimental practice. It was thus my practice to limit divinity to a certain blond - and what? Coupla days of posting that tried the patience of my fellow atheists, thus she goes unnamed.

But there's nothing to theology other than morality, and I have uncovered the highest moral in the statement of being - I love. So what are we talking about here? Making others love? They will come to it on their own or not at all; and they are entitled to identify love in their own terms. That is how I see atheism. I don't believe in your god, and I do not ask you to believe in mine. All "god" is is an identifier. The identity I am that I love - creator enough for this universe. Faith in self is the exit from duality.

You need to learn to realize your audience hoc. You're words are Greek to me (I don't know how to read Greek).

I mean I know your existence is proven by a picture of Paltrow on the cover of Ellen magazine, beyond that though I have no clue what you are trying to say.

---

I actually think that we agree on some level, I just don't know what that level is because I can't understand you.

(December 24, 2011 at 2:13 am)amkerman Wrote: You need to learn to realize your audience hoc. You're words are Greek to me (I don't know how to read Greek).

I mean I know your existence is proven by a picture of Paltrow on the cover of Ellen magazine, beyond that though I have no clue what you are trying to say.

---

I actually think that we agree on some level, I just don't know what that level is because I can't understand you.

My existence is "I love" rather than merely "I think." If your existence is "I love," then that is where we are congruent.

What makes me hard to understand is the fact that I am insane; to read my words is simulate the mind of another, whereas my mind has no frame of reference.

(December 23, 2011 at 4:51 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I would pick the axiom: I exist.

Good lad!

Seems that at least some one was listening to my "I exist and I can prove it, and anyone that says otherwise is stupid" rant.

(December 23, 2011 at 10:20 pm)Perhaps Wrote: As ignorance does not allow us to proceed through life, we must make assumptions. If we simply said I don't know in regards to all things fundamental then we could not do anything. Thus, we created axioms - assumptions which allow us to function.

Like, Making up "goddidit" to full the gaps of ignorance, so we can proceed through the life with purpose?

(December 23, 2011 at 10:17 pm)amkerman Wrote: If you believe something to be true but don't know why you are nevertheless assuming it to be true

Whoever does that then?

Normal people only call things true that they know to be true, and they know why it's true (evidence)