all it takes for something to exist is...

Jeanie · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Well isn't it a little ironic, mom. Who's bullying. You state social stereotypes and when I refute them as invalid with empirical data you get offended. Well, I get offended when your prejudice permeates the majority and causes unwarranted suffering.

Quite frankly I'm so over you this week I don't care if you are offended.
I'm not offended by your data. It's your behaviour and you're attitude I don't like. And I'm not alone.

You just keep bringing up your "facts" and other crap at unsuitable times and ramming them down everyone elses throats.

And you just keep on assuming that you've got me all worked out!

When will you spend some time on your highly inadequate people skills?

You have a Happy Easter there ahnimus. Alone, all on your own, talking to yourself.

Ahnimus · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

You are being too reductionist. Taking the discussion back to these silly philosophical questions of what is self, do we really exist etc does not contribute, it just stifles and sidettracks. It's OK to make assumptions like "self" means me, Lucy the Lesbian Lover sitting in front of this computer, which fails a different test of self-awareness, which is this.
I can make a different decision each time in response to any given input stimulus. A computer cannot. If it's algorhithms tell it to do something, that's what it does.
I on the other hand, made a choice to respond to this thread when I saw new posts a few minutes ago. If there are new posts there when I finally submit this, I will make the decision to go for a shower and eat dinner instead, cos I can smell it, and it smells better than you do right now !!

So, if consciousness is dispersed throughout the brain, that implies that it is a multicellular function, so just how does a singel cell organism manage that ?? Further, does that include plants. A tree is certainly more complex than a bacteria, so is it self-aware too ?? I very much doubt it.

You are falling into the trap of thinking that all you know is all there is to know. It's one reason why a formal education would be good for you. At present you stick to finding out what you want to know, and you are not being forced to look at the rest of the picture.
There you go, a bit of condescencion coming right back at you, babe !!

I'll take your condescension and rebuttal as maturely as I can. The concept of a dispersed consciousness does not mean that all aspects of consciousness are dependent on each other, quite the opposite. It's also a matter of fact by the way, if you look into the work of Francis Crick after he identified the double-helix of DNA, he worked with Christof Koch to identify some of the neural correlates of consciousness and much of Koch's work is ongoing. What has been discovered is that inhibiting particular neurons dispersed across the brain causes specific conscious experiences to turn off. It's an empirically observable fact that consciousness is not localized. The idea of my concept was that these NCC evolve with particular functions and senses. So a bacteria who only requires basic pleasure and pain awareness, only has NCCs for basic pleasure and pain and only consciously experiences basic pleasure and pain. If you intended to refute my theory, you should have argued that there are no neurons in bacteria, it has no central nervous system. That would limit my theory to beings with a central nervous system.

Do your algorithms not tell you to do something? Computers make choices, the choices are determined by algorithms. How are your choices determined? By random? If you are impaled in the pre-frontal cortex like Phineas Gage, do you still retain your personality, or like Gage do you become a different person? Why don't you jab a sharp spike in your brain and see how well you make decisions. Might as well take your brain out completely, it only causes strokes, addictions, all that bad stuff. Apparently you can still make choices without it.

Ahnimus · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Quite frankly I'm so over you this week I don't care if you are offended.
I'm not offended by your data. It's your behaviour and you're attitude I don't like. And I'm not alone.

You just keep bringing up your "facts" and other crap at unsuitable times and ramming them down everyone elses throats.

And you just keep on assuming that you've got me all worked out!

When will you spend some time on your highly inadequate people skills?

You have a Happy Easter there ahnimus. Alone, all on your own, talking to yourself.

Actually you have the problem with my facts. Whenever I post factual data someone attacks me personally. Seems more like jealousy from inadequacy to me. But I never intended to say so, you got my back against the wall here Jeanie.

lucylespian · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I'll take your condescension and rebuttal as maturely as I can. The concept of a dispersed consciousness does not mean that all aspects of consciousness are dependent on each other, quite the opposite. It's also a matter of fact by the way, if you look into the work of Francis Crick after he identified the double-helix of DNA, he worked with Christof Koch to identify some of the neural correlates of consciousness and much of Koch's work is ongoing. What has been discovered is that inhibiting particular neurons dispersed across the brain causes specific conscious experiences to turn off. It's an empirically observable fact that consciousness is not localized. The idea of my concept was that these NCC evolve with particular functions and senses. So a bacteria who only requires basic pleasure and pain awareness, only has NCCs for basic pleasure and pain and only consciously experiences basic pleasure and pain. If you intended to refute my theory, you should have argued that there are no neurons in bacteria, it has no central nervous system. That would limit my theory to beings with a central nervous system.

Do your algorithms not tell you to do something? Computers make choices, the choices are determined by algorithms. How are your choices determined? By random? If you are impaled in the pre-frontal cortex like Phineas Gage, do you still retain your personality, or like Gage do you become a different person? Why don't you jab a sharp spike in your brain and see how well you make decisions. Might as well take your brain out completely, it only causes strokes, addictions, all that bad stuff. Apparently you can still make choices without it.

I think you are taking me too seriously. I was not disputing that consciousness is dispersed. I could have noted that a CNS is required for the above things, but I chose a different tack. I "should" not have done anything specific, or indeed predictable. I guess that is my point, computers only do predictable things, I can do both predictable and unpredictable things. This interaction is an emergent system, you have to wait and see what happens before you can predict the outcome. My choices are determined by my whim, rather than being determined by exrinsic influences.
I am not interested in being wrong or right, more interested in teh process of discussion rather than the outcome. I think that is the basis of the flak you are copping at present. You are very focussed on the end point of the argument, whereas I am not arguing at all, just throwing iodeas around for FUN !!!!!
Personally, I really don't like to argue at all, it is quite pointless, and even through discussion, I never, ever expect to change anyone's point of view about anything.

Jeanie · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually you have the problem with my facts. Whenever I post factual data someone attacks me personally. Seems more like jealousy from inadequacy to me. But I never intended to say so, you got my back against the wall here Jeanie.

So now you are claiming psychic abilities to go with that mighty intellect of yours? You know I have a problem with your facts? And you know I'm feeling jealous because I feel inadequate? Hmmmm......interesting.

Well I'll tell you the sad thing about all this ahnimus. I don't have a problem with your facts, you seem to have a problem when I dispute them. And it seems that you assume my position on things based on my clearly ineffectual communication. And you've been very wrong.
My problem will always be and has always been with your delivery and your timing and your seeming lack of respect for other people's ideas, beliefs and opinions. It's ok to disagree, it's not ok to belittle others.
So my question to you is, what is the point of delivering facts if you can't share the information with others and benefit from the exchange of ideas?
It's the absoluteness I have a problem with. And the idea that because you supposedly understand something that you are intellectually superior to the rest of us. In plain English, I object to your inability to "play nice" sometimes. And the reason I object so strongly is because I expect better of you. All the smarts in the world is useless to you if you don't have emotional smarts. And in order to communicate with people you have to give and take. As far as I can see, and again it's just my pathetically inadequate opinion, you are going to find it awfully lonely talking to no one.
And if I'm not interested in listening to you when you are pushing so hard to get your point across, believe me there will be people that got there long before me.
So you have to ask yourself, of the people you have upset this week, and I would be one of those, do you care or not? Because if you don't care I'd say go on the way you are. But if you give a little shit about the people you talk to here then I suggest, actually I implore you, to be kinder, more aware of others around you and perhaps then you might find that people are more willing to listen to what you have to say and attempt to understand it.
You might even find that you have things to learn about communicating.
For your sake I would hope that you do. You are smart and I believe you are doing yourself a huge diservice in your current efforts. Anyway, that's my two bob. I hope that you understand what I am saying to you here and don't take it as a personal attack on you. It's my very strong objection to your behaviour.

angelica · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

You are being too reductionist. Taking the discussion back to these silly philosophical questions of what is self, do we really exist etc does not contribute, it just stifles and sidettracks. It's OK to make assumptions like "self" means me, Lucy the Lesbian Lover sitting in front of this computer, which fails a different test of self-awareness, which is this.
I can make a different decision each time in response to any given input stimulus. A computer cannot. If it's algorhithms tell it to do something, that's what it does.
I on the other hand, made a choice to respond to this thread when I saw new posts a few minutes ago. If there are new posts there when I finally submit this, I will make the decision to go for a shower and eat dinner instead, cos I can smell it, and it smells better than you do right now !!

So, if consciousness is dispersed throughout the brain, that implies that it is a multicellular function, so just how does a singel cell organism manage that ?? Further, does that include plants. A tree is certainly more complex than a bacteria, so is it self-aware too ?? I very much doubt it.

You are falling into the trap of thinking that all you know is all there is to know. It's one reason why a formal education would be good for you. At present you stick to finding out what you want to know, and you are not being forced to look at the rest of the picture.
There you go, a bit of condescencion coming right back at you, babe !!

Very nice, Lucy! Reductionism is a big issue. I like that even though you see things differently than I do, you can navigate the differences by understanding what you've said here re: recognizing the bigger picture. You show you can see many sides and angles, even though you may have your own natural bent.

angelica · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

This interaction is an emergent system, you have to wait and see what happens before you can predict the outcome.

I completely agree with you. I see that it happens complementary to determinents, and that it is emergent. Also, I thank you for pointing to the concept to begin with.

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually you have the problem with my facts. Whenever I post factual data someone attacks me personally. Seems more like jealousy from inadequacy to me. But I never intended to say so, you got my back against the wall here Jeanie.

Your natural style here is to focus predominantly on the facts. That's your strong natural preference and that's great and you need not change for anyone. Jeanie's natural style and preference is to prioritize the human aspect of the interaction. You genuinely are uninterested in the human aspects of this stuff--you don't prioritize it. Jeanie is the opposite. Her natural preference is who she is and she need not change who she is for anyone. You are both fully entitled to your acceptable natural preferences. This isn't about jealousy and inadequacy at all. It's about two people who are unable to connect and navigate those basic differences successfully, in order to resolve communication differences and get back to the points at hand. There are two people who are equally responsible at this level of the debate: both Jeanie and yourself.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

Very nice, Lucy! Reductionism is a big issue. I like that even though you see things differently than I do, you can navigate the differences by understanding what you've said here re: recognizing the bigger picture. You show you can see many sides and angles, even though you may have your own natural bent.

Reductionism isn't a big issue. If you think reductionism is a threat to your perception, then maybe something is wrong with your perception. Both the whole and the sum of it's parts should be equivelant. I don't see a problem with that. Perhaps you can elaborate on your distaste for reductionism.

Perhaps we should define reductionism. Is reductionism saying that 2 is the equivelant of 1 plus 1. Or is reductionism saying that 2 is the result of a singularity, reducing the explanation of a whole to none other than the whole, that to me is reductionism. Like suggesting that all the complexity of the universe is reducable to one all-powerful entity. Or maybe that's exterme over-simplification.

Anyway with out the former definition of reductionism, we'd all be dead from an infectious disease. Because all of science is based on reductionism, and science saves lives.

soulsinging · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Spend some time on your posts and maybe they will feel more powerful to you. Then you won't feel like I'm condescending. Don't mistake your timidity for my courage. I spend a lot of time behind my posts reading and researching the topics. I post facts. I bring them together in a theory. Most of the responses are absolute speculation from personal experience and invalid. What kind of a debate has people pulling rabbits out of their hats, this isn't a magic show, bring something real to the table.

I try to provide detailed explanations linked to credible sources. I'm not about to back down from everything because someone has a difference of opinion. Especially when they don't really know what they are talking about. Whatever your profession is, if it's pharmacology, or automotive, you know when someone is full of shit. Well I know when someone is full of it too.

you provide numbers and theories, people here provide what really happens in people's lives. to say that is not "real" is simply ridiculous.

soulsinging · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Maybe it's just the way you are reading it.

maybe it's just the way you are writing it, seeing as how im not the only person to have noticed it. in fact, im one of many who has noticed it. i've yet to see anyone call you humble or respectful. i've seen many call you arrogant and condescending.

but you know, hard facts and numbers don't matter, right? it's YOUR personal experience of what you feel you are saying that dictates whether or not you come off as arrogant and condescending, right?

soulsinging · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Then I say "It seems to me that your feeling of God is the result of an engram of neurons associated with the feelings expected under the concept of God." That's not condescending, it's just a theory. It's probably true.

Bottom line, I'm not the only person that says things that can be interpreted as condescending.

that is not what you say. you say it is fact, not theory. you say your view is the only one that makes sense and anyone who believes differently is stupid and not as advanced as you. THAT is condescending.

gue_barium · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

maybe it's just the way you are writing it, seeing as how im not the only person to have noticed it. in fact, im one of many who has noticed it. i've yet to see anyone call you humble or respectful. i've seen many call you arrogant and condescending.

but you know, hard facts and numbers don't matter, right? it's YOUR personal experience of what you feel you are saying that dictates whether or not you come off as arrogant and condescending, right?

I think Ahnimus is open-minded, a true intellect.

soulsinging · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually you have the problem with my facts. Whenever I post factual data someone attacks me personally. Seems more like jealousy from inadequacy to me. But I never intended to say so, you got my back against the wall here Jeanie.

or maybe it's frustration with your cold, unfeeling inhumanity.

soulsinging · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

I think Ahnimus is open-minded, a true intellect.

that was not the vote. but even graciously counting that as a vote for "ahnimus never condescends to people or seems arrogant"... that gives him one on his side and a dozen against.

gue_barium · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

that was not the vote. but even graciously counting that as a vote for "ahnimus never condescends to people or seems arrogant"... that gives him one on his side and a dozen against.

I think you're contradicting yourself.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

Your natural style here is to focus predominantly on the facts. That's your strong natural preference and that's great and you need not change for anyone. Jeanie's natural style and preference is to prioritize the human aspect of the interaction. You genuinely are uninterested in the human aspects of this stuff--you don't prioritize it. Jeanie is the opposite. Her natural preference is who she is and she need not change who she is for anyone. You are both fully entitled to your acceptable natural preferences. This isn't about jealousy and inadequacy at all. It's about two people who are unable to connect and navigate those basic differences successfully, in order to resolve communication differences and get back to the points at hand. There are two people who are equally responsible at this level of the debate: both Jeanie and yourself.

The problem I had with Jeanie is that she asserted that statistically men are more violent than women, and men are the cause of most domestic violence. I respectfully posted statistics from Statistics Canada, as we were in-fact discussing the Ontario Provincial Police. But never-the-less this didn't budge Jeanie from her pre-convictions and she chose to defend her beliefs by suggesting the statistics are wrong without providing other data. Now, I have a real problem when someone uses "no reason" to retain their prejudice views. Would you expect Jeanie to remain quiet and not rebuttal if I suggested that all women are bad drivers, or even that women are the majority of mentally ill people? Absolutely not, she would come at me with the force of a train wreck. She wouldn't be the only one to do so. Why is some prejudice acceptable, while others are not? Why is some "bad behavior" justified if coerced by opinions contrary to normal social prejudice?

In most cases you will find that I merely post my opinion followed by empirical data. I do post rebuttals to arguments that are contrary to mine. But you will see in most cases that the initiation of personal attacks is not on my hands. Take the thread about the 7-year old unruly child

Swan; if you don't have kids then shut the fuck up.

Catefrances: you have NO idea what it is like to be a parent.

Redrock: it is a well know fact/stereotype that generally women will use communication rather than force (and are better at communication than men).

Austin: Common sense exists. I find the people who have the least amount of common sense are the ones who learn their life lessons in books.

Are not all of these statements intended to condescend my opinion as a male without kids? They intend to say that I can not possibly have the knowledge these individuals have because I'm not privledged as them? It's absolutely absurd when you consider Redrock's statement, then look at the other statements. If women are so good at communication, why do they sometimes make such meaningless statements? I can spend days posting comments similar to these directed at me and my posts. I'm not congregating with other members to chastize these people. At this point I could really care less what the herd thinks or says about me, with these kinds of statements, they've lost my respect as mature debaters.

Ahnimus · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

maybe it's just the way you are writing it, seeing as how im not the only person to have noticed it. in fact, im one of many who has noticed it. i've yet to see anyone call you humble or respectful. i've seen many call you arrogant and condescending.

but you know, hard facts and numbers don't matter, right? it's YOUR personal experience of what you feel you are saying that dictates whether or not you come off as arrogant and condescending, right?

All that experience is subjective and quite a small sample size. Especially considering the room for interpretation. I find most of your arguments as ridiculous as saying that humans are not animals. Facts are facts, whether you believe they are or not, you don't write reality with your thoughts.

soulsinging · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

I think you're contradicting yourself.

i think your posts are pretty worthless most of the time. why dont you try explaining yourself in the post, instead of your cryptic cries for attention that force people to ask you what you mean. do we have to have that conversation again about your self esteem?

soulsinging · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

All that experience is subjective and quite a small sample size. Especially considering the room for interpretation. I find most of your arguments as ridiculous as saying that humans are not animals. Facts are facts, whether you believe they are or not, you don't write reality with your thoughts.

did i ever say humans are not animals? what has that got to do with anything? id be the first to say humans are no different from animals.

so now i get it... OUR experience is only subjective, YOUR experience is objective. so becos you dont feel you're being condescending, you are not. but even though EVERYONE else sees you as being a pompous ass, we are all wrong and just being subjective and you, as always of course, are the right one.

yes the sample size is small. but i dont think any of us claimed to know any more than the way you represent yourself on here. so allow me to rephrase. your posts by and large appear very condescending to most people round here and it makes you look like an arrogant prick. better?

all it takes for something to exist is...

Comments

Categories