God:the early answer to a problem?

All wines contain alcohol, does that mean that everything that contains alcohol is wine ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Opens up, yes... do you honestly not see that your definition is flawed ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No because I can indicate some types of alcohol that are not wine.
All suns emanate sunlight.
Can you indicate any sunlight that doesn't owe it's origin to a sun?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never said it was the complete definition
I said it was the simplest one.

If you can't come to terms with the simplest one, why on earth do you think that warrants moving onto to something a bit more complex?

 

Your comparison would be honest if you would call it for what it is, 'light'.

What you are saying is akin to this:

All wines contain wine-alcohol, so everything that contains wine-alcohol is wine.

 

well if you can indicate consciousness outside of life, be my guest, but in the meantime consciousness is seen to be a contingent quality of life just as sunlight is seen to be a contingent quality of the sun

 

Light, not sunlight.

 

So are you saying that such a person is not alive ?

 

sure
what makes you think otherwise?

 

if they are like that permanently and irrevocably, yes

 

I misread...

Of course sunlight is a contingent quality of the sun.

To make an honest statement you have to use light, not sunlight. See my wine-alcohol explanation.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Its not clear what problems the wine-alcohol statement has. I mean if you can indicate any other sort of consciousness that is not contingent to life, be my guest, but I suspect that will also require you offering some sort of definition of life, which was an option that you guys were not particularly in favour of going ahead with.

 

once again, if you can indicate any type of consciousness outside of that possessed by life, be my guest, but you will probably also require some definition of consciousness to boot

 

WTF !!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm done here.

 

whats the problem?
If wine-alcohol has a problem because other types of alcohol can be indicated, why does consciousness suffer the same problem when you are unable/unwilling to tenure any alternative source for consciousness?

 

There isn't an opposite of the base rate, merely changes to it. You even recognised this in your post 112:

"meaning only fools would not have a clear idea what the use of the word "nourishment" and "starvation" implies - provided they weren't in a perpetual state of starvation beforehand"

The fact that this persons base state is starvation means he would not recognise starvation if there is no negative change. If you stuff him full of food he will recognise nourishment in as much as it relates to that base. The reason of course is that 'starvation' means different things to different people dependant upon where their base is. A person that eats 10 main meals per day would probably consider 5 main meals a day as starvation. If you fed him 20 meals per day he would be no closer to understanding starvation.

What you're saying is that you recognised a change to your base rate of -5. You didn't recognise 'heat' because heat was nowhere in the equation unless you're using some damn dodgy meaning of the word heat which, given that it's you we're talking about, is more than likely.

When there has been both a positive and negative change to the base.. nothing. But going in one direction from the base and then back to the base provides nothing but a change one way from the base.

According to your argument it would be best done by not cooking. You do claim the best way is to show the opposite remember?

"its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis" is a valid definition of consciousness? Give me a dictionary definition of consciousness that cocoon mush would fall under.

You've made an error. Let me correct it for you in the context of what you said:

Every sun gives off light so therefore everything that gives off light is a sun.

In another way: Every bee has wings therefore everything with wings is a bee.

Basically your argument makes the presupposition that everything that is alive is conscious and in order to establish that you say that it must be conscious because it's alive, (yes, you incorrectly defined life as consciousness). It's a circular argument.

 

Snakelord

actually I was meaning starvation in the sense of not eating at all
IOW if a person is not eating, you can't indicate to them the nature of not eating since they are already doing that
:shrug:

erm - after entering the -10 freezer, I did feel warmer.
No matter what names you call me, you can't change that
:shrug:

if that was the case, a person would never be able to acclimatize to any changes in their environment

Once again, I never advocated it was the only suitable option for definition for all circumstances.
I just indicated how it could be a valid one in a particular circumstance.

sure
compare it to cocoon mush that is totally bereft of the possibility of giving rise to a moth and get back to us with the results

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

if you want to correct my errors please don't re-invent my language - I used the word "sunlight" for very good reasons

if you want to argue that there are different types of consciousness (some not dependent on life) just like there are different types of light (some not dependent on the sun) then feel free to indicate them.
Be warned that you may require to offer a definition of consciousness, which for some reason you were totally reluctant to offer

 

As stated, everyone has a different base. To the man that eats 10 meals a day starvation would be slightly more than nothing.

You felt warmer after entering the colder freezer? :bugeye: O...k. However, feeling less cold than you were a moment ago does not equate to knowledge of "heat".

But you did say it was the easiest method. In saying, the easiest way to understand cooking is to not cook.

The same presupposition all over again.

Yes but your sunlight statement was inaccurate so I corrected it. It's about the presupposition and the following circular nature. That was not present in your sunlight statement but is present in your consciousness one and that is easily seen with your claim that "life=consciousness".

What are you talking about lol? You state that all life is conscious and try to support that by saying it's conscious because it's alive. When you're called on it you waffle on with this weird nonsense, oh and this nonsense:

Dude, let's get this straight.. I had to ask you around 20 times to define life. When you finally got the guts you defined life as consciousness (which is wrong but nm). You were then asked by Enmos to define consciousness which you then defined as life, (you worded it not-death which is the same thing). Your entire argument is one gigantic circle of nonsense. Now, I have not been reluctant to offer anything, I have simply not been asked. Ask me to define consciousness and I will. So, in summary.. if anyone can be accused of being "totally reluctant" it is you that wasted 3 pages with non-answers.

What, given [valid] definition of consciousness does cocoon mush fall under?

 

Snakelord

once again, upping the ante on a person who is not eating doesn't amount to much

once again, I did come to appreciate the warmth of the standard freezer.
There was even one guy working who got around in a pair of pants and a t-shirt. Perhaps you should have gone there and explained to him how he wasn't feeling warm.
:shrug:

easiest in a certain circumstance
it still appears to remain valid, despite you trying to tell me that my experiences and the experiences of others in cool rooms is not valid ....

sunlight is not unique?

once again
rather than reinvent my language, just indicate a conscious source that is not based on life, then you can justify changing the word 'sunlight' to 'light'

you state that 'sunlight' is not accurate because there are other varieties of light that come from the sun.
I'm just asking you to deliver the goods of your poetic license by indicating what other forms of consciousness you have in mind, since you seem to be feeling that attributing consciousness to life doesn't cater for all varieties of consciousness

to which I offered - find a dead thing, compare it to a live thing, and get back to us with the results

did you come to a different conclusion from your results?

actually it was that consciousness is a symptom of life

on the contrary you are trying to write off the sunlight to the sun/consciousness to life analogy by declaring there are other varieties of light. If you don't want to carry that through and indicate other varieties of consciousness, why are your queries valid?
Why must I use 'light' instead of 'sunlight'?

once again, compare it to cocoon mush that has no scope for metamorphism and get back to us with the results already
:shrug: