Am I seeing double, or is this thread in two places now?

Iacchus, it is not worth the effort of checking--did you copy the whole thread, or just part of it? If just a part, where is the original and where is the copy, and what part is copied.?


Oh...and...did I predict this, or what?edited to add...I was wrong. I saw this thread posted twice, that is true, but once was in a multi-group heading, as the most recent post in the group, and the other was in a single-group heading, as the most recent post in a smaller subgroup. My mistake. Sorry, false alarm. I was wrong.

I've done that a number of times too. When you click on one of the subfora, it brings up the latest thread in the subforum and the latest thread on the sub-sub-forum. Sometimes they are the same one.

But kudos to you for not simply editing your post to obscure your mistake, which you could have done since no-one had responded. It takes a courage to admit when you have made a mistake.

LOL...I didn't even think to obscure it...

When you make as many mistakes as I do, it gets easy to admit them. Easier to keep track of, too--you don't have to worry about what lies you are telling, just the truth.

My kids actually like it. They know that other parents claim to know everything, and I do not. They have learned that I know much much more than their friends' parents, but am not ashamed to admit the stuff I do not know. Of course, the fun part (I do have some ego, after all), is pointing out the stuff that they (the other parents) don't know....heh. heh.

Only because you refuse to address it.

This is a load of crap. A circular mind is a circular mind, whether you have one, two, three or five hundred thousand at your disposal. Just because two Scientists happen to agree with each other, has nothing to do with anything. Indeed, if it were just a matter of establishing a community (what a joke), then perhaps we should take the word of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

The conscious mind is all we have to work with, jerk! So either there's a whole transcendent reality that exists above this which speaks to us about the nature of all things or, there isn't. And if there isn't then all we have left is the circularity of our own minds which leads us fumbling around in the dark. Why? Because according to you, it doesn't exist.

There is a difference between external facts and internal truths, and on this account you are wholly mistaken. It's too bad, because unless you make allowances for an internal reality (my main gripe against you), there's no way of validating anything, externally or internally.

Yet it's all in your mind ... Or is it?

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

So, if the conscious mind is entirely circular, and exists within its own realm (of the brain), how does it learn anything, outside of its own existence that is? A closed system is a closed system is it not?

Yes, unfortunately you leave me no choice but to continue the same "old" argument. Why should it change? Thus far you have spoken to me of little or nothing I don't know.

The conscious mind is that which puts labels on things, including itself. So, without a conscious mind, how could a conscious mind even put a label upon itself? Obviously you folks don't wish to discuss the nature of consciousness, because it screws up the nature of all your theories.

You have no idea.

Mostly rant.

Evidence? What exactly is this evidence and, more importantly -- I'm beginning detect the workings of a circular mind here -- how do we recognize it?

No such luck! A circular mind has no means of accessing such a thing, unless of course, we are willing to admit that it is not circular?

What, if I wish to expose myself to "your" lies?

Again, no such luck.

What is truth, without the conscious realization of it?

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

Rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant ...

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

If that were the case, then your description would have a chance of being correct. However, the conscious mind is not circular. What is circular is your description/definition of consciousness. To all evidence, your definition appears to be that consciousness is an entity apart from the brain which drives and is driven by consciousness.
Oh? You "know" the things I've been saying? You certainly have fooled me. I guess it was your total refusal to reply in any meaningful way to the points I have raised that made me think you didn't understand. I mistook your rudeness for ignorance. I see you intend to continue this trend. Very well. I shall play the role of Tireless Rebutter
LOL. Look at that second sentence, Iacchy. "without a conscious mind, how could a conscious mind..."
That's as far as you need to go to see that you are using the word conscious to describe consciousness. It would be as if I asked you to describe "paper" and you said "it is something made out of paper". How can you discuss consciousness when you cannot even define it coherently?

Q: What's brown and sticky?
A: A stick.
You could never recognize it. You don't know and refuse to even try to learn the meaning of circularity. Here's a quick refresher.
I have said time and time again, Iacchy. The mind is not circular.

And just to note in case anyone out there is paying attention: I gave you a straightforward definition of what I am calling "truth" and asked you to provide yours. You have declined to do so and instead OMRI'd off in another direction. Is that because you have no clue as to what truth is? Do you accept or deny my definition? Why?

See? Give and take. That is what "discussion" is about, not your repetitions ruminations.
You would have to show that they were "lies" by explaining (not asserting) why you thought they were incorrect. I note in you, a certain reluctance to do that.
Instead of replying to my question with a rhetorical question, Iacchy, why don't you answer it, as I have? I'm only asking your definition. For anyone who was honest and open, it would be an easy question. (BTW, "I don't know" is an honest answer.)LOL. Is this your new mantra, Iacchy? The one that protects you from answering questions? Wasn't the fly-whisk doing the trick anymore?

You're the one who brought it up, Ms. 666.

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

Yes, how could the label maker label anything let alone itself? ... Hey, is it possible to use your hand to draw a picture of your hand? Yes. Perhaps not at the same time you're looking at it but, it is possible.

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

Gosh, Iacchy. Is it now that you are defending circularity? Or perhaps you are just remembering this old Escher drawing. Yes, Escher was famous for creating artwork that represented things that would be impossible in the real world.

Wow! Seriously, do you expect any reader of this thread to buy that?

I have addressed it all along. I have shown how your usage of "mind" is circular. Gooze uses a different definition, rather like the cognitive psychology mantra "the mind is what the brain does". Note that the mind, in this definition, is caused, not causal. Your causal version of mind is wholly circular, and this has been "addressed" at least half a dozen times on your forum.

There is one person here who refuses to address it. Iacchus, recall that Gooze and I are using a different definition of mind than you are. Yours is circular...and yes, if it was an acceptable definition of mind, then a multitude of them would be as ineffectual as one (mainly because you would be forced into the position of doubting the very existence of these other minds, and take refuge in solipsism. If one defines mind as you do, there is no way to verify the existence of anything, not even one's own mind.). With our descriptive (not causal) definition of mind...it is not even a necessary part of the emergent property of a scientific community. We do not depend on the minds of others, or even our own, but on their behavior, and our own senses (carefully limited and controlled by systematic observation--but that is another whole thread, and one which you are not even close to being ready for yet).

Your error here, Iacchus, is one which you have made in other arguments. You presuppose your definitions, then impose them on other people's arguments. It is how you came to the silly conclusion that I deny my own existence, and it is how you come to the conclusion that a scientific community is no more reliable than your own dreams. By presupposing your definitions, you reach flawed conclusions (oh, that just happen to agree with your presuppositions). It is (wait for it.....) a form of circular reasoning. Any chance you read any of those pages?This is precisely what I mean. You presuppose your conclusions here, and project your flawed definitions onto my arguments. You would not do this if you did, as you claim, understand what I am saying. You either do not, and are speaking through ignorance, or you do, and are flat-out lying.Please tell me the difference between external facts and internal truths. While you are at it, tell me why it is that when the two appear to disagree with one another, you side with the internal "truth" that is at odds with the facts. And please tell me how it is that you verify these internal truths--what is it that you compare them to in order to see that they are truths? Are they truths just because they were particularly cool dreams that happened to agree with your presuppositions?If you understood, you would know how foolish your remark was. Again, either you do not understand, and you are ignorant, or you do and are a liar.

I can see the sea floor scenario now:

Urchin Jr: My dad can beat up your dad
Cuttlefish Jr: Yeah, well my dad's more honest about his own ignorance than your dad.

Actually, with Cuttlefish Jr.'s sense of humour, it would go:

Urchin Jr.: My dad can beat up your dad.

Cuttlefish Jr.: My dad doesn't have to act aggressively or boast and lie to make up for...shortcomings in other areas. I'm sorry to hear your dad is hung like a cocktail frank--I hope, for your sake, that your mom really did prefer the mailman, like everybody says. Otherwise...heredity's a bitch, man...

Coral Reef Gang: [general laughter at Urchin Jr.'s expense]


He's a little guy, but he's got a quick wit about him which (so far) has kept him un-beaten-up.

You mean he's not boring and prosaic like his dad? You haven't found any unexplained postage stamps around your house, have you?

Those things tend to skip a generation, according to the guy who delivers heating oil...

Nice try. Has nothing to do with the content of the post though.

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

I was kinda wondering about the content of the post. Had rather decided that there was none. Could you maybe explain what you were trying to say? Gooze's interpretation worked, but it was not my immediate thought (which was "WTF?"). Could you, in small words so even stupid cephalopods can understand, tell us what you meant in that post?

If the only means we have of describing things is via consciousness, what is wrong with consciousness describing what consciousness is? ... which is after all what we're trying to do isn't it? Apparently goozleberry seems to have a problem with that.

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

I can understand why she does.

Your first "if" is one which you automatically answer in the affirmative, presupposing your answer. This is the circularity Gooze said you were defending. Of course, a different definition of consciousness will get you a different answer from the one you are pointing toward. Gooze's non-causal, purely descriptive "consciousness" is perfectly acceptable as a definition, is acceptably non-circular, and renders your sentence absolutely meaningless. "Consciousness describing what consciousness is" is a statement implying a causal consciousness. This is only an "if", though, and not a certainty. In order to demonstrate its existence, you are forced to begin by assuming its existence!

So, yeah, Gooze should indeed have a problem with that. So should you, actually.

"If" what you say is true, then there's no need to try and facilliate an answer towards anything now is there? Because as you say, the whole thing is entirely circular ... which, is what I stated several posts back.

Hmm ... That seems to suggest the quality of knowing now doesn't it? Are you suggesting it's not possible to know anything then? Is consciousness the means by which we come to know anything? Yes or no?

And no, I don't think one has to assume that they're conscious in order to be conscious. Does the light bulb need to assume -- if it had a mind to think that is -- that it emits light when it is fully functional and the electricity is turned on? It's either a yes or no proposition.

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