The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
Post Reply
User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by placid » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:46 am

Aww, now now, go tell it to the mountains...

No one in space can hear you crying like a baby, scream away, it's your movie...horror or not, you are the director.

Make your dream the best it can be, or not, your both the actor and the audience.

Go figure...

_____

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:51 am

On the mountain! Go tell it ON the mountain!
And "In space, no one can hear you scream"!!!
Can you get nothing right?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind (Ellard's Hitler Diversion)

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:57 am

placid wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:53 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:51 am
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:50 am
Steve Klinko wrote:Placid clearly says Hitler's Love was false Love.
"How is it "false love" to kill 5.8 million Jews for no reason? Isn't it simply mass murder by an insane person? Do you support all Placid's nice views on Hitler? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You should stop Diverting the conversation to Hitler on a thread that is about Consciousness. The key line in what I said is: Placid not so clearly but definitely does say Hitler was Evil. Here's the whole post of what I really said:

Because you are a Shallow thinker you will not have drilled Deeper into what Placid said. Let me help. First of all I get from what Placid says is that there is only Love in the Universe. So with that stipulation Placid has to say that Hitler did what he did out of Love. Remember there is only Love in the Universe. But Placid says there are two kinds of Love, namely real Love and false Love (Evil). Placid clearly says Hitler's Love was false Love. Placid not so clearly but definitely does say Hitler was Evil. You are a Liar because I know that you already know this. But I suspect that you are such a Shallow thinker that maybe you really are unable to drill into something like this yourself. Think more Deeply about things. You might discover there is a lot to learn about Reality and the Universe.
You are wasting your time with idiots like Ellard.. Steve. I don't even know why you give him any head space. He's totally deranged.

Ellard can't see that what I said about Hitler was that he was acting out of what he personally (egoic style) believed to be the right course of action to take for the LOVE of his own self-created ideology that he personally believed in...that he loved...else had he not have had that love for his own self-created ideology, he may have taken a completely different path in life. He was a self-appointed ruler, a dictator out of the love he had for his own self created ideologies..there was no REAL LOVE there from the higher SELF which is harmless..his love was for his own selfish desires. He was acting like he was a GOD...Which is not what real love is, no man is a God..real love which is Godly Love, doesn't harm itself or others.

You and I know this, but the Ellards of the world are as thick as planks, they are totally bone idle and never does it occur to them to think for themselves about what reality really is all about and why there is evil in the world in the first place... So unless you get off your lazy arse and actually put some real effort and hard work into contemplation and self-enquiry into the real nature of reality, and not just blindly believe on faith what other people and your history and text books are informing you...you will always remain ignorant of the bigger picture dear Ellard.

Sometimes this is too much hard work, for the likes of people like Ellard ..in their laziness they will use other people as scapegoats for their own undealt with ignorances, prejudices, insecurities and lack of understandings...they will always look to pin the blaim on other people...in their conceited bid to place themself above you so that they can look down on you...this moral highground must be taken for fear of ever being made to look like a complete d*ckhead. Ellard laughs at others, never quite realising that all the things he does and says makes him the absolute laughing stock on this entire forum.

Ellard is that dull and stupid ..he thought I loved Hitler just because I said that what Hitler did was an act of love...he then thought that meant that I placid loved Hitler..I mean how pathetic and stupid is that, seriously, Ellard is as thick as a brick. The guy is obviously missing some brain cells in the art of understanding metaphysical communication.

Do you think for one minute I would have said something like that on a forum like this if I'd have known Ellard was going to respond the way he did by twisting what was said in innocence and then made it look like I had said something worse than what Hitler did. Ellard is some sick weirdo if he honestly believes that people love the idea of humans killing their own kind. I feel a kind of pity for people like the Ellards of the world, they are so messed up that they even believe their own messed up minds are real.

But all this is irrelevant ...there is only consciousness and its contents.Awareness is infinite, infinity now with no known beginning nor ending. Pure possibility means everything that is possible will manifest including the Hitlers and the Ellards...all passengers passing through, here today gone tommorow never to been seen or heard of again..except for the memory. Unfortunately Ellard doesn't seem to understand that this horse has been beaten to death.

Obviously this is not going to be understood by the Ellards of the world, those of a very low self-awareness, rather, it will be strongly objected in the egos vain attempt to out-argue their pointless arguments with themsleves.

____
It's amazing to me how much time Ellard puts into this. Sometimes I think he must be a paid Skeptical Agitator charged with the task of Lying, Misrepresenting, and Diverting attention away from the secret shame of the Physicalists, which is that Science does not know what Consciousness is.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:41 pm
I will not answer any questions where you imply that I promote Religion or a God concept. I will also not answer any questions about Hitler. That Misrepresentation and Diversion has gone on long enough.

Let's get back to discussing Consciousness and the lack of Scientific understanding of Consciousness. I think you are afraid to look your own Consciousness in the face. Think more Deeply about things. Think about your own Conscious experiences.

You like to think about the Salty Taste. What is that? Do you think the Salty Taste is a Property of Salt? Deeper thought will show you that it is purely a Conscious experience. The Salty Taste is a Property of a Conscious thing. Salty Taste exists only in your Mind. Salt is a Chemical that can be analyzed using whatever technology you want and you will never measure Salty Taste as a Property of the Salt. Salt itself has no Salty Taste Property. The Salty Taste Property exists only as a Conscious thing in your Mind.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:28 pm

You've done it again, Steve. The salty taste property is NOT only in the mind. It is, in fact, one of the sensory messages sent from your tongue to your brain and it fits into the 'holistic' awareness built by the cognitive processes in your brain.
Just as a matter of interest, do you have any religious leanings?

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by placid » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:34 pm

Poodle wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:40 am
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:24 am
placid previously wrote:Do your own research into the truth of Hitler's Germany? Where do people get the information that Hitler was a nasty Jew-killer?
Thanks for that reminder, Matthew. Getting the truth from Placid is like walking through thick custard.
Take note, Steve - this is the nature of the 'ally' who is still desperately trying to derail your thread.
I think you need to be talking to that thick custard tart Ellard idiot about derailing threads...not me.

Steve’s consciousness thread is the most successful thread on this entire forum...congratulations Steve ..just keep them all clued up as to what’s really going on in reality...

.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by placid » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:41 pm

Steve can consciousness be proved by something physical...?

Makes you think huh? 😂😂😂

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by placid » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:45 pm

Poodle wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:51 am
On the mountain! Go tell it ON the mountain!
And "In space, no one can hear you scream"!!!
Can you get nothing right?
You are so scared to be wrong aren’t you ..how desparately shackled you must feel ...unlike me who couldn’t give a 🐒

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by placid » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:50 pm

placid wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:41 pm
Steve can consciousness be proved by something physical...?

Makes you think huh? 😂😂😂
I love the way the physicalist say consciousness is an emergence of the brain....like they would actually know that for sure..

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28680
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:19 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:57 am
It's amazing to me how much time Ellard puts into this.
Gosh. You mean a skeptic debunking your religious crap on a skeptic forum, spends time doing it?

Yet here you are, spending the same time, posting your religious crap!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28680
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:52 am

SteveKlinko wrote: Placid clearly says Hitler's Love was false Love.
Matthew Ellard wrote: "How is it "false love" to kill 5.8 million Jews for no reason? Isn't it simply mass murder by an insane person? Do you support all Placid's nice views on Hitler?
SteveKlinko wrote: I will also not answer any questions about Hitler.
No one expects you to respond to anything.

You are here to spam propaganda about your crap "Inter-mind "religion and sell T-shirts.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28680
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:01 am

Placid the Holocaust Denier
placid wrote:Do your own research into the truth of Hitler's Germany? Where do people get the information that Hitler was a nasty Jew-killer?
The evidence posted on this forum in the anti-holocaust denial sub forums.
holocaust.jpg
placid wrote:I think you need to be talking to that thick custard tart Ellard idiot about derailing threads...not me.

Placid, you idiot. You abandoned your own "I don't exist Don't feed the trolls" thread, which you started, to disrupt this thread about Steve Klinko's silly religion. Why are you so stupid? Is that because you are a holocaust denier?

Placid's "Don't Feed the Troll" thread
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=29067#p628293

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:42 pm

Poodle wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:28 pm
You've done it again, Steve. The salty taste property is NOT only in the mind. It is, in fact, one of the sensory messages sent from your tongue to your brain and it fits into the 'holistic' awareness built by the cognitive processes in your brain.
Just as a matter of interest, do you have any religious leanings?
Of course the whole thing starts at the tongue with signals sent to the Brain. I know you think that the Neural Activity and the Signals ARE the Salty Taste. But you can't just say that without any Explanation. How do signals and other Neural Activity produce a Salty Taste in your Mind? There is a Huge Explanatory Gap here as usual. I have no Religious leanings.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:48 pm

placid wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:41 pm
Steve can consciousness be proved by something physical...?

Makes you think huh? 😂😂😂
It has not been done so far but I think it is probably possible. We know for sure that there is some kind of Physical to Conscious connection but we don't know what that is yet. That is the classic Hard Problem of Consciousness.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:52 pm

placid wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:50 pm
placid wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:41 pm
Steve can consciousness be proved by something physical...?

Makes you think huh? 😂😂😂
I love the way the physicalist say consciousness is an emergence of the brain....like they would actually know that for sure..
They think they understand Consciousness, but they can't explain it. Saying that Consciousness is an Emergence of the Brain, is just words. They like to say things like that without any further Explanations.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:05 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:19 am
Just a reminder. I am not going to respond to your posts when you imply that anything I have said is Religious or that I promote any kind of God concept. If I see the word Hitler in your post I also will not respond. This thread is about Consciousness. If you think that Consciousness itself is a Religious thing then you are a Shallow thinker. Consciousness self evidently Exists in the World and must be Explained.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:25 pm

It's this explanation thing which is the difference between us, Steve. Let's go back to vision, and take a modern camera as a model. You switch it on, do the focus adjustments and point it at something. It will faithfully process the light entering the lens and put the image onto its little viewfinder screen whilst at the same time recording what it sees into its memory for later replay. You, as a human, can see all of this happening without looking at the source of the light. The camera sorts out hue, tone and intensity and presents and records a complete colour image. For all intents and purposes it has experienced the scene and can prove it later by showing it to you again. So - a complete colour experience and the memory of the experience. You cannot deny that this is the truth - you can do it right now, assuming you have a camera.
That's an inanimate object doing the stuff you claim to be special. You are claiming, as far as I can see, that the inanimate object can do something - a something which puzzles you when an organic system (that's you) does the same thing. Ah (you say) - but there's a mystical 'consciousness'' attached to the human version. But if that's true, Steve, then where is the consciousness of the camera? It sees red, it processes red, and it remembers red. You can find a technological equivalent for all of our senses (and with much greater ranges than our rather dull versions), you can put them all into a single box and faithfully reproduce all human senses complete with full replay. Yet you continue to ask the redundant question about the special human ability you call consciousness. Attach that black box you've just put together with a super-duper computer and it will tell you all you want to know about it's experience, It will, if you want it to, call it consciousness. It's been done some time ago, and it's been found that, very often, people can't tell whether they're talking to a computer or a human.
Consciousness is simply a word covering the sum total of your sensory experience and memory. If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to show us why it ISN'T that. Look up Turing Test.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:20 pm

Poodle wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:25 pm
It's this explanation thing which is the difference between us, Steve. Let's go back to vision, and take a modern camera as a model. You switch it on, do the focus adjustments and point it at something. It will faithfully process the light entering the lens and put the image onto its little viewfinder screen whilst at the same time recording what it sees into its memory for later replay. You, as a human, can see all of this happening without looking at the source of the light. The camera sorts out hue, tone and intensity and presents and records a complete colour image. For all intents and purposes it has experienced the scene and can prove it later by showing it to you again. So - a complete colour experience and the memory of the experience. You cannot deny that this is the truth - you can do it right now, assuming you have a camera.
That's an inanimate object doing the stuff you claim to be special. You are claiming, as far as I can see, that the inanimate object can do something - a something which puzzles you when an organic system (that's you) does the same thing. Ah (you say) - but there's a mystical 'consciousness'' attached to the human version. But if that's true, Steve, then where is the consciousness of the camera? It sees red, it processes red, and it remembers red. You can find a technological equivalent for all of our senses (and with much greater ranges than our rather dull versions), you can put them all into a single box and faithfully reproduce all human senses complete with full replay. Yet you continue to ask the redundant question about the special human ability you call consciousness. Attach that black box you've just put together with a super-duper computer and it will tell you all you want to know about it's experience, It will, if you want it to, call it consciousness. It's been done some time ago, and it's been found that, very often, people can't tell whether they're talking to a computer or a human.
Consciousness is simply a word covering the sum total of your sensory experience and memory. If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to show us why it ISN'T that. Look up Turing Test.
But the Camera does not See anything and it does not Remember anything. The image is displayed in the viewfinder but the Camera itself does not See it. The memory of the image is stored in memory but the Camera itself has no capacity to Know it has the memory. So what is missing here? Of course it is Consciousness that is missing. If the Camera could in some sense See what's in its Viewfinder then it would be like us. If the Camera could bring up the stored image and display it on its Viewfinder and then actually See the image then we could say the Camera was Conscious like us. The 800 pound Gorilla in this is the Conscious experience itself which you are always trying to hide. An even worse Gorilla is getting a handle on the Thing that Experiences the Experience. What is your Conscious Self?

The Camera is very Mechanical and has no kind of a Conscious Mind. The only reason it works at all is because it is designed to work in conjunction with actual Conscious Minds like ours. So the whole reason you think the Camera is Conscious is that you are mistakenly and unwittingly assuming your own Conscious Mind is part of the Camera process. The Camera itself never Sees Red. Only your Conscious Mind Sees Red when you look at the image.

If you hook the Camera up to a Super Duper Computer then you have more processing capability but you never attain a Conscious experience of Red within the Camera/Computer combination. Even a Super Computer does not have Consciousness to any degree. Do you also think that the Thermostat in your house actually Feels Warm before it turns the AC blower and compressor on? It is very Mechanical. The same is true for the Camera/Computer combination. The whole thing is just a more complicated Machine than a Thermostat. There is no Conscious experience of any kind in a Thermostat or a Camera/Computer. There is definitely something very Special about the Conscious experience of something like the Redness of the Color Red. What is that Redness experience? Think Deeply about the Redness itself. If you think you can find that Redness experience in a Camera/Computer you need to do more Explaining.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:42 pm

Point 1 ... The camera DOES see and it DOES remember - otherwise it would be a pretty useless camera. Saying that it does not see until you see it seeing is tantamount to demonstrating the sound of one hand clapping (cue Placid).
Point 2 ... The camera does 'know' (a deliberately nebulous term) it has a memory. You can interrogate its memory to find that out.
Point 3 ... Consciousness is a matter of opinion. The camera certainly 'knows' what it has seen and recorded - it's there in its memory, which can be interrogated. The camera works whether your conscious mind is present or not. You could simply switch it on and leave.
Point 4 ... The camera very definitely sees red and does not need a human mind present for that to be true. A robot programmed for the purpose could check the camera and report the presence of an image and the presence of red within the image.
This stuff is basic and not reasonably deniable.

The Problem ... you have made a number of erroneous presumptions which have pre-determined your argument (as demonstrated above). It is your own misunderstanding which you are insisting is consciousness. Sure, humans are conscious and a camera is not. However, it is absolutely demonstrable that a reasonable camera can reproduce the human visual system and the 'memory' bit of the human brain.
It is, I feel, a reasonable assumption that consciousness (as you are using the concept) is a function of awareness and memory. The holistic nature of human awareness is demonstrable, the human visual system (and the other senses) is exhaustively understood, and human memory is very easily testable. These things exist. Put them all together and you have what you are terming consciousness. All else is undemonstrable metaphysics - magic, if you like. The very thing I keep rattling about - the unnecessary multiplication of entities - is obviously present. I know that you WANT there to be more to it, Steve, but your wishes and beliefs are not relevant. Your wish for a more complex solution (dare I say religious?) and your method of simply denying the current state of knowledge is getting you nowhere. As far as I'm concerned, the holistic nature of awareness answers all of your questions. If you believe that it doesn't, then it's incumbent upon you to show that and offer a realistic, rather than metaphysical, alternative. A simple belief which is NOT backed up by experimental data does not cut the mustard. If you feel so strongly that you are correct, then devise a set of experiments which show that to the world.
EDIT: I use the term 'demonstrable' an awful lot. That's because it is the absolute basis of the scientific method. Test, test and test again is infinitely preferable to guessing.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28680
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:46 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:05 pm
Just a reminder. I am not going to respond to your posts when you imply that anything I have said is Religious or that I promote any kind of God concept.
You never responded anyway. You are just another religious nut case on the skeptic society making big claims with no evidence or logic. You are now just boring.

You and Placid think Hitler was just expressing love in some weird way when he executed 5.8 million Jews. I think that says enough about you. I'm sure when anyone doing a search on your religion will end up here and raise an eyebrow,

SteveKlinko wrote: Placid clearly says Hitler's Love was false Love.
You never disputed Placid. Do you agree with all Placid's pro-Hitler posts? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Placid wrote: Where do people get the information that Hitler was a nasty Jew-killer? Do your own research into the truth of Hitler's Germany? Hitler had to do something, He was a leader trying to protect his country,

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28680
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:54 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:42 pm
. I have no Religious leanings.
You are lying yet again. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You claim life evolved on Earth because species used their consciousness to seek out pleasure which is religious Lamarkism. You then refused to explain how plants, fungi and bacteria were evolving for 3.3 billion years before any animal species with actual consciousness evolved on Earth.

You are such a plagiarist of other other religions, your even claimed the Big Bang was started by a magical consciousness 13.8 billion years ago. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It is clear you do not know what the scientific Darwinian evolution is, and don't have a clue what DNA is and how it works.
:lol: :lol:

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:36 am

By every definition I can find, an amoeba meets all the requirements to be described as conscious. Where does an amoeba fit into your scheme of things, Steve?

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by placid » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:41 am

Image

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by placid » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:53 am

Image





Success is knowing the Illusion of knowledge is needed to disguise the emptiness within.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:00 pm

Poodle wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:42 pm
Point 1 ... The camera DOES see and it DOES remember - otherwise it would be a pretty useless camera. Saying that it does not see until you see it seeing is tantamount to demonstrating the sound of one hand clapping (cue Placid).
Point 2 ... The camera does 'know' (a deliberately nebulous term) it has a memory. You can interrogate its memory to find that out.
Point 3 ... Consciousness is a matter of opinion. The camera certainly 'knows' what it has seen and recorded - it's there in its memory, which can be interrogated. The camera works whether your conscious mind is present or not. You could simply switch it on and leave.
Point 4 ... The camera very definitely sees red and does not need a human mind present for that to be true. A robot programmed for the purpose could check the camera and report the presence of an image and the presence of red within the image.
This stuff is basic and not reasonably deniable.

The Problem ... you have made a number of erroneous presumptions which have pre-determined your argument (as demonstrated above). It is your own misunderstanding which you are insisting is consciousness. Sure, humans are conscious and a camera is not. However, it is absolutely demonstrable that a reasonable camera can reproduce the human visual system and the 'memory' bit of the human brain.
It is, I feel, a reasonable assumption that consciousness (as you are using the concept) is a function of awareness and memory. The holistic nature of human awareness is demonstrable, the human visual system (and the other senses) is exhaustively understood, and human memory is very easily testable. These things exist. Put them all together and you have what you are terming consciousness. All else is undemonstrable metaphysics - magic, if you like. The very thing I keep rattling about - the unnecessary multiplication of entities - is obviously present. I know that you WANT there to be more to it, Steve, but your wishes and beliefs are not relevant. Your wish for a more complex solution (dare I say religious?) and your method of simply denying the current state of knowledge is getting you nowhere. As far as I'm concerned, the holistic nature of awareness answers all of your questions. If you believe that it doesn't, then it's incumbent upon you to show that and offer a realistic, rather than metaphysical, alternative. A simple belief which is NOT backed up by experimental data does not cut the mustard. If you feel so strongly that you are correct, then devise a set of experiments which show that to the world.
EDIT: I use the term 'demonstrable' an awful lot. That's because it is the absolute basis of the scientific method. Test, test and test again is infinitely preferable to guessing.
It is self evident that the Camera does not See but rather you See what is in the Viewfinder with your Visual system and Conscious Mind. Your Anthropomorphic belief that the Camera itself actually can See is the thing that you must prove. Likewise your Anthropomorphic belief that the Camera itself actually can Remember is the thing that you must prove. You must think that when you print an image from the Camera, that the Paper can now See the Image. If I write E=MC^2 on a piece of paper, you must think that the paper understands Relativity. I guess you really do think that your Thermostat Anthropomorphically Feels Warm before it turns on the AC compressor and blower. You are ignoring the Conscious Experience itself. But I guess you are denying the Existence of Conscious Experience. Therefore it makes sense to you that there is nothing Special about the Human Brain compared with a Camera, a Computer, or a piece of paper.

The Camera very definitely does not See Red in a Conscious way like Conscious Minds can. The Inter Mind website has a whole section about Detection. Nothing in the Physical World can just See 680nm Red Light. The only thing that can be done is to Detect the 680nm Red Light. When a Camera detects 680nm Red Light at a pixel, the pixel will typically be assigned a hexadecimal value of 00ff0000 if the Red is at max intensity for the system. This is a 4 byte number that is stored in RAM or some nonvolatile storage technology. This Number is a Surrogate for the 680nm Red Light. There is never any Experience of Redness in the Camera/Computer system. There is only a Number. When the Human Visual system detects 680nm Red Light, a Red firing Cone will fire on the Retina and signals will be sent to the Cortex and as a final processing stage a Red experience will happen in the Human Conscious Mind. This Experience of Redness is how Conscious Minds detect the 680nm Red Light. This Redness experience is a Surrogate for the 680nm Red Light. But this Redness experience is a very different kind of thing than a hexadecimal number like 00ff0000. The Camera has hardware (Electronics) that can detect 680nm Light but it does not have the extra processing stage where a Redness experience is generated. The Human Visual system has hardware (Neurons) to detect 680nm Light but has an extra stage of processing where the Conscious Experience of Redness is presented to the Mind. The Camera does not have that extra stage of processing and therefore does not have a Conscious Experience of Redness. You need to think more Deeply about the Conscious experience of the Redness itself. You should also read up on how Electronic devices actually work.

The current state of knowledge does not say that things like Cameras are Conscious. When you say things like "Holistic Awareness", are you professing some kind of Panpsychism? This would mean you Believe that everything is Conscious. But yet you deny Conscious experience. So ...

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:10 pm

Poodle wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:36 am
By every definition I can find, an amoeba meets all the requirements to be described as conscious. Where does an amoeba fit into your scheme of things, Steve?
Someday when we understand more about Consciousness in ourselves we then might be able to know what the Conscious experience of an Amoeba might be. We can Speculate that If it can have a Pain experience, we know that could motivate it to survive harmful situations. Pain is a Conscious experience. It is probably the most primitive Conscious experience and probably goes back to the beginning of life on Earth. But nobody knows anything about that at this point.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28680
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:32 am

Poodle wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:36 am
By every definition I can find, an amoeba meets all the requirements to be described as conscious. Where does an amoeba fit into your scheme of things, Steve?
What is even funnier is that Steve Klinko has already shot his fantasy religion in the foot.
Steve Klinko wrote: Consciousness probably evolved
Therefore his non-physical consciousness god is uniquely evolved to humans and there must be separate non-physical consciousness gods for all animals that have a physical brain.. Otherwise Steve is claiming he shares the same non physical consciousness god with an amoeba. :lol:

However Steve Klinko also claims the same evolved non-physical consciousness god also triggered the Big Bang. (which makes absolutely no sense at all) . So was it the evolved amoeba non-physical consciousness god that triggered the Big Bang or the human non-physical consciousness god? :lol:

Every time you try to match one claim by Steve Klinko to another claim by Steve Klinko his whole religion falls apart.
:lol: :lol:

Pleasure and Pain changing DNA gene frequency in Gene pool.
This is his most ridiculous claim of all. It is the same as Zeuzzz's "Stoned Ape" claim that eating magic mushrooms caused early hominids to evolve into modern humans because they wanted more sex and pleasure as they were out of it. It took Zeuzzzz two years to admit that thinking about something does not change someone's DNA.


I studied human evolution at uni and organic chemistry and there is nothing more frustrating that trying to explain how scientific Darwinian evolution works, to someone who doesn't even know how evolution works.
:lol: :lol:

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:35 am

It is not incumbent upon me to prove anything, Steve - this is your thread and your claims. I do agree that there is an explanatory gap, but I'm afraid that it's you who keeps jumping across it. Take this, for example ...
"We can Speculate that If it can have a Pain experience, we know that could motivate it to survive harmful situations. Pain is a Conscious experience. It is probably the most primitive Conscious experience and probably goes back to the beginning of life on Earth. But nobody knows anything about that at this point."
We'll gloss over the massive (and, I have to say, stunningly obvious) errors in that small statement and suffice it to say that in a couple of sentences there, you went from speculate to know to definite to probability to no one knowing anything. You are claiming all of those at once and flipping amongst them at the drop of a hat and, finally, dismissing logic for the sake of a super-slippy form of consciousness which you define to suit your own purposes. You have invented a mystical form of 'knowledge' which lies beyond physics and you constantly put that in the way of discussion. In fact, you have developed your very own version of the 'god of the gaps' and you jump into it every time you are asked to follow a logical argument.
Wherever you're going , Steve, you can't get there from here. You claim your explanatory gap but, try as I have, I cannot see it. I can certainly spot the fallacies in your presentation, but you simply deny them. That gets us nowhere.
There's something huge lying between us - you constantly introduce what appears to me to be a magical version of consciousness into your arguments whereas I refuse to allow that anywhere near me. We've tried a few slightly different approaches but got nowhere and I now find myself repeating my arguments. We fail to agree upon such simple words as 'see' and 'feel' and 'know'. It's a pity and I feel sorry for you because you will never close that explanatory gap you insist upon - it is packed full of boojums.
That's a reference to Lewis Carroll's 'Hunting of the Snark' which I thoroughly recommend for researchers into all manner of unattainable ends ...

("That's exactly the method," the Bellman bold
In a hasty parenthesis cried,
"That's exactly the way I have always been told
That the capture of Snarks should be tried!")

"'But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day,
If your Snark be a Boojum! For then
You will softly and suddenly vanish away,
And never be met with again!'

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14749
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:44 am

conscious: having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts

awareness: Having knowledge of

knowledge: The psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning

///////Well....two deep and the dictionary is failing me. There this definition of knowledge: "Factual information that a person knows"....but many animals "know" friend from foe and so forth, I mean, that can't be all unthinking operant conditioning?

Factual: Existing in act or fact

act: Something that people do or cause to happen ////Hmmm, looks like my heretofore reliable WordWeb is showing its self to have a bias?

Fact: A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred

////Five Deep and still no help. I've...………...lost...…….my...…….tether.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:26 pm

Poodle wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:35 am
It is not incumbent upon me to prove anything, Steve - this is your thread and your claims. I do agree that there is an explanatory gap, but I'm afraid that it's you who keeps jumping across it. Take this, for example ...
"We can Speculate that If it can have a Pain experience, we know that could motivate it to survive harmful situations. Pain is a Conscious experience. It is probably the most primitive Conscious experience and probably goes back to the beginning of life on Earth. But nobody knows anything about that at this point."
We'll gloss over the massive (and, I have to say, stunningly obvious) errors in that small statement and suffice it to say that in a couple of sentences there, you went from speculate to know to definite to probability to no one knowing anything. You are claiming all of those at once and flipping amongst them at the drop of a hat and, finally, dismissing logic for the sake of a super-slippy form of consciousness which you define to suit your own purposes. You have invented a mystical form of 'knowledge' which lies beyond physics and you constantly put that in the way of discussion. In fact, you have developed your very own version of the 'god of the gaps' and you jump into it every time you are asked to follow a logical argument.
Wherever you're going , Steve, you can't get there from here. You claim your explanatory gap but, try as I have, I cannot see it. I can certainly spot the fallacies in your presentation, but you simply deny them. That gets us nowhere.
There's something huge lying between us - you constantly introduce what appears to me to be a magical version of consciousness into your arguments whereas I refuse to allow that anywhere near me. We've tried a few slightly different approaches but got nowhere and I now find myself repeating my arguments. We fail to agree upon such simple words as 'see' and 'feel' and 'know'. It's a pity and I feel sorry for you because you will never close that explanatory gap you insist upon - it is packed full of boojums.
That's a reference to Lewis Carroll's 'Hunting of the Snark' which I thoroughly recommend for researchers into all manner of unattainable ends ...

("That's exactly the method," the Bellman bold
In a hasty parenthesis cried,
"That's exactly the way I have always been told
That the capture of Snarks should be tried!")

"'But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day,
If your Snark be a Boojum! For then
You will softly and suddenly vanish away,
And never be met with again!'
You left out the most important part of the quote that you critiqued:
Someday when we understand more about Consciousness in ourselves we then might be able to know what the Conscious experience of an Amoeba might be.

This clearly says we don't know what the Conscious experience of an Amoeba could be.

Then I had assumed you knew what the word Speculate meant when I wrote:
We can Speculate that If it can have a Pain experience, we know that could motivate it to survive harmful situations.

Do you argue that a Pain experience is irrelevant to the survival of an organism?

Then I simply said:
Pain is a Conscious experience.

Do you think Pain is not a Conscious experience?

Then I said:
It is probably the most primitive Conscious experience and probably goes back to the beginning of life on Earth.

What's wrong with that as a Speculation? I hope you realize that this was still Speculation. Do I have to repeat that it is a Speculation in every sentence even after I already announced that I was going to be Speculating.

Lastly I wrote:
But nobody knows anything about that at this point.

It's true that nobody knows anything about Consciousness at this point. What's wrong with that? Oh I forgot, you and your Physicalist friends think there is nothing to Explain about Consciousness.

I see no problem with the chain of thought and Speculation in the above sentences. You need to relax and think Deeper and in different ways about Consciousness. All Speculations are on the table. But you can't Speculate because you think you already know everything about Consciousness.

From our previous interchange you seemed to be saying that you think that a Digital Camera is Conscious of the Image Scene that it is pointed at. You seemed to imply that it was just as Conscious as a Human Visual system looking at a Scene. You then demanded that I prove that the Camera is not Conscious of the Scene. This is just a Diversion from the real Problem that this thread is all about, which is Human Conscious Visual Perception. The very simple question remains: How does a Red experience result from Neural Activity? The only answer that you have offered for this is that the Neural Activity IS the Conscious experience of Red. This seems to satisfy your curiosity about the issue. But it's not an Explanation.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:52 pm

placid wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:41 pm
Steve can consciousness be proved by something physical...?

Makes you think huh? 😂😂😂
consciousness is confined in the brain of a person, existence is limited to living beings, your self are basically your memories, this seems to be all limiting concepts to your religious background, but it's truth
:paladin:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28680
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:51 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:26 pm
(Regarding Pain) It is probably the most primitive Conscious experience and probably goes back to the beginning of life on Earth.
Life on Earth is 3,8 billion years old, The first animal that could feel pain evolved only 400 million years ago. (Earlier plants, fungi and bacteria don't have central nervous systems and do not feel pain, you complete idiot) :lol: :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:26 pm
What's wrong with that as a Speculation?
Your claim is 100% wrong on every level. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try reading this basic book before posting again.
Evolution for dummies.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:55 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:26 pm
Poodle wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:35 am
It is not incumbent upon me to prove anything, Steve - this is your thread and your claims. I do agree that there is an explanatory gap, but I'm afraid that it's you who keeps jumping across it. Take this, for example ...
"We can Speculate that If it can have a Pain experience, we know that could motivate it to survive harmful situations. Pain is a Conscious experience. It is probably the most primitive Conscious experience and probably goes back to the beginning of life on Earth. But nobody knows anything about that at this point."
We'll gloss over the massive (and, I have to say, stunningly obvious) errors in that small statement and suffice it to say that in a couple of sentences there, you went from speculate to know to definite to probability to no one knowing anything. You are claiming all of those at once and flipping amongst them at the drop of a hat and, finally, dismissing logic for the sake of a super-slippy form of consciousness which you define to suit your own purposes. You have invented a mystical form of 'knowledge' which lies beyond physics and you constantly put that in the way of discussion. In fact, you have developed your very own version of the 'god of the gaps' and you jump into it every time you are asked to follow a logical argument.
Wherever you're going , Steve, you can't get there from here. You claim your explanatory gap but, try as I have, I cannot see it. I can certainly spot the fallacies in your presentation, but you simply deny them. That gets us nowhere.
There's something huge lying between us - you constantly introduce what appears to me to be a magical version of consciousness into your arguments whereas I refuse to allow that anywhere near me. We've tried a few slightly different approaches but got nowhere and I now find myself repeating my arguments. We fail to agree upon such simple words as 'see' and 'feel' and 'know'. It's a pity and I feel sorry for you because you will never close that explanatory gap you insist upon - it is packed full of boojums.
That's a reference to Lewis Carroll's 'Hunting of the Snark' which I thoroughly recommend for researchers into all manner of unattainable ends ...

("That's exactly the method," the Bellman bold
In a hasty parenthesis cried,
"That's exactly the way I have always been told
That the capture of Snarks should be tried!")

"'But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day,
If your Snark be a Boojum! For then
You will softly and suddenly vanish away,
And never be met with again!'
You left out the most important part of the quote that you critiqued:
Someday when we understand more about Consciousness in ourselves we then might be able to know what the Conscious experience of an Amoeba might be.

This clearly says we don't know what the Conscious experience of an Amoeba could be.

Then I had assumed you knew what the word Speculate meant when I wrote:
We can Speculate that If it can have a Pain experience, we know that could motivate it to survive harmful situations.

Do you argue that a Pain experience is irrelevant to the survival of an organism?

Then I simply said:
Pain is a Conscious experience.

Do you think Pain is not a Conscious experience?

Then I said:
It is probably the most primitive Conscious experience and probably goes back to the beginning of life on Earth.

What's wrong with that as a Speculation? I hope you realize that this was still Speculation. Do I have to repeat that it is a Speculation in every sentence even after I already announced that I was going to be Speculating.

Lastly I wrote:
But nobody knows anything about that at this point.

It's true that nobody knows anything about Consciousness at this point. What's wrong with that? Oh I forgot, you and your Physicalist friends think there is nothing to Explain about Consciousness.

I see no problem with the chain of thought and Speculation in the above sentences. You need to relax and think Deeper and in different ways about Consciousness. All Speculations are on the table. But you can't Speculate because you think you already know everything about Consciousness.

From our previous interchange you seemed to be saying that you think that a Digital Camera is Conscious of the Image Scene that it is pointed at. You seemed to imply that it was just as Conscious as a Human Visual system looking at a Scene. You then demanded that I prove that the Camera is not Conscious of the Scene. This is just a Diversion from the real Problem that this thread is all about, which is Human Conscious Visual Perception. The very simple question remains: How does a Red experience result from Neural Activity? The only answer that you have offered for this is that the Neural Activity IS the Conscious experience of Red. This seems to satisfy your curiosity about the issue. But it's not an Explanation.
I still can feel pain even if I'm not fully conscious of it
And red is not an experience. Red is a color
:paladin:

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:59 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:26 pm
... This clearly says we don't know what the Conscious experience of an Amoeba could be.
... and there's your brick wall. Consciousness is "... the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings ...". In what way does that not apply to an amoeba? As they react (you can watch them do it) to their surroundings, how can you possibly deny their consciousness? You appear to be defining consciousness in some magical way which is not what the word means at all. Then, of course, you follow that up with similar redefinitions of seeing and remembering, accusing me at the same time of claiming that a camera is conscious. I said NONE of that, and if you read my words more carefully, we might get somewhere.
At this moment in time, your thesis is held together my misdefinition and an almost religious attitude towards consciousness. This debate is actually good for you - it helps you clarify your ideas. Yes, you're going to be severely grilled on a skeptic forum, but you should be using the opportunity to refine your ideas and arguments rather than going into a defensive corner because you're being questioned. Putting words into people's mouths is not the way to go.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:22 am

Poodle wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:59 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:26 pm
... This clearly says we don't know what the Conscious experience of an Amoeba could be.
... and there's your brick wall. Consciousness is "... the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings ...". In what way does that not apply to an amoeba? As they react (you can watch them do it) to their surroundings, how can you possibly deny their consciousness? You appear to be defining consciousness in some magical way which is not what the word means at all. Then, of course, you follow that up with similar redefinitions of seeing and remembering, accusing me at the same time of claiming that a camera is conscious. I said NONE of that, and if you read my words more carefully, we might get somewhere.
At this moment in time, your thesis is held together my misdefinition and an almost religious attitude towards consciousness. This debate is actually good for you - it helps you clarify your ideas. Yes, you're going to be severely grilled on a skeptic forum, but you should be using the opportunity to refine your ideas and arguments rather than going into a defensive corner because you're being questioned. Putting words into people's mouths is not the way to go.
I didn't deny the Consciousness of an Amoeba. I simply said we cant know what the Conscious experience of an Amoeba could be. But this thread is about Human Consciousness so your Diversion to the Consciousness of an Amoeba is irrelevant in any case. We need to understand our own Consciousness before we can presume to know what the Consciousness of another species could be.

Is it Religious to say that Consciousness seems to be in some other Category of Phenomena than anything that Science can describe? I don't claim anything about a God being involved in Consciousness. I am simply pointing out the self evident and obvious reality of Conscious experience. The Redness of the Red. Redness is a key Phenomenon you can think more Deeply about. What is Redness? Deeper thought will show you that it exists only in your Mind. The Redness is a Property of a Conscious Mind thing. You can not describe Redness to anyone. There are no words in the Physical Universe that can describe Redness. You can only experience it in a Conscious way. Is this kind of talk Religious or is it just the truth of the matter? What would be so bad about there being some new Phenomenon of Nature that just has not been explored by Science yet? Primitive man has always bowed down and prayed to Phenomena that was not yet understood. You should stop treating things you don't understand as some Superstitious or Religious thing. Come on lets have an adult conversation about the Redness of Red. The experience of Redness exists in your Conscious Mind and it will not go away. The experience of the Standard A Tone exists in your Conscious Mind and it will not go away. The Salty Taste exists in your Conscious Mind and it will not go away.

The feedback and even the nonsense on this forum has very much let me consider and reconsider everything on the website. I actually have made several changes on the website during the time I have been on the forum. The basic premise of the website has not changed however.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:31 am

mirror93 wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:55 am

I still can feel pain even if I'm not fully conscious of it
And red is not an experience. Red is a color
I use the term Conscious to emphasize that the Phenomena is happening in the Mind. I don't use it as meaning Awareness.

Anything that happens in the Mind is an Experience. The Redness of Red happens only in the Mind and is therefore an Experience.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:51 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:26 pm
(Regarding Pain) It is probably the most primitive Conscious experience and probably goes back to the beginning of life on Earth.
Life on Earth is 3,8 billion years old, The first animal that could feel pain evolved only 400 million years ago. (Earlier plants, fungi and bacteria don't have central nervous systems and do not feel pain, you complete idiot) :lol: :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:26 pm
What's wrong with that as a Speculation?
Your claim is 100% wrong on every level. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try reading this basic book before posting again. Evolution for dummies.jpg
Speculations can often be wrong. But this thread is about Human Conscious experience and your continued obsession with some Speculations that I made is just a Diversion from your inability to Explain your own theories of what Consciousness could be.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:36 pm

Will this troll EVER stop writing consciousness with capital letter? Does he still not realize that nobody gives a damn if the word has a lowercase or capital letter? It still consciousness as we all know. The capital letter won't make it supernatural.
Last edited by mirror93 on Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:39 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:31 am
mirror93 wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:55 am

I still can feel pain even if I'm not fully conscious of it
And red is not an experience. Red is a color
i use the term conscious to emphasize that the phenomena is happening in the mind. i don't use it as meaning awareness.

anything that happens in the mind is an experience. the redness of red happens only in the mind and is therefore an experience.
What do you mean by "happening"? No, red does not "only" anything.
And this is stupid, tell me if you If you had been born blind would you have any color in your mind? Bet you wouldn't
Red does not "happen" anywhere. We can explain colors using the naive realist view, accurately.
I see an object distant of me, it's red, and it's prior to anything that is in my mind. I see because my retina allow me to see, not my mind.
Yes, I am a naive realist, by all means. I think human eyes evolved to see color, eyes evolved to adapt to color.
:paladin:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28680
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:31 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:36 am
Speculations can often be wrong.
I have clearly shown you that not only is your speculation 100% incorrect, but it also doesn't match the facts being observed.

As your whole ridiculous "Inter mind" religion is predicated on consciousness seeking pleasure and thus evolving in a particular direction, and as that is proven to be 100% incorrect and impossible, that means your whole religious claim has collapsed. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Post Reply