Again, you misunderstand science. It is you who speaks of absolutes--what projects certainty more than that? As you have been told here, all scientific truths are provisional and subject to review. I really don't see how you get "projecting certainty" out of that!Do you consider it the Spanish Inquisition to be asked to define your terms coherently? I would think that is something you would want to do for yourself!Funny, then, that science has explained more in 200 years (indeed, in the last 20 years!) than all the philosophers of the previous 2000!

And there are many many things which instruments do far better than humans. What is the least weight you can discriminate? If I put a one-gram weight on your palm, you might not even notice it. But scales exist now to weigh thousandths of a gram or less! Microphones can be built with greater range and greater sensitivity than human hearing. Bomb-sniffing devices now smell the chemicals in the air even better than bloodhounds (who ar much better than humans). My calculator can divide more quickly than I can, and don't even get me started on roots, logarithms, exponents and the like.If you want to go back to the prescientific misunderstandings of the world around and within us (although, as Gooze pointed out, your computer usage argues against that), feel free. But don't expect anyone with any appreciation of science whatsoever to lend credence to your ideas. You are not conducting research, Iacchus; you are dreaming.

And I would suggest that you're sadly mistaken if you say Science doesn't strive for accuracy. Accuracy with respect to what then? That which is totally unfounded? How can you have accuracy without it approaching some sort of absolute? Perhaps this the avenue Science should take (the study of absolutes) if, in fact it wants to understand the nature of God?

The best way to understand something is to observe it, not pick it apart and see if it can function later. I don't need to be subjected to that sort of experience.

I am a human being. Not a robot.

Dust in the wind ...

My computer usage suggests that it might very well be a big distraction. As computer literate as I am, it hasn't done anything really to further the advancement of my life, except keep me chained in front of the computer. And that's not a far stretch.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Thank you. I will try to remember your advice if I ever actually say that. I did not. You were speaking of certainty and absolutes, not of accuracy. It is your own interpretation of accuracy that requires it to be somehow related to absolutes...as you go on to say:Hey, wow, I can actually see an interpretation of something you said that might actually be correct...sadly, with your use of words, any of a number of other interpretations are also possible...If I try to accurately measure your weight, Iacchus, am I approaching an absolute? Your weight varies, from year to year by perhaps pounds, from day to day (or over the course of the day) by ounces or even pounds, depending on what you eat or...um...eliminate. That scale I spoke of could measure the variability in your weight that comes from the moisture you exhale...we can be accurate, but with a target that moves, we are not approaching an absolute. At some point, we will reach a limit of our accuracy, either because of limitations in our measurements (common in older research) or inherent variability or even instability in our subjects (more often now). Sometimes, accuracy allows us to recognise that the things we are examining vary, and cannot be described by absolutes.Yes, by all means, let us decide our final destination before we know whether there is even such a place. Shall we also study the nature of faeries? Goblins? Or maybe...just maybe...we should follow the data and see where they lead us.Science studies both functionally (by observing in its context) and structurally (by dissecting, either literally or metaphorically). Don't pretend that it is less than it is.

If I am to derive the definitions of your words functionally, as you suggest, then I need to see how you use them in context. Sadly, you do not do well there, as it appears that your use of such words is only to confuse and evade. If we observe, as you suggest, anything at all, we should pick up meaningful patterns. Thus far, I see no meaningful pattern in the way you use "consciousness". Believe me, I am trying. But that is the whole reason I asked you for a definition...to observe your use of "consciousness" in another context, the context of defining.

It truly baffles me that you find it a bit of a trial to be asked to explain the use of the words that you use! I assume that you wish to be understood, but it appears that you do not. I assume that there is a meaning to your words, something you are trying to convey, and when I ask for help finding it, you refuse! I am slowly coming to the conclusion, as I say in the last paragraph, that you use your words to hide, not to reveal. And I just don't understand why. Did I suggest otherwise? We have learned more about human beings in the last 200 years (or the last 20) than in the 2000 preceding science. So, no meaningful comment? I took the time to address your claim in detail, and I get Kansas lyrics?You have an unparalleled opportunity to learn here, and you are actively fighting it. Again, I am baffled. It is not that you spend the time here...it is that you spend the time here re-adjusting your blinders and turning away from Galileo's telescope.

Your frequent repetition of the same "program" would suggest otherwise. You seem to behave more like a robot than most people I know.
What? You feel "chained" there in front of your computer? I thought Dionysus was a labor of love, and that you wanted to let as many people as possible see it. That would seem to be the point of creating a website for it. But now you are sounding resentful that the mean old internet has made this communication possible.

Iacchus, unless someone is making you do this, you are not chained, and I cannot fathom anyone subverting your free will in that manner. So if you don't like it, chuck it. Or are there perhaps some beneficial aspect of this technology that you don't choose to mention?

All I'm suggesting is that there must be a relationship between something or nothing (in order for things to exist), and that's about as absolute as you can get.

So what? These variables are merely the dynamics of "interplay" between the absolutes which do exist.

And, just because we may not know what that ultimate destination is, does not mean it doesn't exist. So you have to approach it from that standpoint, at the very least, before you can even begin to comprehend what it means.

Then why the need to nit-pick so much?

Well hell, at least the prostitute charges for it ... i.e., the compromising of oneself.

It's called the integrity of the whole, against what it deems an invasive procedure.

We have learned a great deal about the mechanics of the Universe, and how to build machines.

And when everything is fully automated and the machines take over, then what?

I don't need Galileo's telescope, albeit I don't doubt that such articles exist in heaven ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I'm the "beneficial aspect" you speak of. Iacchus is madly in love with me and he's maintaining this website to keep in contact with me. Just kidding! I had to put in my two cents worth.

what, that things absolutely exist? Is that all? Gee, I thought it was something more than that.So, in the context I used...do you have an absolute height? Just one????? Of course we do not say it does not exist. We simply say there is no evidence for it. Are you suggesting we must believe everything first, before we even look for evidence? How very difficult that makes things...Please give examples of this nit-picking so I can know how to respond. I don't know what it is you are complaining about.At least she makes clear the terms of the transaction so that both parties can come to an agreement. Iacchus, I am not asking you to compromise yourself, merely to explain yourself! What are you so afraid of?Why do you deem it thus?You equate humans with machines? I didn't, but if you insist...Is this why you fear science? You fear a phantom of your own creation, then.Neither does anyone whose mind is already made up. I want to look. Hell, I want to look through your telescope, but I can't get you to tell me where the eyepiece is!!!

Huh, what?

__________________
Hey, did you know that a cat has three names? ... 1) The name that his master calls him ... 2) His scientific name and ... 3) The name that nobody knows but the cat himself? Meow ...

Ha ha ha ha ha!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Oh, I'm so... um... happy for you. Now I understand why he hasn't made a pass at me.

Iacchus...let me try this...remember your "swine" comment? I called you on it, you defended it, I did not understand, you explained once or twice more (I don't recall if it was once or twice)...and I understood, and withdrew my objection, and admitted I was mistaken in my interpretation of what you had said.

What is it about "consciousness" that is different from this? Why did you defend and clarify your position then, but not now? Why is now "compromising yourself", but not then? You have evidence, from that exchange, that I am willing to admit I was wrong and misunderstood you. What is different about this time?

Consciousness is the label for the very thing which allows us to ascribe labels to things. In other words, how could we define anything, unless we were conscious first? Heck, we wouldn't even have Science without consciousness. So what does this tell us about being alive and awake and self-aware? That we are human beings first perhaps? Which, is far more important to understand than anything Science can possibly tell us? If there are certain things which only we as humans can understand, why forsake it all by putting it in the hands of Science and letting Science decide?

Does a tree maintain its roots in the soil? Why should it be required to move then?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I thank you for this. Sadly, it seems I will be prodding a bit at this definition, but hey, at least now there is something here to talk about.

You look at our behavior (speaking, defining, thinking) and from it you deduce that we are conscious. Ok, thus far. But then you also say that it is consciousness that allows us to do those things. That makes your definition circular. You are claiming that the thing you have deduced, is the cause of the things you deduced it from. It can't be.And then, you go on to conclude that other things are the result of consciousness, when again, you have no evidence for consciousness that is not circular in nature. As for importance...I suppose that is a values judgment, so we can disagree on that with no problem. But...science has demonstrated itself to be the most powerful tool we have yet devised; if something is truly important to us, why not use our best tools to try to understand it? And of course, science does not decide anything. It is a tool only, and can only give us information by which we make our decisions.Ok, you lost me again. Why is the tree required to move? Who required it to? How is this a response to my comment?

Well, I don't know that I've said anything different, except that I've added a little "twist" to it.

What, to suggest that the label maker itself (by attaching its own label) is the very thing which makes labels is circular? How so? A thought is still a thought, whether you're thinking about the word "thought" or not, correct? It's just a means by which we use to describe the thinking process itself.

And, if we were to go so far as to say consciousness was an emergent property? What then?

Because it does such a crappy job?

And yet a tool which is not well suited for certain tasks, however.

Because the tree is established in what it knows and this is what adheres to, otherwise it would be a contradiction for it to just get up and walk away and establish itself someplace else.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

What then? Well, for one thing, it would be caused, not causal, and a term descriptive of our experience, rather than a purported cause of our experience. We could then turn our attention to trying to explain it, rather than pretend to explain other things by saying "that's what consciousness does". It would keep us from spinning our wheels saying consciousness is some sort of non-physical and yet causal entity, a contradiction in terms which makes the "nature of consciousness" an unanswerable conundrum. When we define something improperly, it taints all the questions we ask about that thing.LOL...because it does not agree with your preconceived notions? Perhaps, just perhaps, it is you who is doing the crappy job.Agreed, completely. I do think, though, that you and I differ on what tasks we speak of. When you are trying to make empirical claims--as you often do here--then there is no better tool than science to evaluate those claims. Even when the evaluation concludes that your views are wrong.Who said the tree is moving? Why would anybody even think about walking trees, outside of Middle Earth? Are you claiming that you are the tree? Why would you want to emulate the tree while claiming to be curious about the questions you have asked here? You remind me of the old joke about the man looking around under the streetlamp for his keys...another man asks if he needs help, and starts looking, too. The second man eventually asks if he is sure the keys are even there...to which the first man replies "Oh, no, I lost them over there in the bushes." "Then why on earth are you looking for them here?" "Well, the light is so much better here."

You want to look for answers without leaving the comfort of your own introspection. Sorry, that's not where the answers are.

Hey, I'm not saying consciousness is the cause of experience. I'm saying it's the cause of our ability to experience which, are two separate things. For how would we be able to experience anything without it? I just thought this was generally understood. Are you saying it isn't?

And yet this is merely your preconceived notions about the possibility of what "may" be preconceived -- guaranteed to get us nowhere, I can assure you. Which, is exactly what's happened right from the getgo.

Ultimately though, the answers to life are determined by what each and everyone of us does with them. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a life would it?

Ha ha ha ha ha! Too bad, if anybody is looking in the wrong place, it's ... Ha ha ha ha ha!

I am not going to change my views, just because others may not agree with what I have found.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

That is precisely what I am saying. And yes, you are giving consciousness a causal capability...which you infer only from the thing you allege it causes! This is circular reasoning!I suppose it depends on what the questions are. For the empirical questions, I disagree with you. For the others...it really doesn't matter.Oh, I believe you! I really do! It is awfully open of you to admit it, though.

And yet how do we know anything if it wasn't for the fact that we're conscious? It seems to me this is the only means by to which to explore it, by which to explore anything really, through the experience of it. And, just because Science can't explain why we know what we know is of no concern to me. Heck, it can't even explain how something can come from nothing. So there you have it.

And yet these empirical questions can't be asked unless we have human beings to ask them. So yes, it is very important that people be allowed to draw their own conclusions, if for nothing else, the sake of learning then.

Is it a crime not to follow the crowd? No. If so, how else would you expect somebody to come up with anything original?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Circular reasoning yet again. Iacchus, when I tell you that something is circular, that is not an insult, nor is it a compliment. I am telling you that your argument is logically flawed, and is not evidence at all. If you honestly cared about your ideas, you would do well to learn not to use logically flawed arguments to attempt to support them. You are coming back again and again to the same flaws. Learn, and move on.If it seems that way, you are seriously lacking in vision. Of course it is one way to explore, but it is by no means the only way. In addition, if we only explore that way we will forever be limited by the inherent biases in our experience--biases which are very easy to demonstrate once we widen our methodological scope. Heck, if we only relied on our own experience, we'd have never realised the existence of visual illusions! After all, we know we can trust our senses to report our experience...Ahh...so you are coming around to the point where you can admit we don't know the answers to some things. Science has never been afraid to admit we do not have a particular answer for some things...that's part of why we keep looking. But tell, me, Iacchus32, why is it that if you are comfortable admitting ignorance on some things, you still feel the need to make stuff up to pretend to answer questions?True, and entirely meaningless; this is, on our planet at least, a given.And it is important to recognise that not all conclusions are equal. This learning you speak of is the recognition of this fact.Just as long as you remember that it is also the way people become hopelessly lost.

I am conscious. I know that I am conscious. This is the basis I have for establishing everything else. In which case it becomes the basis for my asking a lot of questions. Not of Digital Cuttlefish though or, of anyone else for that matter, mind you. The fact that I have an inquiring mind is sufficient enough, in most cases anyway. Now that isn't to say I can't ask other people questions, just that the confirmation of those questions rests within me.

If you're trying to tell me that life doesn't entail the experience of life itself, then you're full of it!

Oh, I see we have a wishful thinker in our midst. What, are you saying we don't know the answer to that which gives us the ability to know the answer to everything else? Boy, that's lame. You see this is why we can't trust Science, because it doesn't know why it knows. Science is not conscious, only the human beings which impliment Science are conscious ... supposedly anyway.

Why is Science (its extensive use) so important to human beings then? In other words the experience of discovery rests with the fact that we're human beings and, conscious, not with Science necessarily. Otherwise we're putting the cart before the horse here, not to mention all our eggs in one basket ... as big as it is!

And yet life evolves, to the extent where everything has its own purpose in this respect.

If they don't learn how to become self-reliant, to some extent, then yes.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?