OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#620451 Apr 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but did you catch OCB's "For the last time the is the last time I'm gonna tell you it's the last time."?
LMAO, how many times has she told you that it's the "LAST TIME"?
Yeah- but did you catch a couple of weeks ago when NanoNUT said she was never going to post to me again, yet she did- just a few posts before this post of yours to which I am responding?

How come you didn't mention that to NanoNUT?

I guess that's because liars and pissants- like the both of you are- not only LIKE to stick together, but HAVE to in order to not admit what cretins you both are.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#620452 Apr 29, 2013
My Portal wrote:
besmirch.
Same to you, pal.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#620453 Apr 29, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah- but did you catch a couple of weeks ago when NanoNUT said she was never going to post to me again, yet she did- just a few posts before this post of yours to which I am responding?
How come you didn't mention that to NanoNUT?
I guess that's because liars and pissants- like the both of you are- not only LIKE to stick together, but HAVE to in order to not admit what cretins you both are.
I do say, I find the nano/RR alliance an interesting one.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620454 Apr 29, 2013
I wrote:
Saying 'awareness came from non-awareness' is like saying magic is causing it.

and
timn17 wrote:
No, it's like saying awareness exists, therefore in the absence of any evidence for a god, it is prudent to assume it came from non awareness.
Philosophy and science are practically one and the same when it comes to issues that are scientifically unapproachable.

It's my opinion that, philosophically, it makes more sense (to an open minded sane person) that consciousness was always in existence (quantum origins) rather than all of a sudden coming into existence from an unconscious molecular state. There's no science to explain either one of our beliefs, so neither one of us can claim more probability.

There are two equally probable speculations.
1) Consciousness/awareness was always in existence or
2)it came into existence.

Science cannot offer anything in order to make one more probable than the other.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#620455 Apr 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do say, I find the nano/RR alliance an interesting one.
Desperate times call for desperate measures....so do desperate people.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620456 Apr 29, 2013
I wrote:
without evidence, we cannot assume 'nothingness' even exists. Still, it's irrelevant to 'molecules becoming aware of themselves'.
I don't know why I said that. It kinda is relevant because 'awareness from non-awareness' is kinda like 'something from nothing'. I think what I mean is that talking about virtual particles doesn't do much to promote or demote the idea of 'awareness from non-awareness'.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620457 Apr 29, 2013
timn17 wrote:
You have completely shifted the goal posts. At the beginning of this discussion, you wanted proof that the brain is responsible for consciousness. Since then, you have refined your position to "current observations are meaningless until we can describe how awareness came from non awareness." And even further, you are now claiming that even if I could provide proof of awareness from non awareness, that you could then claim that this proof means nothing because the quantum state is more fundamental.
Where are you getting this BS? Quit making stuff up. "Proof that the brain is responsible for consciousness" does not exist, so if I was asking for proof it was only to show you that your belief is not any more probable than mine. I'm not asking you to prove anything; only to admit that your belief is not more probable than mine. Maybe if I repeat that 100 more times you'll get it?

If you could prove 'awareness from non-awareness' then it wouldn't be meaningless. Where's the proof? I'll admit it if I see it. If you prove that molecules are the cause of consciousness then that's it. But just as you need to see proof of a higher power in order to believe it then I need to see proof of a mechanism for consciousness before I believe it is a transient product of an overall unconscious existence.
Again, you have turned your claim in to nothing more than god of the gaps dressed up in scientific language. You are basically saying that no matter what, we can't prove awareness comes from non awareness unless all other possibilities are definitively ruled out.
Uhhh no I'm not saying that. Show me some evidence, any evidence will do. Associating consciousness with molecules is nothing. We know molecules are involved but that's all we know; we have no idea exactly how they are involved; we have no idea what the origins of awareness are or how molecules could ever become aware of themselves. I'm getting real good at typing that line.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620458 Apr 29, 2013
timn17 wrote:
Can't you see how absurd that is? You could say that about anything. Maybe my computer is secretly a quantum machine and I just don't know it because the quantum state is "more fundamental." While I technically agree that it's impossible to rule out, especially in the way that you have phrased it, so what?
No, I'm not saying that pink ferries are responsible for consciousness. There are two possibilities. It either came into existence or it didn't. No one can venture a guess as to how molecules became aware of themselves but I can venture a guess that consciousness, or 'the foundations of consciousness as we know it' was always in existence in a quantum state.
Also, I don't see how the association between activity in the brain and thought is "better evidence" for your position.
Jesus, really? I can't be that hard to understand. I did not say it is better evidence for me. I said neither of us have any evidence to make either of our positions any more probable than the other. I'm wasting my time I bet. You'll never let it go.
We may not know exactly how the activity we observe in the brain leads to consciousness, but that doesn't mean that "quantum consciousness" then becomes a more likely mechanism for thought.
Jesus, really? Same answer as above. I am not claiming more probability; YOU ARE. Neither one of us can. Cmon, wake up. This is getting tiring.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620459 Apr 29, 2013
timn17 wrote:
When we think, we can see increased blood flow to the appropriate area of the brain, increased synaptic activity in the appropriate area of the brain, etc. If a drug is ingested, say, weed, we can see cannabanoids acting on the cannabanoid receptors in the brain. There is a clear association between the substance and the resulting change in consciousness. How do you explain this in terms of "quantum consciousness?" Why is it necessary to go a step further when we have no evidence that this extra step is necessary?
Yes there is clear association. Association could be meaningless, or it could be meaningful. Until we have a mechanism, it is meaningless.

I do not explain it in terms of quantum consciousness, I simply say that it is as possible as molecular consciousness. I say that in almost every answer yet you still don't get it. What does it take? Yay, there is association. If consciousness was a quantum phenomenon then there could still be the same association of molecules.

Unless you wanna believe that molecules themselves are conscious then you have nothing to go on to say that molecules could ever become aware of themselves. There is no argument here but you want there to be one.
Additionally, how do you explain epileptics who undergo a procedure to severe their corpus collosum, which sometimes results in "different" personalities being formed? There was an interesting case recently where one man both believed in god and didn't believe in god, depending on "which side" of his brain you asked. What happens to this man when he dies? Does one half go to quantum land while the other half dies?
Since when does a different personality mean a different consciousness? Consciousness is affected yes but until we understand what consciousness is then again you can't pretend that is meaningful. People have multiple personalities, so what?
Finally,about the mirror test... I never claimed it gives us any information about the "actual subjective experience." It only attempts to determine whether or not an animal has a sense of self, not what it's sense of self is "like." We can't even quantify human, let alone animal qualia.
Then you should understand what it is I am trying to tell you. But you keep claiming that I am trying to make my belief more probable than yours. It is YOU that is trying to do that.
And I'm not saying "I know I'm right." I don't know either way. I'm just saying that your position has no evidence aside from "you can't prove it wrong," and that is no position at all. I still don't even know what you mean by quantum consciousness. Yes, I know you think you have explained yourself very well, but saying "like molecular, but not" doesn't tell me much.
OK one last time. Neither one of us can claim that our belief is more probable than the other. We can believe that our belief is more probable than the other but we have nothing to offer to convince someone else of it either way.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620460 Apr 29, 2013
[QUOTE who="I":]
Unless you wanna believe that molecules themselves are conscious then you have nothing to go on to say that molecules could ever become aware of themselves[/QUOTE] Actually, if molecules themselves are conscious then they can't "become conscious" because they already are conscious.

Still, no one has anything to offer on how unconscious molecules could ever become aware of themselves.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#620461 Apr 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
One.
Why are you only focused on negatives?
Did I say those were negatives?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620462 Apr 29, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>LOL!! Most people who have jobs say it's "gonna be a busy day" when referring to their JOBS.
Oh- but wait! I forgot! This IS your job- posting on Topix.
Ironic.

This post of yours is two hours old....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620463 Apr 29, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>So???? Our president believes in god- why is that an issue for you?
And why shouldn't he say: "May god bless you" at an abortion rally?
What? Your god shouldn't bless women who have made the legal choice to exercise their right to complete autonomy over their own bodies and all that happens to them and within them?
Your god shouldn't bless those who are opposed to women exercising their legal right to autonomy over their own bodies and all that happens to them and within them?
According to you and Portal, your god should only bless "all of his creations" selectively and by means of using favoritism?
Woah there lil dawgie.....

Did you forget I'm pro-choice?

What the hell are you ramblin about?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620464 Apr 29, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>I can't stand your third person nonsense......makes you sound like you suffer from multiple personality disorder.
Oh well.

RR likes it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620465 Apr 29, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what "give paragraphs" are and it's not a question of me "agreeing"- why do you attempt to condescend to me by telling me what I already knew and what I told YOU prior to you doing your cut and paste job?
Why couldn't YOU have responded to that post of mine with YOU simply saying that YOU agree?
No- instead, you google, cut and paste and regurgitate what I had already said and what YOU initially disagreed with.
You're losing it, RR.....
You couldn't figure out "give paragraphs and 300 characters"?

Obviously I meant "five", not "give".....

What did I disagree with? I've never said that Jewish is a race, ever.

YOU agreed with RR.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620466 Apr 29, 2013
OCB wrote:
Gee- one would think you'd be thrilled that our president believes in a god.


I am.
But no- instead you see that as something to fault him for.
You misunderstand. <SHOCKING>

I fault people like you for that. For being so adamantly against religion and God but praising your religious president.
And that saying "so help me god" at the end of his inaugurations though it's not required should also be pleasing to you.
It is. It's refreshing.

And a nice reminder of our Christian country.
As of Obama would give a rat's Aunt Fanny that he's "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" according to you.
HA!
I didn't say anything of the sort. That's your assertion.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620467 Apr 29, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah- but did you catch a couple of weeks ago when NanoNUT said she was never going to post to me again, yet she did- just a few posts before this post of yours to which I am responding?
How come you didn't mention that to NanoNUT?
Cuz I didn't notice.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620468 Apr 29, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Desperate times call for desperate measures....so do desperate people.
You just can't stop bragging about yourself, can you?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620469 Apr 29, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say those were negatives?
No, but what part of "Battle scenes, blood letting, incestuous relationships, kings killing kings, slaying giants, death by ass jaw" is positive?
Rossalina

Temple Hills, MD

#620470 Apr 29, 2013
I don't have to prove it. It's a FAITH. LOL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Tony17 560,537
Couch Potato Alert 12 min yon 11
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 20 min yon 4,900
Gay snapchat names 1 hr ray 176
Moses never existed 1 hr Khatru 834
Incest: Horny and looking for good stories :) (Nov '13) 2 hr lokito 11
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Ugly Truth from d... 605,347
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr WasteWater 265,472
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 10 hr risque 137
More from around the web