RE: Qualia Soup "Putting Faith In Its Place"
May 23, 2011 at 11:53 am
(This post was last modified: May 23, 2011 at 12:42 pm by Darth.)
Check out theramintree's as well, he and qualiasoup have done a colab or two (betting on infinity)
Ok, so you're arguing for something that's independent of natural processes in that first paragraph, it's supernatural/magic, gotcha.
You argue that all things that can't be proven to exist in a state independent of physical processes, should be discounted, and then go on to argue for the existence of a consciousness. Am I to infer that consciousness HAS been proven to exist independent of physical processes (proof please)? So you're arguing for the existence of a consciousness, which isn't natural, but supernatural?
Also: Why are you discounting thing's that can't be proven (Especially when it can't be proven that this consciousness exists)? It can't be proven to exist, nor can it be proven to not exist, unless it is impossible (triangles with 7 sides and what-have-you).
Quote:
According to his logic any statement about what the object must be is flawed since without looking into the cube the possiblities are endless. This is very ridiculous when you apply this reasoning to the being which created the universe. If we are asking "Who created the process by which everything comes into existence" the possibilities for what is inside the cube is limited not endless. There could be no wooden spoon or ant or egg or anything else in there...The only thing which could be in the cube would be something which is not a product of the physical creation process.
The question would be, "What created everything?" Are the possibilities endless? No....We would have to subtract from the possibilities everything which cannot be proven to exist independent of physical processes. That leaves us with one real thing-Consciousness. Consciousnesss must be in the box.....
Whirling Moat
Ok, so you're arguing for something that's independent of natural processes in that first paragraph, it's supernatural/magic, gotcha.
You argue that all things that can't be proven to exist in a state independent of physical processes, should be discounted, and then go on to argue for the existence of a consciousness. Am I to infer that consciousness HAS been proven to exist independent of physical processes (proof please)? So you're arguing for the existence of a consciousness, which isn't natural, but supernatural?
Also: Why are you discounting thing's that can't be proven (Especially when it can't be proven that this consciousness exists)? It can't be proven to exist, nor can it be proven to not exist, unless it is impossible (triangles with 7 sides and what-have-you).
