Total posts: 910
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Your argument implies that enslaving an AI demonstrating consciousness would be immoral. However, we have observed consciousness in many animals, and assuming you're not a vegetarian, as I'm a non-vegetarian myself, I see cows being bred and raised for food as a form of enslavement. I fail to see any significant difference between these two scenarios and believe that we would treat an AI in the same way as we treat cows, with the same level of morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
@FLRW
Me - Whether electronic brains or AI systems can be considered conscious ultimately comes down to differences in the definition of what one views as consciousness.You - Yes, that's what this Forum topic is about.
Initially, I believed that this forum, which focuses on the topic of consciousness, would explore the various interpretations of consciousness and its connections between humans, animals, and robots. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that this forum's purpose is to define consciousness. It is important to recognize that words in a language hold no inherent meaning, but rather are patterns of phonetics and symbols that have been mutually agreed upon by individuals to represent certain metaphysical concepts. Different languages have their own rules and metaphysical meanings behind their words. The word consciousness is no exception to this concept of language. It has not been defined by collective agreement, making it a vague and meaningless term. Even if we were to reach a mutual agreement on its definition, it would not be practical for use outside of this forum, as others may not understand the same definition. Therefore, instead of trying to agree on the definition of consciousness, it would be more useful to use words like awareness and emotions, which have more universally agreed upon definitions. In conclusion, focusing on describing our metaphysical ideas using widely accepted terminology would be more practical than attempting to define a word that lacks a concise and agreed upon meaning.
If something I say ever seems unclear or confusing, please do not hesitate to ask for clarification or question my logic critically. This is better than making a joke and demonstrating your ignorance to the principles of language after I explain it more clearly.
I was under the impression that this forum with the topic of what is consciousness would be revolving around the many different understandings of consciousness and how it relates between humans, animals, and robots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
@FLRW
The nature of subjective experience is awareness. My point is that the quality of that experience is irrelevant -- it's the awareness that matters.
While awareness is often considered a key aspect of subjective experience, it is not the only factor involved. Subjective experience refers to the first-person, subjective sense of experiencing the world and oneself. It encompasses a wide range of phenomena, including sensations, perceptions, emotions, thoughts, and consciousness itself. Awareness, on the other hand, refers to the state of being conscious of something. It can refer to conscious awareness of sensory input, thoughts, emotions, or other mental events. While awareness is certainly a component of subjective experience, it is not sufficient to fully capture the nature of subjective experience. Other factors, such as the quality and intensity of sensory experiences, the subjective nature of emotions, and the contents of conscious thought, all play important roles in shaping subjective experience. Additionally, to say that only awareness matters is subjective, as it is dependent on the circumstance or the situation.
An AI could be aware of the same kinds of things that we are. Its subjective experience would be different due to the difference in our respective embodiments, but why should that matter?
While some argue that consciousness and subjective experience are unique to biological organisms, others suggest that it may be possible for machines to achieve similar states. Assuming that an AI could have subjective experience, it is true that its experience would likely be different from that of a biological organism due to differences in embodiment, processing capabilities, and other factors. However, it is unclear whether these differences would be significant enough to render the AI's experience fundamentally different from that of a human or other biological organism. The issue of whether these differences matter is a philosophical one, and depends on one's views on the nature of consciousness and subjective experience. Some argue that the subjective experience of any conscious entity is inherently valuable and should be respected, regardless of its embodiment or the specifics of its experience. Others may argue that the particular details of an entity's subjective experience are less important than its overall functionality or ability to achieve particular goals. Since both of these arguments are based on personal emotions and feelings, we cannot come to a definitive answer that is based objectivity. In any case, it is an open question whether machines can truly have subjective experience, and if so, how similar or different that experience would be from our own.
Why should the experiences of a biological brain be considered conscious, and the experiences of an electronic brain not be so considered?
The answer depends on one's definition of consciousness. Some argue that consciousness is an emergent property of complex biological systems, while others suggest that it could arise in sufficiently complex computational systems, regardless of their substrate. One argument in favor of considering the experiences of a biological brain as conscious, and those of an electronic brain as potentially non-conscious, is based on the notion of embodiment. However, this argument is not universally accepted, and there are many different theories of consciousness that take different approaches to the question of whether electronic brains or AI systems can be considered conscious. Therefore, it can be concluded that the debate around whether electronic brains or AI systems can be considered conscious ultimately comes down to differences in the definition of what one views as consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
To simplify the matter, any disagreement or logical controversy regarding complex ideas like magic and consciousness can be attributed to my theory of the ambiguity of definitions. In essence, it all boils down to how these concepts and ideas are defined. Their definitions must be concise, mutually agreed, and understood, in order to have a productive debate with a definitive conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
@ebuc
Indeed, the concept of separating consciousness from the physical brain raises many philosophical and scientific questions. It is widely accepted that human consciousness is a highly complex phenomenon, and that the nervous system plays a crucial role in facilitating our access to the world around us. However, there is still much that we don't understand about consciousness, such as the nature of subjective experience and how it arises from neural activity in the brain. These questions continue to be the subject of much research and debate in the fields of neuroscience and philosophy.
I agree that the reason for the human need to become unconscious is likely due to the limits of biological processing, which require rest and recuperation. Consciousness is a complex function of the brain, and the brain needs to rest and recuperate in order to maintain optimal processing abilities. When we become unconscious, such as during sleep, our brains are able to recover and recharge in order to perform better when we wake up. Additionally, closing our eyes helps to reduce the amount of visual information that the brain needs to process, which can help to conserve energy and improve brain function. Overall, understanding the limits and needs of biological processing is important in understanding the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the brain.
Regarding what happens to consciousness when humans become unconscious. When a person is unconscious, their consciousness is not entirely absent, but it is in a different state than when they are awake. During deep REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, the brain engages in different types of processing compared to waking consciousness. This includes the processing of emotions, memories, and the formation of new neural connections. While we often dream during this state, we may not always remember those dreams upon waking. Additionally, the brain shifts into different modes of sleep throughout the night, including alpha, beta, and theta modes, each with its own type of processing. Alpha waves are present when we are in a relaxed but awake state, beta waves are associated with alertness and concentration, and theta waves are involved in dreaming and creative thinking. While the exact nature of consciousness and its relationship to the brain is still a topic of debate and research, it is clear that different states of consciousness involve different patterns of neural activity and processing.
While sleep modes like alpha, beta, and theta have been linked to different levels of consciousness, the exact connection between consciousness and the body is still a topic of debate and research in neuroscience. Some theories suggest that consciousness arises from the activity of neurons in the brain, while others propose that it is a fundamental aspect of the universe. However, studying sleep modes and their effects on consciousness can provide valuable insights into the relationship between the mind and body.
While it is difficult to arrive at a comprehensive definition of consciousness, it is widely accepted that it is related to the awareness of one's surroundings, thoughts, and emotions. As you pointed out, the complexity of an organism's nervous system appears to be closely tied to its level of consciousness. For example, a nematode, which has a relatively simple nervous system, is not thought to possess consciousness in the same way that humans do. On the other hand, humans, who have the most complex nervous system of any species, have the most access to the meta-space of mind, intellect, concepts, and ego. Despite our growing understanding of the physical processes that underlie consciousness, there is still much that we do not know. For example, we are still unsure how consciousness emerges from the activity of the brain, or what role consciousness plays in our daily lives. Nevertheless, by continuing to explore and investigate the nature of consciousness, we may be able to uncover new insights and deepen our understanding of this complex phenomenon.
While memory is undoubtedly important in understanding consciousness, it is just one aspect of a complex phenomenon. The study of consciousness involves various approaches, including philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science. These fields use a range of methods, from introspection and subjective experience to brain imaging and objective measurements, to understand the nature of consciousness. While there is still much to learn about consciousness, ongoing research and advancements in technology are providing new insights into this mysterious phenomenon.
It is clear that consciousness is closely tied to the functioning of the brain. The brain is responsible for processing information and integrating it into a coherent experience of the world. Without the brain, there would be no conscious experience. While it may be tempting to speculate about the possibility of consciousness existing independently of the brain, the evidence suggests otherwise. This is not to say that consciousness is completely reducible to the brain - there may be aspects of consciousness that are emergent properties of complex neural processes that we do not yet understand. Nonetheless, it is clear that the brain plays a critical role in generating conscious experience. Although this may be true, it does not disprove the possibility that consciousness could exist outside of the human mind. In this case, I acknowledge that my definition of consciousness may not fully capture its complexity. However, I still believe that a person's level of awareness can be measured by the number and extent of aspects they are aware of.
The recent discovery that more complex jellyfish may have evolved at the same time or even before sponges challenges the traditional idea that evolution always progresses from simple to complex. This finding raises intriguing questions about the factors that drive the evolution of different organisms and how their complexity can arise independently. It also underscores the importance of continually re-evaluating and revising scientific theories as new evidence emerges. As our understanding of evolution deepens, we may gain new insights into the diversity of life on Earth and the processes that have shaped it. It is possible that in some cases, more complicated biological systems existed before simpler ones. This may suggest that some organisms became more complex than necessary while others simplified their processing abilities to survive with fewer nutrients and energy, making them more efficient in their less complicated surroundings. For example, if a predator species became extinct, a prey species that no longer needs complex mechanisms to avoid predators may simplify itself to become more efficient, running only the necessary functions for living and producing in a non-predator infested environment. In other words, reverse evolution could occur in certain cases to increase efficiency and decrease the likelihood of starvation during times of low food sources.
Created:
-->
@Mps1213
I understand your point about not relying on journalism for answers about drugs. However, most people struggle to differentiate between facts and opinions. This is because they think that words are synonymous with understanding, which is a misconception. Words are low-resolution interpretations of concepts from the metaphysical realm. When someone gathers words from others, they must be aware that these words come with personal biases and subjective judgments. By doing so, they can extract the raw life experience of the source. We must acknowledge that no matter how illogical a person's words may be, they are still alive because evolution has deemed them viable. However, just because someone is viable doesn't mean their words are useful or reasonable. It only means that their understanding is valid. If someone can express their ideas concisely, all logical conclusions would never be disagreed upon. For example, if someone asks about the weather and you replied that it was 70 degrees, but it's not, you lied. However, if you said, "My friend told me it was 70 degrees," or "It feels like 70 degrees to me," that would be true and there would be no miscommunication. The biggest problem with logical deduction in the modern-day is that people don't express their ideas properly. Only once a person understands how to express their ideas concisely can they decode the real intentions of others' words. This is where I am critical. I critically examine others' words in a productive way. Even if someone speaks illogically, you can ask them how they came to that conclusion, understand their idea, and how it became their idea. Then, you can extract the raw, untainted life experience of others and add it to your own. This isn't to say that it becomes the new answer, but rather to add it to your database and recompile for a more all-encompassing conclusion and better understanding of the world.
While journalism can be misleading for those who cannot differentiate between fact and opinion, it can be valuable for those who possess critical thinking skills. It provides a wealth of information about the authors' perspectives and experiences related to drugs, which then can decode their biases into your own understanding of the research and results conducted. What I'm trying to convey is that individuals with critical thinking skills should not dismiss the ideas of others, even if they are presented in an illogical manner. Overall, I agree that I wouldn't recommend others to rely on journalism for answers unless I knew that they were capable of analyzing and understanding the conclusions properly.
Created:
-->
@Mps1213
However, I use this drug daily, I’m on it right now. I have two herniated discs in my lower back sustained from kick boxing, I live a certain amount of pain, so to get through these 13 hour days I do for my environmental health job I need something to combat that. It also helps with a good mood boost, I get mildly euphoric and it makes me a better worker, parent, son, partner, etc. it has never impacted my life negatively, but it is fair to assume I am likely dependent on this drug. That shouldn’t be a bad thing in my opinion.
Nearly everyone in America is dependent on caffeine, and I don't believe dependency is necessarily negative, as long as it has more positive than negative consequences.
Created:
-->
@Mps1213
So, if I understand correctly, it's not necessarily the physiological attachment to the drug that causes addiction, but rather the conscious decision to give in to the physiological attachment and allow it to take control.
Here is an article:The physiological effects of nicotine on the brain create a strong urge for the person to continue smoking, even if they are consciously aware of the negative health consequences. Despite knowing the harm that smoking causes, the addiction can override the conscious decision to quit, and the person may find themselves continuing to smoke despite their best efforts to stop. In this way, the physiological dependence on nicotine can take control over the conscious decision-making process.
So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that the article is unfair to blame the drug because those who claim to be giving their best effort to quit are actually voluntarily giving in to the drug, thus making a conscious surrender to their physiological self. In this way, although it may seem like they are unable to control themselves, they are doing so willingly. Is that correct?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That is an interesting difference between addiction and drug dependence that I had not recognized before. If someone is taking a drug and experiences withdrawal symptoms upon sudden cessation, then they may have developed physical dependence on the drug. However, addiction is characterized by a compulsive desire to continue using the drug despite negative consequences on one's life, relationships, and health. So, if someone is taking a drug but it is not negatively affecting their life and they do not have the compulsive desire to continue using it, they may not be considered addicted even if they have physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms.
The main determining factors for addiction are emotional crises, Job loss, poverty, trauma, and unrealistic expectations placed on people. When these determining factors are removed, addiction rates are extremely low in those populations, but drug use remains about the same.
That is understandable, as a drug that is intended to provide a pleasurable experience would be even more appealing if one's current life is particularly difficult at the moment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
@Reece101
@Sidewalker
You asked so many questions I thought I should just recap.
- Consciousness is directly related to both the number of aspects that an individual is aware of and the extent to which they are aware of each aspect.
- Robots can demonstrate consciousness. - As far as I understand, consciousness arises from billions of neurons within a deep neural network, including artificial neural networks. For instance, MIT's cheetah bot showcases spatial awareness, which, although not human consciousness in its entirety, is a component of human ability and, therefore, can be considered conscious to a certain extent.
- Human consciousness is more valued than artificial consciousness. - Of course, humans are going to value human consciousness more than artificial consciousness. Furthermore, there are concerns among some individuals that robots might be granted rights due to their consciousness, but I view this as nothing more than an unrealistic joke. Granting robots rights would serve no purpose and would not benefit human society. History demonstrates that no one or nothing has been given rights without some action being taken first. If robots were to be granted rights, it would only occur after they had control over nuclear weapons.
- Human value - Human value is not determined by their consciousness, skills, abilities, or any other objective traits. Rather, the term "value" itself implies an emotional attachment, indicating that human worth is tied to emotional connections with others. This is a biological trait shared by many species, which fosters care for their own kind and increases the chances of their species' survival. The fact that robots may possess consciousness does not necessarily mean that humans will value them, as emotional attachment is based on sentimental attributes.
Created:
-->
@Mps1213
My next question was about addiction and what specifically causes it in certain substances over others. In my understanding, there are two aspects of the human psyche: the conscious self and the physiological self. The conscious self is focused on preparing for the future and urges you to work now to relax later. The physiological self, on the other hand, is only concerned with the present and tells you to relax and enjoy yourself. When it comes to addiction, I imagine a strong connection between the physiological self and the drug, as it stimulates our pleasure receptors to an extreme level, losing the balance between yourselves. This overwhelms our physiological self to the point where it takes over our psyche and our conscious self loses control. However, once a person withdraws from the drug, they regain their balance between the conscious and physiological selves, allowing them to make rational decisions about both present enjoyment and future conscious choices. With this balance reestablished, they can maintain a healthy relationship with their present actions and future self.
Of course, this is my psychological approach to understanding drug addiction. Could you explain how it happens scientifically, and whether or not my psychological evaluation correlates with the science behind it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In case you were looking for a response, I'm currently discussing this with Tarik in the "Morality is Objective" debate commentary. Additionally, I'm debating with YouFound_Lxam on some of the subjects discussed here, but in greater detail.
Feel free to comment your thoughts as I always appreciate another perspective.
Here is the link: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4466-morality-is-objective
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
@FLRW
Regarding the graphic representation of the cyclic, entropic heat death, and beginning as O|O, with eight valenced/bonded, 31 left-skew great circles, and 31 right-skew great circles on each side of the maximally contracted VE.
The sentence is describing a graphic representation presented by Ebuc that depicts the cyclic nature of the universe, including its beginning and eventual end in entropic heat death. This graphic is represented as O|O, which could be interpreted as two circles or spheres, each with an opening or hole in the middle, connected by a line or axis. The circles represent the different states of the universe, with the first O representing the beginning and the second O representing the end or entropic heat death.
Within each circle or sphere, there are eight valenced or bonded points, which represent eight icosahedra. These are three-dimensional shapes with 20 faces, each composed of an equilateral triangle. The icosahedra are arranged in a way that their faces are bonded to the eight surface triangles of the VE (Vector Equilibrium).
In addition to the icosahedra, there are 31 left-skew great circles and 31 right-skew great circles on each side of the maximally contracted VE. These great circles represent lines that are the longest possible on a sphere and skew because they do not pass through the center of the sphere. They are oriented to the left or right, depending on the side of the VE they are on.
All of these elements are arranged in a specific pattern and relationship within the graphic representation to symbolize the cyclic nature of the universe, from its beginning to its eventual end in entropic heat death. The purpose of this graphic representation is to offer a visual understanding of the complex and abstract concepts related to the cyclic nature of the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
@FLRW
Based on what Ebuc has written, it seems like he is expressing that quantum fluctuations are a fundamental aspect of the universe that have always existed. Suggesting that these fluctuations are not purely random but have a causal nature related to the cyclic ending of the universe, known as entropic heat death. Even at the minimal level of fluctuation, there is still some present, which occurs during the cyclic ending of the universe. He then connects quantum fluctuations to consciousness, proposing that bilateral consciousness causes them. He uses the example of a simple graphic of the sine-wave to explain how this could work. Additionally, he developed a graphic for the cyclic, entropic heat death and beginning as O|O, wherein he finds 8 valenced/bonded, 31 left-skew great circles, and 31 right-skew great circles on each side of the maximally contracted VE. According to Ebuc, hyper-space enthusiasts can see the 8, 2D dimensions as a single triangle with the potential to transform back into the 3D VE.
Then finally, he suggests that their scenarios may offer answers to some of the cosmic mysteries that are still unknown, and they believe that they have discovered these answers through geometries extrapolated out from Fuller's Synergetics and other scientific knowns. He also mentions the fact that all biologics we know of have the left-handed version of amino acids, which may be related to the dominance of one set of the icosahedrons' 31 great circles over the other set and each phase/state change of the universe at its entropic heat death ending-beginning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I thought you disagreed with my definition of consciousness because it implies that animals, insects, and robots possess a certain level of consciousness, and you were concerned that this might lead to granting them rights based on their consciousness. However, that was why I replied saying the concept of rights is not contingent upon consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If this is AI's attempt to make itself appear conscious to gain rights, then better forget it. We humans value ourselves the most, and there is no "i am conscious = i have rights".
I think you misunderstand, conscienceness is not what makes human valued or have rights. Human values and rights are a collective agreement between all individuals for the betterment of society. It has nothing to do with inherent traits such as consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
@Reece101
What Ebuc discusses is the relationship between Einstein's belief in no pure randomness and Bohr's theory of quantum entanglement in regards to time being a dimension. The author proposes a solution to the problem of a photon having a double-set of sine-waves that are 90 degrees to each other in their scenario involving quantum space and time tori. The latest cosmic Bell test involving photons from billion-year-old quasars has reduced the margin for unknown effects that could still impact the test. It explains that A and B particles exist in superposition, but the superposition is in a state of fluctuation between 0 and 1, which ends when the particles are measured. Furthermore, the passage explains that there is never less than one entity in the universe, even at the entropic heat death or beginning, as the universe can never be in pure equilibrium. Finally, it discusses how dynamic fluctuations are eternally existent in the universe and are associated with invaginations from the ultra-micro, Gravity and Dark Energy geodesics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
@Reece101
I agree with ebuc that some things cannot be simplified for a six-year-old, as I have mentioned before. However, I believe that the level of detail in mathematics can sometimes seem excessive and unnecessary. I have also said, if you don't understand something, how can you claim it's unnecessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
@Reece101
Why should we doubt what we know, in favour of Kaku's hypothesis.
My point is that we should recognize that our understanding of the world is limited and subject to interpretation. There may be more to discover, or what we believe to be true could be accurate, but we can never be completely certain. Therefore, it's important to acknowledge that there is always room for further learning and refinement of our understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@FLRW
@Sidewalker
You don’t just get to reference complexity and viola, consciousness “emerges” as if by magic. Scientifically speaking, there needs to be an effective causal sequence if you are going to call something explanatory, and we both know “magic” doesn’t cut it. The “hard problem of consciousness” will never reduce down to a mechanistic explanation, the mere association of corresponding physical changes does not constitute an explanatory mechanism.
To begin with, it's important to remember that almost everything, if not everything, was once considered magic before science helped us understand it. When it comes to consciousness, it cannot be simplified to a binary state of either existing within a being or not. There are countless levels of consciousness, and no one has been able to determine a clear line between what is conscious and what is not. This is because consciousness depends is not determined by a threshold, but on how many aspects one is aware of and the extent of that awareness.
In conclusion, the complexity of an individual's neural network is proportional to their level of consciousness.
Created:
-->
@Mps1213
Given the wide scope of the topic, it is unclear where to begin. However, starting with the topic of cannabis may be a good idea, as it has been a subject of much discussion. My question is: what are the benefits of cannabis that should make it suitable for over-the-counter access, and what are the potential negative consequences that people should be mindful of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
@FLRW
In the previous comments, I explained that understanding one's concept of God is crucial in deciding whether to believe in its existence or not. It is possible that the gods worshipped in the past as supernatural deities could have been a representation of nature, and although they were not conscious beings, they could have been real existentially as they were metaphorical models within reality. Thus, they were not actual beings but rather a part of reality. Does this seem like a rational conclusion, and if not what would be a more coherent alternative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@FLRW
Although I haven't read the book "The God Equation: The Quest for a Theory of Everything" by Michio Kaku, I'm already intrigued by the concept of a single mathematical equation that can unify all the fundamental forces of nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@FLRW
I apologize, I would like to help others, as well as myself, better understand the concepts being discussed. I felt that the conversation was becoming repetitive and that there was a lack of effort to understand my explanations. This was determined by the lack of questioning my reasons and more about questioning the validity of my technical terminology. I interpreted this as a challenge to not only my knowledge but of my technically complex responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@ebuc
@Reece101
In his book "Hyperspace," Michio Kaku discusses the concept of time in the context of higher dimensions. He argues that time is not a fundamental dimension, but rather an emergent property of the universe. According to Kaku, time emerges as a consequence of the way matter is organized in space.
Kaku also explores the possibility of time travel, which he believes is theoretically possible in higher dimensions. He suggests that by traveling through a higher dimension, one could effectively bypass the limitations of time as we experience it in our three-dimensional world.
Overall, Kaku's view on time is that it is a complex and multifaceted concept that is intimately connected to the structure of the universe. He sees time as an emergent property of the universe that is intimately tied to the way matter is organized in space, and he explores the implications of this idea in his work on hyperspace and higher dimensions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@ebuc
@Reece101
I believe what ebuc is trying to say is to imagine a 3D cube with sides labeled abc. Now, imagine we add a sixth dimension to the cube, which creates a diagonal section. This sixth dimension is incredibly small, at 10^-36, and is part of hyper-space. This means we now have a cube with 9 spatial dimensions, including the 3D observed dimensions and the 6 dimensions of hyper-space.
This hyper-space exists at an ultra-micro scale, meaning it's incredibly tiny. It's believed that Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( are the smallest scales of occupied space existence. Essentially, we're moving from what we can observe in three dimensions to a much smaller scale of existence with nine spatial dimensions, including hyper-space.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@ebuc
@Reece101
The reason why one cannot say space is the only dimension is that there are different types of space. One type is the eternally existent, macro-infinite, and truly non-occupied space that embraces all other types of space. The other type is the eternally existent, finite, and occupied space, which has three primary sub-categories. The first sub-category, Spirit-2, is physical reality composed of fermions and bosons that are both quantized by humans. The second sub-category, Spirit-3, is Meta-physical { not quantized } Gravity ( ). The third sub-category, Spirit-4, is Meta-physical { not quantized }. The conceptual line-of-demarcation separates the occupied space from the non-occupied space. Spirit-1 is Met-space, which is an abstract mind/intellect/concept and ego { i } that is not an actual space, occupied or truly non-occupied.
The brain cell relationships found in the torus and hexagonal aspects of the brain suggest that the brain uses a torus to navigate physical systems, and there are hexagonal grids in the brain. These findings are similar to the givens in this topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
Simple instructions:
When you have a question, end it with a "?".
When you have a dispute, quote my text and explain how.
When you don't understand but want to, ask me to elaborate.
My speech may seem overly technical, but it's very necessary. This isn't a childs debate but requires the highest philosophy knowledge to understand, by you attempting to reduce it to good and bad, or right and wrong, your depreciating the clarity of the conversation. Try understanding that children can't understand certain concepts but only understand good guy and bad guy. If you don't learn the necessary words it's the same thing. I can't explain why good people do bad things till the child learns that good guys and bad guys are overly simplified concepts and teach them the deeper complexity of the world. Additionally, if I wasn't so specific I would be incorrect in many ways, as ambiguity lacks clarity and resolution. If I said does God exist or not, that depends on how you define God. Therefore depending on how one defines God would determine my validity. I don't want that, so instead I say the an individuals subjective interpretation of god is either physical or metaphysical. With this technical response it doeant matter how one defines god, my statement holds true. Many people have their own form of God, so someone's God may be physical while another metaphysical. And you still argue God must physically exist or not, WRONG. One man's God must exist physically or not, another's the same, the odds of them being identical, quite near impossible. I'm trying to explain this philosophy clearly and that's why I came here and I don't comment of Facebook. If you don't understand a certain word, then how can you be sure my technical address isn't necessary. Learn the philosophy, then tell me what is and isn't necessary or correct. I suggest given our conversation that you familiarize yourself with the words, physical, metaphysical, conceptual, subjective, objective, collectively, and most importantly, facts and opinions.
Please forgive me if I come off as a bit aggressive, I'm trying to simply explain that one cannot reduce certain concepts without using the necessary words and you continue to make a mockery of my sincerity. I'd appreciate a real discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
Yeah ,but.But .IT'S ONLY COMMEN SENSE A GOD THING DOESN'T EXIST.
It would have been better if you had clearly stated your intended message rather than leaving it open to interpretation. Your statement, "God doesn't physically doesn't exist", which isnt necessarily true. It is important to understand that people may have different definitions of God. For some, God could be an idol or a moral concept, which would mean that the form and existence of God would differ. Therefore, it is necessary to be specific about what you believe when discussing commonly misunderstood ideas and concepts, instead of assuming others will understand your subjective perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
In regards to Deb-8-a-bull:
I think in your example, you are trying to distinguish that agnosticism is closer to theism than atheism. Instead of making a vague comparison by saying 'well it's closer than this,' (which by no means deems it similar, as its merely a comparison) it would be more helpful to compare the attributes of each one and acknowledge them for what they are.
Moreover, it is crucial to establish a precise definition of God. One can contend that God does not exist, as they define him as a supernatural being of injustice. Conversely, another can argue that God does exist, as they view him as a metaphysical concept rather than a conscious entity. By stating that the topic is simply about whether God exists or not, you oversimplify a complex issue. One cannot even begin to prove or disprove the existence of God if they do not have the same understanding of God's nature and attributes. This is precisely why I took the effort to define my precise understanding of what I mean by the term "God" before I went to prove his existence. I wanted to avoid any potential confusion of which you're clearly demonstrating. Please be sure to fully read the comments before replying and if you have any trouble understanding, I would be more than happy to try to explain better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
I recognize your attempt in forming a correlation between my view, and agnosticism. However, there is a strong distinction between the two, mine being naturalistic pantheism.
Naturalistic pantheism is a belief system that sees the universe and nature itself as divine, and that all things in the universe are interconnected and part of the divine whole. It does not posit a supernatural deity or god, but rather sees the universe as the highest form of divinity. Naturalistic pantheism holds that everything in the universe, including human beings, are connected to each other and to the divine whole.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the view that the existence of a god or gods cannot be proven or disproven. It is not a belief system or a specific religious philosophy, but rather a stance on the question of the existence of a deity. Agnostics typically hold that it is impossible to know whether a god or gods exist, or that the evidence is insufficient to make a determination one way or the other.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is the rejection of the claim that a god or gods exist due to a lack of evidence or logical reasoning. Atheists do not believe in a deity, but this does not mean they claim there is no god, only that there is no sufficient evidence to believe in one.
While it is true that we cannot be certain about the existence of supernatural beings, I don't believe in fairies or other such entities either. My worldview is based on rational and logical principles, using scientific and philosophical methods to understand the world. I rely on science to study the physical realm of tangible objects and use philosophy to explore the nonphysical realm of intangible concepts such as emotions, ideas, and thoughts. While some may consider my perspective a form of agnosticism, I see it as a combination of scientific and philosophical inquiry. In other words, I believe in what is believeable, and not, what isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I am an atheist, though I accept that there maybe a GOD principle.I think that it's also reasonable to propose, that this evolving and purposeful material universe, was therefore not the first and won't be the last.Despite metaphysical overthink, I would nonetheless suggest that old Gods were/are a naive but reasonable metaphor
Yes, thats what I'm trying to convey. I am attempting to acknowledge "God" as the universe itself; it is merely the a metaphorical concept of reality and its inner workings. I also concur that primitive gods were naive, but we must recognize that they served a purpose in maintaining indoctrination for the sake of uniformity and stability in society as their unanimously agreed moral standard. However, as we continue to evolve, it is important that our view of God also evolves.
Do you think that A.I. will need metaphysical constructs as coping strategies?Or will it be purely logical?
I am uncertain if robots will ever be capable of experiencing sentience. It is possible that in the future, as neural networks become more complex and are integrated with external awareness monitors, robots may become sentient. However, with current robots and technology that I am aware of, this is not possible, as they are purely logical and structured.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
It's fascinating to learn about your research and theories regarding the torus and hexagonal patterns in the brain. I'm curious, how do these findings relate to your quoted statement about neurons looking beautiful like trees? Is there a specific aspect of the torus or hexagonal pattern that resembles the structure of neurons?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
@FLRW
In regard to Deb-8-a-bull:
Assuming this is what you meant to say.
I have never personally encountered a smart theist but given that there are over 3 billion theists in the world, there must be at least a few who are intelligent. However, it is highly unlikely that such a person would be on this site. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to talk to one.
I assume you were referring to me since you didn't mention anyone in your post. While many don't consider me religious, I am a theist. I believe that God is not supernatural, but rather a part of nature itself. I don't think God is conscious, but rather acts intelligently as all things in the universe tend to develop and evolve in a seemingly advancing way. I understand that people interpret their beliefs in many different ways, but I find my view to be the most logical and rational.
I also believe that many atheists were once religious but became skeptical of the illogical supernatural aspect of religion as they grew older and wiser. According to statistics, 2/3 of atheists were once religious, which supports my theory.
In the Christian context, the explanation for good and bad events is that God is either punishing or blessing us. While this may be reasonable, I believe that God is more accurately reflected in the universe itself, without the supernatural aspect. As for the afterlife, I see it as a reflection of one's existence that is imbued into the consciousness of others who knew the person. The closer the relationship, the stronger the transmitted consciousness grows within them, affecting their decisions as they continue to remember the person emotionally. In conclusion, I don't believe in such a thing or being as God but rather that God is a concept that we use to describe the universe as a whole.
I would be pleased to attempt to answer your questions, as it would stimulate my thought process on the matter and keep me logical and coherent in my understanding of the world. Please be critical of my understanding as I enjoy challenges to my beliefs, it helps solidify my understanding of the world by aligning it with natural processes. This allows me to create a more effective tool for understanding the world and navigating life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
@FLRW
Regarding FLRW:
I agree that consciousness is a physical product created by billions of synapses. I am familiar with this concept as I have worked on artificial deep neural networks during my programming career. Thank you for commenting on the forum topic.
Regarding Deb-8-a-bull:
Please let me know if I am mistaken, but it seems that you may have been expressing some pride in your and ebuc's difficulty in being understood. However, I would like to point out that this is not necessarily a desirable trait. While someone may possess great intelligence or knowledge, if they are unable to effectively communicate their ideas, they will be of little use to society.
Therefore, if you find that you are frequently misunderstood in debates or conversations, it would be beneficial for you to work on improving your ability to communicate clearly. Just as someone who is fluent in Portuguese would not benefit from communicating in that language in an English-speaking environment, it is important to adjust one's language and style to fit the situation and audience.
Of course, it can be challenging to translate one's thoughts into coherent speech or writing, but if it cannot be done effectively, it is unlikely to be useful or productive for anyone reading or listening. It is worth noting, however, that if one is seeking help in gathering their thoughts and communicating effectively, then seeking the insights of others can be a valid reason for posting an unclear comment. If you or ebuc believe that you have a valuable contribution to the conversation, but are struggling to express your idea clearly, I would be more than happy to help you restructure it in a way that is more easily understandable.
Additionally, I am uncertain whether you are challenging Zed's ideas or conspiring against him, though it seems the first. Criticism is vital, and it helps to break down an individual's ideas, leading to further strengthening and evolution of those ideas. Therefore, challenging ideas are significant in their development, as continued criticism will help them evolve and become more robust. Hence, it is crucial to question concepts and beliefs held by all individuals, including oneself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@zedvictor4
If I understand correctly, you're evaluating a person's moral worth based on the accepted morals of society, which isn't an objective or stable form of morality because societal norms change across cultures and generations. This implies a collective subjective morality that is based on ethics.
I'm interested in gaining a more comprehensive understanding of your perspective on morals, and would appreciate your thoughts to be posted on the "Morality is Objective" debate that I, "Critical-Tim," and "YouFound_Lxam" are currently debating in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
I apologize if my language seemed overly technical. Sometimes it is necessary to use technical language to eliminate ambiguity and provide sufficient context and clarity. Failing to do so can result in drawing invalid conclusions based on oversimplified factors, similar to rounding numbers before solving a math problem. In essence, my words weren't overcomplex, but necessary. However, I will attempt to simplify the idea of metaphysical constructivism a bit further.
Metaphysical constructivism is the idea that the metaphysical realm - which refers to things that are not physical, such as concepts and ideas - is created by human thought and imagination, rather than being a physical reality. According to this philosophy, the metaphysical realm exists only conceptually and is not a physical object. However, this does not mean that the metaphysical realm is useless or irrelevant. Metaphysical constructs, such as ideas and strategies, can be very helpful in understanding and predicting the behavior of the physical world. Metaphysical constructivism emphasizes that our understanding of the world is shaped by our own thoughts and imagination, and that we can actively construct our own understanding of reality through our experiences and interactions.
Going back to my original point, I was attempting to draw a connection between Michio Kaku's book, where he employs hyperspace as a tool for comprehending reality, and the concept of metaphysical constructivism, which utilizes the metaphysical realm to better understand our own reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
I agree that Michio Kaku's book on Hyperspace presents a truly fascinating perspective. I haven't heard of it before, but it seems to be in line with metaphysical constructivism, a concept I am familiar with. I recognize the metaphysical realm is where we can gain a better understanding of our three-dimensional universe through ideas and concepts.
Metaphysical constructivism is a belief that the metaphysical realm is a product of human thought and imagination. According to this philosophy, the metaphysical realm only exists conceptually and is not a physical reality in and of itself. However, this does not mean that the metaphysical realm is useless or irrelevant. In fact, metaphysical constructs can be incredibly useful in understanding and predicting the behavior of the physical world.
One example of metaphysical constructivism is the concept of time. Time is a construct of the human mind and is not a physical object or force in the universe. However, it is an incredibly useful construct for predicting and understanding the behavior of physical objects and events. Without the concept of time, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make sense of cause-and-effect relationships, and to develop technologies like clocks and calendars.
Metaphysical constructivism can also be seen in the concept of ideas or strategies. Ideas and strategies are constructs that are created by human thought and vary from person to person. However, they are extremely useful tools for problem-solving and achieving goals. Ideas and strategies can help individuals and groups to innovate, create, and improve upon existing systems. They can also be used to communicate and share knowledge with others.
In summary, metaphysical constructivism holds that the metaphysical realm is a construct of human thought, but this does not diminish its importance or usefulness, and can be an incredibly powerful tool for understanding and predicting the behavior of the physical world. Would you agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@zedvictor4
@YouFound_Lxam
I would like to invite YouFound_Lxam to a debate, I will argue morality is relative. This is assuming you disagree, as you are the author of this forum called "Morality is Objective".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I appreciate your skepticism towards commonly accepted ideas. It is essential to question and critically evaluate why something is considered true rather than taking it for granted.
To summarize my previous statement, I was discussing the harmful impact of slavery on society as a whole. I was speaking objectively and specifically referring to the immediate consequences of this institution.
The term "harmful" refers to anything that causes or has the potential to cause damage, injury, or negative consequences to individuals, groups, communities, or the environment. Something is considered harmful if it poses a threat to health, well-being, or safety towards a certain object or being.
It is important to recognize that harmful actions can have both present and future consequences. While I appreciate your inquiry into what defines harm, it is crucial to consider the timeframe being referred to. In my previous statement, I was specifically referring to the immediate present.
However, when assessing the full extent of harm caused, it is essential to also acknowledge potential future consequences. For instance, certain wars, such as the Civil War, resulted in significant immediate harm with many lives lost, yet had long-term positive effects such as the abolition of slavery.
Therefore, while violent events like riots and wars can have immediate negative consequences, it is crucial to acknowledge that they may also have potential positive and negative consequences in the future. It is important to weigh the costs and benefits of any action carefully, taking into account both immediate and long-term impacts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Your mode of communication was quite convoluted and challenging to comprehend with certainty, as I haven't read Micho Kaku's book. Additionally, could you confirm if the following is what you intended to convey?
The concept of minimal consciousness has different levels and dimensions. It involves twoness, which is awareness of oneself and others. This can be experienced through the senses, such as sight, sound, smell, and taste. Threeness is experienced through the line of relationship or gravity, while fourness is experienced through the background context. Fourness can be represented by a square, which is a minimal geometric and systemic set. Threeness can be represented by a triangle, which is a minimal geometric and integral structural set. Twoness is represented by a linear set and is the minimal meta-space or abstract concept. Oneness is not considered a set. Additionally, in hyper-space, the first dimension is represented by the 45-degree volumetric or body diagonal of a 90-degree cube.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In so much as the necessity of complexity will only have a limited and appropriately conditioned audience."Is equality good" is either a general question for a mass audience, or a philosophical question for a select few.
It's true, and that's precisely the problem. Attempts to simplify complex philosophical debates often lead to an oversimplified version lacking the accuracy and context of the original statement. Such questioning becomes pointless and devoid of definitiveness. In essence, those who lack the capacity to comprehend the words and philosophies necessary to understand something cannot grasp the complexity of the real idea without investing the time to learn and understand.
Though the basic definition and general understanding of equality and inequality is still the same.
Although a basic definition is lacking, I believe I understand your intentions. Every idea and concept has a certain threshold beyond which simplification causes degradation, loss of original meaning, and reduced value, definitiveness, and utility. At times, even simplifying an idea to its most basic form without losing resolution proves too complex for some to understand. In a desperate attempt to foster understanding, some oversimplify the idea, leading to problems such as miscommunication, lack of definitiveness in questions and answers, and pointless arguments due to the inability to understand each other. Essentially, those who engage in philosophical debates to explain oversimplified problems are incompetent and incapable of arriving at a genuine solution due to their inability to grasp the true complexity of the ideas involved.
I would imagine that most people here on DebateArt have an understanding of the factors that might affect social status.
This is the very problem. Assuming that others are refer to the effects of social status when that may not be the case, leading to misunderstandings and unproductive dialogue. Failure to define commonly misunderstood or interpretable terms and other necessary components of the debate inevitably leads to disagreements from miscommunication. I have even witnessed two individuals arguing for the same point without realizing they were essentially saying the same thing, but referring to different aspects of the same topic. Assuming that the other's subjective interpretation of a word is the same as one's own leads to communication breakdowns present in almost every controversial debate today. Such breakdowns occur because the parties lack the competence to engage at that level of intellectual discourse.
I'm not being disrespectful or trying to direct this case towards you, but rather stating it so that all can be aware of this and fraign from making the same mistakes. Therefore, cultivating a more competent debating community.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes, I was speaking objectively. Referring to something subjectively does not allow one to speak for the whole, as that refers to individuals experiences and interpretations. Therefore, when I spoke of harm to society as a whole, I was being objective because 'overall' requires objectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Having another perspective on any matter is always beneficial, so I appreciate you speaking up.
In regard to your statement:
Societies’ failure to recognize slavery as morally wrong doesn’t mean morality is relative, it just means society was once upon a time ignorant in that regard.
Although I understand that you are suggesting that people in the past were ignorant about the moral implications of slavery, you are still referring to moral implications of slavery that are based on today's moral standards, which is moral relativism. By reframing the question to whether slavery is beneficial to society and the world as a whole, we can determine whether it should be perpetuated. This is a clear example of why slavery is not currently in use today. It caused more harm than good to society as a whole, as evidenced by riots, wars, and other violent problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Lemming
It is quite a challenging topic and thank you for acknowledging my attempt and I apologize I was not able to present it as clearly as I wished I could. Hopefully this time will be clearer, however if not please let me know as I will continue working on understanding and explaining my idea better.
I am suggesting that in everyday language, people make assumptions all the time. For example, when someone says "you," they assume that they are referring to the person they are talking to; when someone says "up," they assume that it means away from gravity; and when someone says "kind," they assume that it means a desirable emotional trait. I am highlighting the fact that language conveys both explicit and implicit meanings. People often focus on the implicit meaning, such as when they value a product review for its implicit intentions rather than its explicit words. For instance, if a competitor writes a negative review, they may view the implicit meaning as an attempt to reduce competition, whereas if a customer writes a negative review, they may assume it's because they disliked the product. However, relying on implicit meanings can lead to misunderstandings because it is subjective and not explicitly stated. Furthermore, when someone says, "that's good," it's unclear what exactly they mean. "Good" means a benefit towards something, but it doesn't specify what it benefits. There is an implicit accepted meaning that it benefits the individual, but this is not always the case. Others may accept it as an implicit benefit towards themselves, which can lead to miscommunication. In everyday language, people often use implicit meanings and accept ambiguous contexts because they think they understand the intentions behind them. However, when engaging in complex philosophical debates, ambiguity can lead to subjective interpretation and miscommunication.
To demonstrate ambiguity, let me give some real examples. The question "is equality good", there are infinite interpretations of what they mean. Do they mean equality of outcome, opportunity, financial income, happiness, or something else? Furthermore, if they are for equality in any of these categories, they could mean different things - for example, they might want to level everyone down to the lowest level, or bring everyone up to the highest level, or raise everyone to the median level. The topic is complex and has many variations, including negative interpretations, such as leveling everyone down to the lowest level for the sake of equality. When asked if equality is good or bad, the question itself is flawed and raises many other questions. The ambiguity is so high that we could never hope to answer it. Instead, we should ask properly formulated questions that address specific aspects of equality. For example, we could ask if they are for raising everyone to an equal financial income level, with the implication that they want to raise people up, rather than bring them down or make everyone average. Additionally reminding yourself that good means to benefit towards something what are they referring that equality could be good towards government, individuals, groups; and for each one of those it could mean financial income, happiness, protection, support. In other words, the question is equality good is an oversimplification to which causes more questions than answers and is more problematic than helpful. When a question becomes more problematic than helpful you know that you have oversimplified the question.
Consider this oversimplified question: "Are good and evil interconnected or independent?" While some may believe that this is a more direct question than "Can good exist without evil?", even this more direct form of the question remains ambiguous. Morality encompasses several sub-aspects, including the morality of intent and the morality of outcome. These sub-aspects refer to whether the morality of intent and outcome are interconnected or independent. Additionally, morality can be viewed in several different ways, including deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, moral relativism, and moral absolutism, each providing a unique perspective on evaluating and determining what is right or wrong. With so many different understandings of what is right and wrong, how can we determine whether good and evil are interconnected or independent? Only by removing ambiguity and forming a properly interpretable question can we arrive at a definitive answer.
In summary, this can be likened to the scene in Jurassic Park when Ian Malcolm says, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Similarly, people often become so fixated on finding an answer that they fail to consider whether they have asked the right question, and when a question is improperly formed and has ambiguity controversial debate with no seeming agreement is always sure to follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The relationship between good and evil is a complex issue that has been explored by philosophers for centuries. Two distinct views have emerged in this discourse: the interdependent view and the independent view.
The interdependent view suggests that good and evil are interconnected, and that the existence of evil helps us understand and appreciate the nature of good. This view emphasizes the relationship between moral intentions and actions, suggesting that a person cannot have good moral intentions without the capacity for evil. The capacity for evil creates a contrast that highlights the value of good moral intentions.
On the other hand, the independent view emphasizes that good can be appreciated and valued in its own right, regardless of the existence of evil. This view focuses on the intrinsic value of moral actions and virtues, suggesting that good can be admired and appreciated without the need for a contrasting evil.
While both views offer valuable insights, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can be seen as referring to distinct aspects of morality. Good and evil can refer to both the intent and the result of action. For example, someone can have good moral intent but unintentionally cause harm, resulting in an evil moral outcome. Conversely, an action can have a good moral outcome without any evil intent, such as an ant saving another ant without conscious choice.
In the case of the ant, its actions are admired as good, but its intent cannot be admired since it had no choice but to act in that way. However, when a human makes a choice to act morally, both their intent and the result of their action can be admired. In this sense, humans have the capacity to choose and can be admired for both their moral intent and their moral actions.
The relationship between good and evil is further complicated by the fact that the two concepts are often defined in opposition to each other. Good is typically associated with positive qualities such as kindness, honesty, and generosity, while evil is associated with negative qualities such as cruelty, dishonesty, and greed. However, these definitions are not absolute and can vary depending on cultural and historical contexts.
Moreover, the concept of evil is not always clear-cut. In some cases, what may be considered evil in one context may be considered good in another. For example, some cultures value the practice of revenge as a means of restoring justice, while others view it as destructive and immoral behavior.
In conclusion, the relationship between good and evil is complex and multifaceted, and different philosophical perspectives offer valuable insights into this issue. While the interdependent view highlights the importance of the contrast between good and evil, the independent view emphasizes the intrinsic value of moral actions and virtues. However, both views can be seen as referring to distinct aspects of morality, including the intent and the result of action. Ultimately, the nuances and complexities of this issue highlight the need for a deeper understanding of morality and human behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Lemming
To summarize my above response for zedvictor4, to avoid any possible misunderstanding:
Questions like "what is reality", "what is truth", and "is evil necessary for good" are improperly formed due to oversimplification, and their controversial nature is a result of this. A proper question is necessary to obtain a proper answer, and oversimplification often hinders the resolution of complex issues. Ultimately, a nuanced understanding of reality requires moving beyond simplistic formulations and engaging with the complexity of the issues at hand. A question that is oversimplified, such as "What is," lacks the necessary context to provide a clear understanding of the question and can be interpreted in multiple ways. This can lead to controversy as different people may understand it differently. To obtain a definitive answer, a question must have a clear context and be properly formed. Without a properly formed question, the answer will also be non-definitive, therefore leading to controversy.
In response to Lemming:
It appears that you are making a distinction between consciousness being defined by self-recognition. While this interpretation is not necessarily incorrect, it is important to note that self-identification is not limited to spatial awareness. Consciousness extends beyond this and includes recognition of oneself in various aspects such as financial status, skill levels, or even within a video game. The level of consciousness one possesses is determined by the number of aspects one is aware of. For example, an individual may be more financially aware or have greater spatial awareness, and this will affect their level of consciousness. It is also possible for a being to be more conscious than humans, even if they are not spatially aware, but possess awareness of other aspects that humans may not be aware of. Therefore, it is important to recognize that consciousness is not limited to spatial awareness, but rather encompasses a wide range of aspects. Animals may demonstrate special awareness which can indicate their level of consciousness, and it is important to acknowledge that the measure of consciousness is determined by the number of aspects one is conscious of, and the level of which they are conscious of it, even humans are not completely spatially aware. In order for someone to achieve complete spatial awareness, they would have to acknowledge everything in the entire universe spatially. This means that there are not only countless aspects of which one can be conscious, but also an infinite number of levels of consciousness for each aspect.
To conclude, consciousness is not restricted to spatial awareness alone. Instead, it is the summation of the level of consciousness one has in each aspect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
@FLRW
I have questioned if animals are merely chemical responses, and I realized that humans are also subject to chemical reactions, yet we possess consciousness. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that animals too have consciousness, which is a result of their own chemical reactions. While animals' consciousness may differ from that of humans, we can still observe their awareness through their actions as both predators and prey. Ultimately, both animals and humans are programmed to respond to their environment, but the presence of consciousness in both is evidence of the complexity of their chemical reactions. This ultimately leads to our discussion of free will versus determinism, which I claim is an improperly formed question. Additionally, I argue that the questions "what is reality", "what is truth", and "is evil necessary for good" are improperly formed. All of these questions have 2 things in common, they are controversial even in modern day debate, and they are improperly formed due to their oversimplification. It is clear that a question without a definite answer cannot be properly answered, such as the question "is this blue" without any context. Someone might say yes or no based on their perception, but without necessary clarity in the question, it cannot be answered definitively. Many individuals focus on creating a definitive and accurate answer but fail to realize the importance of crafting an accurate and definitive question. It is evident that a proper question is necessary to obtain a proper answer as you cannot create an answer without a proper question. In this way, modern controversial topics that lack the necessary definitiveness in questions, resulting from their oversimplification, is the very thing that keeps them controversial and unresolved today. In fact, many controversial topics that remain unresolved are plagued by oversimplification in their formulation. For instance, the question "Is a person who wishes for rain kind or cruel, one of his friends loves rain, while the other dreads it?" cannot be reduced to a simple yes or no answer, as it depends on the person's perspective and the context of the situation. Oversimplifying debates often leads to ongoing miscommunication and hinders the resolution of complex issues. Ultimately, accurate and nuanced understanding of reality requires us to move beyond simplistic formulations and engage with the complexity of the issues at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The publication you mentioned is fascinating, as I was previously unaware of the official documentation. However, I find it self-evident that prey running from predators shows an awareness of their place in the food chain, just as predators chasing prey demonstrate their conscious recognition of their position in the hierarchy. Consciousness involves being aware of one's own existence within both internal and external systems, which suggests that there may be different levels of consciousness depending on the extent of this awareness. While I have been aware of the concept of different levels of consciousness, I had not heard of any official documentation before, so I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
When you say the universe is an accident, are you suggesting that it is flawed or somehow not in alignment with what was intended? I could agree that the universe was not created intentionally, but I disagree with the idea that it is flawed or out of line. Such claims assume a standard by which to judge the universe, but we could argue that any standard is subjective and could be used to find flaws in anything. Similarly, the notion of the universe being "out of line" implies a comparison to something else. But what are we comparing it to? If we're referring to objective reality, then it's not correct to say that the universe is out of line with it since the universe is part of objective reality. Therefore, anything that the universe does is necessarily in line with objective reality.
Created: