Consciousness

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, that’s not only not what it says, it’s also not true. The patch of ice on a roadway is in no sense greater than the six car pile up it causes.

Please stop trying to use science to justify your particular brand of magic.

Boru

Collusion (cause), wreck (effect).

The Cause is always greater: 1. Initiates the transaction. 2. Linked to fundamental forces.
----------------------
Popsicle stick stuck in ocean beach sand, racked at 135°. Afternoon wind blows sand onto stick which starts to clump which eventually breaks loose resulting in a sand avalanche.
Cause: wind and gravity, Effect: avalanche.

Initiation doesn’t make the cause greater in any meaningful sense. There is nothing - absolutely NOTHING - that isn’t linked to fundamental forces.

Are you seriously claiming that an ocean breeze is greater than an avalanche?

Maybe you should stick with prayer, because you’re complete shit at physics.

Boru

[Angrboda]

Cute strawman from a nut who believes that goddunnit.

Unconsciousness cannot cause consciousness. The Principle of Causality states that the Cause is always (yes. always) greater than the Effect.

Unconsciousness is neither a thing nor the cause of consciousness. The existence of the conditions under which consciousness can arise is what, putatively, caused consciousness. Whether that was greater than the phenomenon it caused is mostly a matter of definitions, and less so a matter of facts. What you mean to say is things that are not conscious cannot give rise to consciousness, but that's so obviously unfounded you needed to disguise the blunt ludicrousness of your bollocks to make it even sound plausible.

[Paleophyte]

Unconsciousness cannot cause consciousness. The Principle of Causality states that the Cause is always (yes. always) greater than the Effect.

Unconsciousness is neither a thing nor the cause of consciousness.  The existence of the conditions under which consciousness can arise is what, putatively, caused consciousness.  Whether that was greater than the phenomenon it caused is mostly a matter of definitions, and less so a matter of facts.  What you mean to say is things that are not conscious cannot give rise to consciousness, but that's so obviously unfounded you needed to disguise the blunt ludicrousness of your bollocks to make it even sound plausible.

This is the same line of 'thinking' that requires a soul, because you can't possibly get a properly functioning human from insensate gametes. At least not if your scientific literacy is stuck in the Dark Ages.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Unconsciousness cannot cause consciousness. The Principle of Causality states that the Cause is always (yes. always) greater than the Effect.

Unconsciousness is neither a thing nor the cause of consciousness.  The existence of the conditions under which consciousness can arise is what, putatively, caused consciousness.  Whether that was greater than the phenomenon it caused is mostly a matter of definitions, and less so a matter of facts.  What you mean to say is things that are not conscious cannot give rise to consciousness, but that's so obviously unfounded you needed to disguise the blunt ludicrousness of your bollocks to make it even sound plausible.

(Bold mine)

I am so stealing this.

Boru

[Alan V]

Snowtracks is yet another "Righteous Christian" who objects to the facts because they contradict his preferred dogmas.

Who exactly convinced all of these people that they are qualified to make such pronouncements about any number of scientific specializations? Some ancient author or other?

That isn't exactly humility.

[Ahriman]

Snowtracks is yet another "Righteous Christian" who objects to the facts because they contradict his preferred dogmas.

Who exactly convinced all of these people that they are qualified to make such pronouncements about any number of scientific specializations?  Some ancient author or other?

That isn't exactly humility.

He's just opinionated, maybe a bit dense, but harmless.

[Alan V]

Snowtracks is yet another "Righteous Christian" who objects to the facts because they contradict his preferred dogmas.

Who exactly convinced all of these people that they are qualified to make such pronouncements about any number of scientific specializations?  Some ancient author or other?

That isn't exactly humility.

He's just opinionated, maybe a bit dense, but harmless.

One dogmatic person may or may not be harmless, but millions of them are a real problem.

[Ahriman]

He's just opinionated, maybe a bit dense, but harmless.

One dogmatic person may or may not be harmless, but millions of them are a real problem.

I guess it depends on where in the world we're talking about....I live in America and the dogmatists here aren't too bad, certainly nothing like how it is in the Middle East.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

One dogmatic person may or may not be harmless, but millions of them are a real problem.

I guess it depends on where in the world we're talking about....I live in America and the dogmatists here aren't too bad, certainly nothing like how it is in the Middle East.

Nonsense.

Boru

[Ahriman]

I guess it depends on where in the world we're talking about....I live in America and the dogmatists here aren't too bad, certainly nothing like how it is in the Middle East.

Nonsense.

Boru

What's nonsense?