[Graybeard]

"This is the wisdom of Hafiz,
that Sages have pondered upon
the wisest tip in the world is
to see the commission go on"

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I thank you for your concerns Greg, but I'm not going to address foolish emotions any other way. I'm sorry, but I see MK as ridiculously lost in dillusional emotional illusions of his own ego's grandstanding. He needs to be brought down to earth___bad... I'm not saying I'm perfectly right, I'm just putting up positions to be debated, but when you receive no factual debate, ever, from a poster, what's to be done? I choose to do what you see, even though I know it's not proper. And I am also talking about just about every post difference Mk and I have had over the last year. He's not even on this planet, to me___sorry...

BTW Greg, I'm only whispering. A whisper is always louder than shouting...

Regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by Graybeard Lloyd .... Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning facts. NO. Commit it then to the flames. Lloyd I am of your persuasion. I agree with the above quote. But you must understand that our, yours, mine, and many others opinions of what is a fact is not everybodys idea of a fact. Regardless of the FACT that we are right and they are wrong. Lets suspend our dis-belief. Lets let them have a say. Then gently, kindly, after we have nibbled on their hook and they feel the bite, let them know that we also have opinions and that in order to get us to the landing net they will have to digest OUR facts. They will never listen if you shout at them. Lets engage them on their own grounds and may the 'correctest' win This is the rule you set !! Michael's first reply, after thanking you, contained a fact. Here it is When you and I agree on a fact, we know, because of the knowledge we have in our memories that what we see as the fact or experiment agrees with that which is in our memory. We would go further and explain that even our memories are simply another physical/material system. Michael is saying the same thing !! It is not possible to have a productive thread if we are not flexible... I think the rule you set is fair ... posters should provide evidence of what they post ... but I also think we should intrepret the rule more generously .. or, as always, it will end in an interminable argument where the original idea becomes submerged in personal claims and counterclaims. lets all give it a go.. lets consider what others say and pause for a few moments before hitting the reply button ....... greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Yeah...because you have no logical facts, just illogical insecure egoistic emotions. The difference Mk, is my intelligence and your ignorance of the facts... regards,

You are the ignorant one,you are the one who pollutes others posts with your negitive
pois0n,you keep bolwing your own trumpet so much,you should join a band?What I have is the living truth,that is consciouness is back of all physical expression,what you have
is worthless claptrap,you are welcome to it,you make a nice couple,MUTT and Jeff/.

regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick You are the ignorant one,you are the one who pollutes others posts with your negitive pois0n,you keep bolwing your own trumpet so much,you should join a band?What I have is the living truth,that is consciouness is back of all physical expression,what you have is worthless claptrap,you are welcome to it,you make a nice couple,MUTT and Jeff/. regards michael.

Boy mystic-child, you popped your girdle and all, on that one...

regards,

[Graybeard]

Lloyd ... I will do my best to take up the Devil's Advocate position here.

As you seem to have cleared the field of anyone even thinking of replying .

MKirkpatrick .........What I have is the living truth,that is consciouness is back of all physical expression,.......

I think Michael has pointed out a significant fact in the above quote, that denies your opening post ..... and yet is certainly a fact ....

Lloyd ..... paraphrasing .... Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?

I believe it qualifies. It is a fact that without our 'conscious' we would not be aware of. Its a fact that the Moon will still be the Moon whether we are 'aware' or not. But the Moon does not know that it orbits the Earth, and by proxy, the Sun. These are facts that only our 'consciousness' can be 'aware' of

Lloyd .....Is life an absolute principle? I say this depends on the absolute understanding of all the absolute physical facts. I also say, the total absolute understanding of all the absolute physical facts is the key to the TOE.

In that case you will have to accept that 'the total absolute understanding of all the absolute physical facts' is a feat only a 'group consciousness' will be able to achieve.

How am I doing as a stand-in Satan ...

greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Lloyd ... I will do my best to take up the Devil's Advocate position here. As you seem to have cleared the field of anyone even thinking of replying . I think Michael has pointed out a significant fact in the above quote, that denies your opening post ..... and yet is certainly a fact .... I believe it qualifies. It is a fact that without our 'conscious' we would not be aware of. Its a fact that the Moon will still be the Moon whether we are 'aware' or not. But the Moon does not know that it orbits the Earth, and by proxy, the Sun. These are facts that only our 'consciousness' can be 'aware' of In that case you will have to accept that 'the total absolute understanding of all the absolute physical facts' is a feat only a 'group consciousness' will be able to achieve. How am I doing as a stand-in Satan ... greg

Your reference; "What I have is the living truth,that is consciouness is back of all physical expression" I do not agree with this statement Greg. I do not accept consciousness as a valid mind state. Conscious yes, but not consciousness no. This field of debate is very contenteous among all the present day philosophers, and is entirely unsettled. I don't agree with the statement, also, on the grounds of anyone stating, "What I have is the living truth." Mk's premise is infinite consciousness, which science easily proves invalid with the speed of light only being able to carry the mind's mental energy projections, only the distance of one's life, say 60 light years, in this bio-era. Were his inferred premise not eternal consciousness, I could more easily continue a sensible dialogue, but it is. And on a final note, "Consciousness is back of all physical expression", his interpretation of this seems to be the mind's expression of physical creation, which is a foolish position to science, when the mind's light life is only a mere 5 million + or - years, for the entire historical population. Therefore; I don't see any of it as factual...

And to your second point, "I believe it qualifies" I can not support as consciousness is still too an unsettled philosophical position. Myself, I only accept cognitive conscious brain states, as something with scientific significance, which can be rigorously discussed.

And your third statement, "In that case you will have to accept that 'the total absolute understanding of all the absolute physical facts' is a feat only a 'group consciousness' will be able to achieve." No, I don't see the world as complicated as your statement would make it to be. Even Mk has stated, in other posts, the TOE will be simple when discovered, and I agree. IMO, it's simply a philosophical rendition of the already known facts, and they already exist, on this very forum. It's just extremely difficult to achieve group understanding, with everyone paying more attention to their own ideas, than the other persons ideas and facts... And, I'd hate to rely on group "consciousness" to solve anything, I've seen it in action, too many times. It always devolves to a democracy of mediocrity, which offers no answers. I think simple individuals debating all the complex issues to simplicity, is the true TOE, in the end. The problem is, keeping the posters in factual debating posture. Is that even possible?

Regards,
Lloyd

[Graybeard]

Lloyd ......... I only accept cognitive conscious brain states, as something with scientific significance, which can be rigorously discussed.

If our brain is merely hardware, and our senses, inputs, what then is the Cognitive agent that chooses our actions.

From your your first post...."I say this depends on the absolute understanding of all the absolute physical facts." The 'cognition' or 'cognitor' of these facts is in an area, that according to you "I can not support as consciousness" further..." ... too unsettled (an) philosophical position."

Unsettled it may be, but whatever the 'Cognitor' is, its manifestation is Consciousness.

Whether or not we agree with MK, IC, and others .... its possible that they have this much in common ... and correct ... if not .... How does the Cognitive Agent fit into it.

Its not really covered by Classical Maths, Quantum Mechanics, or The Second Law of Thermodynamics. If we add a fourth 'Conscious' we probably have enough to determine if 'Life is an Absolute Principle'.

How would you explain Life without 'Conscious' ?

greg

[Graybeard]

Attachment 272

[Graybeard]

..from the Wiki ... The Chinese Room argument is a thought experiment designed by John Searle (1980 [1]) as a counterargument to claims made by strong artificial intelligence (AI, also functionalism). Searle laid out the Chinese Room argument in his paper "Minds, brains and programs," published in 1980. Ever since, it has been a mainstay of the debate over the possibility of what Searle called strong artificial intelligence. Supporters of strong artificial intelligence believe that an appropriately programmed computer isn't simply a simulation or model of a mind; it actually counts as a mind. That is, it understands, has cognitive states, and can think. Searle's argument against (or more precisely, thought experiment intended to undermine) this position, the Chinese Room argument, goes as follows: Suppose that, many years from now, we have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. In other words, the computer takes Chinese characters as input and, following a set of rules (as all computers can be described as doing), correlates them with other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose that this computer performs this task so convincingly that it easily passes the Turing test. In other words, it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All the questions the human asks are responded to appropriately, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human. The conclusion proponents of strong AI would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does. Now, Searle asks us to suppose that he is sitting inside the computer. In other words, he is in a small room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a rule book, and returns the Chinese characters that the rules dictate. Searle notes that he doesn't, of course, understand a word of Chinese. Furthermore, he argues that his lack of understanding goes to show that computers don't understand Chinese either, because they are in the same situation as he is. They are mindless manipulators of symbols, just as he is — and they don't understand what they're 'saying', just as he doesn't.

Is our mind a simple material product ?

greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Graybeard If our brain is merely hardware, and our senses, inputs, what then is the Cognitive agent that chooses our actions. [random quantum choice] From your your first post...."I say this depends on the absolute understanding of all the absolute physical facts." The 'cognition' or 'cognitor' of these facts is in an area, that according to you "I can not support as consciousness" further..." ... too unsettled (an) philosophical position." Unsettled it may be, but whatever the 'Cognitor' is, its manifestation is Consciousness. [manifestation simply means evolution to a conscious state___consciousness is just an exaggerated add-on to simple cognitive brain and memory states. We're not as humunculus as our egos think we are.] Whether or not we agree with MK, IC, and others .... its possible that they have this much in common ... and correct ... if not .... How does the Cognitive Agent fit into it.[The cognitive sciences have described the brain processes much more rigorously than Mk, Ic, or any one else on this forum. I think I'll accept the world's cognitive scientists as having a bit more knowledge, in this area. It's a very vast field of interdisciplinary studies, taken on by thousands. No TOE is going to challenge their understanding of years of collected database evidence of human actions and behavior, in describing the inner workings of the mind. The databases have the edge over human beings, in the cognitive sciences of inner understandings of humans.] Its not really covered by Classical Maths, Quantum Mechanics, or The Second Law of Thermodynamics. If we add a fourth 'Conscious' we probably have enough to determine if 'Life is an Absolute Principle'. How would you explain Life without 'Conscious' ? [I don't intend to explain life. Nobody ever has, and nobody probably ever will. I don't even define life the way you do. I define life as a mechanical process, with false feelings. We can only explain the mechanics of physical and mental motions, from the discoverable sciences. Life is in the definition; Is it life or mechanics? This is not decided, yet. We haven't even posted anything on the board yet, as all the meta-noise has been too much on the mic.] greg

Greg, are you aware that consciousness is only a recent ontological word added into the philosophical debate? Before this, it was perception, cognition, reason, logic, intuition, etc., that the brain states were discussed in. If we take some of the best philosopers of cognition, such as Charles Sanders Pierce, America's own best, we'd quickly realize the rigorousness of his thought over present day meta-madnesses. The cognitor, as you have put it, was stated by Pierce as cognitions, within cognitions, etc., etc., the self viewing self. Godel stated it as the concept of the concept. There have been many ways mind/brain states have been described, from Plato's archtypes to more modern renditions of the older uses of being. Even Pierce used the "being" of being, as did Heideggar. Consciousness just has such a bad reputation from being over-used by the post-modernists, as a far over-stated reality, that, it is all my mind conjures up, when I hear or see the atrocious word. Yes, we are conscious of our cognition, but as Pierce put it, with what, Our cognition? Our perception? Our insight? Our instincts? Our emotions? Our intuition? We cognize perception. We cognize conscious states. In truth, no-one has ever been able to prove what is looking at what, so whatever makes sense to a scientific method makes sense to me. That preferred method is cognition of all states. On the other hand, we do know it's our cognitive eyes that see and interpret the real factual physical world. Maybe you noticed, back along in one of my posts, I mentioned it was the self that is what Laotzsu was referring to when he said the TAO was unknowable. I think that's right. The physical world is all we can truthfully know, we remain too blind to the self to scientifically describe it. It's just all the early mystics put so much emphasis on it, the world has been since mis-guided in direction of truth. Truth is not inside___it's outside___the only place we can truly scientifically understand. So to me, the TOE is going to be about the external world, and the sciences of the Individual facts we have gathered over the centuries. TOE is not about describing what self is, but about describing what everything else is. By describing what everything else is, is the description of self, as we are the self-reflection of the all that evolved us. It just makes sense that what evolved us couldn't be that different than us, and science so far shows this to be absolutely true. The universe is quantum___we are quantum. So, what else do you want?

Regards,
Lloyd