boring discussion about life [locked]

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

2009-06-04 06:36:04 pm

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

If you actually believe what you state following that about randomness, I'm not up for arguing with you. College gives me enough chances for banging my head against a wall.

Yes was meant as rephrasing to make sure to deliver the content (and not trivial logical games, lol). The important point is to see that a biological brain cannot be classified to a computer in its whole.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

2009-06-04 06:40:06 pm

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

Neither consciousness nor self-awareness is required for the other, I'm pretty sure.

Why exactly are you aware of that? :)

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-04 09:44:28 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

Yay we have our own topic! Now we can argue without being off-topic! Except I'm probably not going to bother anymore.

In dreams you're self-aware without being conscious, and as I've mentioned I have memories about myself from before I was self-aware.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-06-05 06:29:14 am

2009-06-04 10:02:20 pm

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

In dreams you're self-aware without being conscious, and as I've mentioned I have memories about myself from before I was self-aware.

Do you think in your mind dream is so much different than reality?

My view:
There were several cases where I was aware I am dreaming while I was dreaming. In dream it is about consciousness,it just only can be less strict, letting your mind flow by taking some other rules, taking not that much your memory and logic into account, for example you can fly and so on. When you are awake your taken rules are formed by the enviromental-input-impression again and interacting memory.
But also in dream you can feel, where ever is feeling there is a corrisponding level of consciousness.

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-05 01:36:23 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

My dreams are actually quite different. They've become increasingly more realistic as I've gotten older, and it's at the point where I have to actually think about what other people in my dreams are doing to understand what they mean and why they're doing things, like I do in real life. Flying is impossible unless I have wings to maintain a downward force equal to my own weight, and events in a dream tend to make sense according to my memory (which may or may not be the same memory I have in real life... lucid dreams are a bit confusing because I often have two sets of memories and I have a bit of trouble figuring out which is real and which applies to the dream)

And to get somewhat on topic, I think you're using a different definition of consciousness than I am. Generally you're unconscious during a dream, while during a lucid dream you're not completely unconscious; you have some degree of awareness about what is happening.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-06-05 03:14:14 pm

2009-06-05 02:55:04 pm

thats me

Since it can be hard to separate between dream and reality, why does consciousness when being awake be something diffrent to when you are asleep?

Did you consider that there can be just different types or levels of consciousness?

Quote from Kejardon:

some degree of awareness about what is happening.

So you think there can be a degree of awareness about happening while there is no degree in being selfaware, is that right?

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-05 05:12:08 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

Your first question doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
a) Consciousness doesn't mean something different if you're awake or asleep
b) Having difficulty telling between dream and reality has little to do with consciousness (other than it helps with telling the difference)

Your second question seems to be ignoring my last post where I all but directly stated there are different levels of consciousness.

Your third question is about the only sensible question. I still answered it several posts ago though.

Quote from Kejardon:

I am a bit inclined to think self-awareness is binary though.

I think I'm going to just ignore you tell you start really making sense.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-06-05 09:07:34 pm

2009-06-05 05:58:40 pm

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

Your second question seems to be ignoring my last post where I all but directly stated there are different levels of consciousness.

I dont mean to ignore it. It is just possible that both of us are ignoring something. It is because point a is not that clear and every subject means to have it clear. Share your view what consciousness is. It is probably that you dont feel to read between the lines that much, I have to ask different then, just to get your understanding: You say you are unconscious while self-aware in dream. Can you explain me why point b shall be true?
Dont make the mistake to take words like "consciousness" as if it is a clear definition for addition. According to your replys the impression is clearly there. It is highly challenging to get consciousness about consciousness to even talk about it. Just to think about that.

It surely helps to have in mind why we or I started the discussion about this layer. You probably wanted to know whether some biological life does not have consciousness, feeling, something like this. And this might help for the contemplation. From my stand of view, thats what all the talk is about.

Also keep in mind: There has to be sense about what I talked and much was relevant. At least recently you saw I provided arguments why biological life does not work like just one complex mechanism (Descartes), I provided arguments why a computer cannot be a person, showed biological creature is not computational, even not if you know all its input data.

I give you a tip in addition:
What we are discussing are no such concretely, comparingly easy understandable and accessable things like a math or physics task in college.
Arguing or getting annoyed after a misunderstood post is the wrong mindset to learn something. Dont give up after the first untasty seemingly irrelevant post.

[quote="Kejardon"]
Your second question seems to be ignoring my last post where I all but directly stated there are different levels of consciousness.
[/quote]
I dont mean to ignore it. It is just possible that both of us are ignoring something. It is because point a is not that clear and every subject means to have it clear. Share your view what consciousness is. It is probably that you dont feel to read between the lines that much, I have to ask different then, just to get your understanding: You say you are unconscious while self-aware in dream. Can you explain me why point b shall be true? 
Dont make the mistake to take words like "consciousness" as if it is a clear definition for addition. According to your replys the impression is clearly there. It is highly challenging to get consciousness about consciousness to even talk about it. Just to think about that.

It surely helps to have in mind why we or I started the discussion about this layer. You probably wanted to know whether some biological life does not have consciousness, feeling, something like this. And this might help for the contemplation. From my stand of view, thats what all the talk is about.

Also keep in mind: There has to be sense about what I talked and much was relevant. At least recently you saw I provided arguments why biological life does not work like just one complex mechanism (Descartes), I provided arguments why a computer cannot be a person, showed biological creature is not computational, even not if you know all its input data.

I give you a tip in addition: 
What we are discussing are no such concretely, comparingly easy understandable and accessable things like a math or physics task in college.
Arguing or getting annoyed after a misunderstood post is the wrong mindset to learn something. Dont give up after the first untasty seemingly irrelevant post.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-06-05 10:15:16 pm

2009-06-05 09:34:34 pm

thats me

I tell you straight the nonsense problem then:

Quote from Kejardon:

I think you're using a different definition of consciousness than I am.

Thats the major problem here. And I dont mean I am using a different definition by that. The major problem is TO USE A DEFINITION as something clear for that since it is not that clear. I dont use a clear definition but signs which could lead to an appropriate definition. It is about finding the definition. Thats the difference in our contemplation.

If you naivly want to use a definition for that than I can tell you right now some of the "gay marriage topic" will repeat. It is similar to having set a definition for miracle "wrong", so that when ever a miracle occurs it is not a miracle anymore. First it means you can never find miracles and second and most important there can be "some other kind" of miracle what you are NOT AWARE of since NOT CONTEMPLATING. Applying to consciousness here it can easily mean whenever mind is in another state(than the awaked one, corresponding to not-occuring of miracle as comparison) it is not conscious anymore (although "some other kind" of consciousness can be required to achieve mind-states). (just according to chosen definition)

The contemplation I want to deliver and share is not trivial, it is not fly one time over and sleeping over it, it is consciousness about what can be consciousness. It gives you more stuff to bang your head against something than you will find in college.

I tell you straight the nonsense problem then:

[quote="Kejardon"]
I think you're using a different definition of consciousness than I am. 
[/quote]
Thats the major problem here. And I dont mean I am using a different definition by that. The major problem is TO USE A DEFINITION as something clear for that since it is not that clear. I dont use a clear definition but signs which could lead to an appropriate definition. It is about finding the definition. Thats the difference in our contemplation.

If you naivly want to use a definition for that than I can tell you right now some of the "gay marriage topic" will repeat. It is similar to having set a definition for miracle "wrong", so that  when ever a miracle occurs it is not a miracle anymore. First it means you can never find miracles and second and most important there can be "some other kind" of miracle what you are NOT AWARE of since NOT CONTEMPLATING. Applying to consciousness here it can easily mean whenever mind is in another state(than the awaked one, corresponding to not-occuring of miracle as comparison) it is not conscious anymore (although "some other kind" of consciousness can be required to achieve mind-states). (just according to chosen definition)

The contemplation I want to deliver and share is not trivial, it is not fly one time over and sleeping over it, it is consciousness about what can be consciousness. It gives you more stuff to bang your head against something than you will find in college.

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-05 11:00:39 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

Quote from J-SNAKE:

It gives you more stuff to bang your head against something than you will find in college.

It's far less Think

and far more Brick wall

Opium:

registered on 2008-08-19 01:51:50 pm.

Gender: female

view all posts by Opium

Opium

2009-06-06 01:47:34 am

Servin' you realness!!

Look, some people believe things because they make sense TO THEM, others disbelieve things because they make no sense TO THEM. End of story.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-06-08 08:35:36 am

2009-06-06 07:34:31 am

thats me

Quote from Opium:

believe things because they make sense TO THEM.

That is the only way there is, also including science. Science is making sense.

Quote from Opium:

others disbelieve things because they make no sense TO THEM.

Thats not the topic about making naivly no sense to something you just "dont see".

Quote from Opium:

End of story.

This topic is not about "end of story". "End of story" was in "gay marriage".

Topic was not about "end of story". Otherwise it doesnt make sense start consciousness issues.
If you dont like regarding some thinks, then it is OK. But it does not make great sense to post here at all, starting issues with the mind in the back dont making sense to regard them. Just to for the case to make sure.

Quote from Kejardon:

It's far less Think

Thats not why you came here. It can be helpfull or it can drive you insane if you are not strong. If its too hard then leave this place. It has to be your free decision.

Quote from Kejardon:

and far more Brick wall

even far more by far. Just aside in general: According to my experiment and experience many people make the mistake to ask the final question and expect a FINAL answer. Even when not finding a final answer does not imply you cannot get any valuable results. A valuable result can be recognizing and respecting some values what people are believing in. You cannot proove it wrong when they possibly prooved it right for themselves.

In the end you get aware of that the only thing where sense is coming from is your own mind, OWN EXPERIMENT. No matter you regard math, other physics, they are NOT MIND-INDEPENDENT, the proof is even not difficult, everything you get aware of flows through your mind. So thats even the other way round, even when someone claims scientific results are MIND-INDEPENDENT, then it makes no sense, because all we claim to know has to flow through our own mind. It implies math is not mind-independent, math is a product of your own mind.
So if you apply a scientific approach you can never ignore your mind. But that is what people do while claiming to regard things scientifically, especially when it comes to "gay marriage" issues, just watch some videos there for example. Claiming god is only a product of mind while your scientific results are mindindependent, this view can be equally wrong. You achieved nothing in the subject of talk, you did not apply science as you claimed to.

Truth is your own experiment, nothing else matters. Make clear even "scientific results" is nothing else than your understanding and awareness IN MIND.

Found a serious man out there today, sharing his view can help contemplating certain things carefully, I highly recommend to watch it till end, especially for some "gay marriage people":

[quote="Opium"]
believe things because they make sense TO THEM.
[/quote]
That is the only way there is, also including science. Science is making sense.

[quote="Opium"]
others disbelieve things because they make no sense TO THEM. [/quote]
Thats not the topic about making naivly no sense to something you just "dont see".

[quote="Opium"]
 End of story.
[/quote]
This topic is not about "end of story". "End of story" was in "gay marriage".

Topic was not about "end of  story". Otherwise it doesnt make sense start consciousness issues.
If you dont like regarding some thinks, then it is OK. But it does not make great sense to post here at all, starting issues with the mind in the back dont making sense to regard them. Just to for the case to make sure.
[quote="Kejardon"]
It's far less :um_orig: 
[/quote]
Thats not why you came here. It can be helpfull or it can drive you insane if you are not strong. If its too hard then leave this place. It has to be your free decision.

[quote="Kejardon"]
and far more :brickwall_orig:
[/quote]
even far more by far. Just aside in general: According to my experiment and experience many people make the mistake to ask the final question and expect a FINAL answer. Even when not finding a final answer does not imply you cannot get any valuable results. A valuable result can be recognizing and respecting some values what people are believing in. You cannot proove it wrong when they possibly prooved it right for themselves.

In the end you get aware of that the only thing where sense is coming from is your own mind, OWN EXPERIMENT. No matter you regard math, other physics, they are NOT MIND-INDEPENDENT, the proof is even not difficult, everything you get aware of flows through your mind. So thats even the other way round, even when someone claims scientific results are MIND-INDEPENDENT, then it makes no sense, because all we claim to know has to flow through our own mind. It implies math is not mind-independent, math is a product of your own mind.  
So if you apply a scientific approach you can never ignore your mind. But that is what people do while claiming to regard things scientifically, especially when it comes to "gay marriage" issues, just watch some videos there for example. Claiming god is only a product of mind while your scientific results are mindindependent, this view can be equally wrong. You achieved nothing in the subject of talk, you did not apply science as you claimed to.

Truth is your own experiment, nothing else matters. Make clear even "scientific results" is nothing else than your understanding and awareness IN MIND.

Found a serious man out there today, sharing his view can help contemplating certain things carefully, I highly recommend to watch it till end, especially for some "gay marriage people":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvz3BdB2EE&feature=PlayList&p=8C0BC490154840F4&index=0&playnext=1

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

Edit history:

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 12:58:15 pm

2010-07-12 12:54:31 pm

For the case someone is interested, I want to share my view on it. The initial thing was 'can a computer be a person' which means 'is life or acting and interacting of biological life-forms computational'. I think I didnt point out enough that randomness is not the only argument against it. I think what makes life not computational is also the huge number of problem-classes with 'infinite depth'. And they are not computational. For example if you look at the custom domino-game, the rule-set is simple, but still no computer-program can decide you can puzzle a given domino-set to an infinite-carpet or not in general. As a simplification of life you could think of certain simplified behavior rules which have at least the same effect as the domino game. You cannot compute all the consequences that can turn out because they are not computatonal.

Of course, if you look on top of life and how people interact with each other you will see certain rules repeating over and over, but at this scope it is always weighted with visible error, you just can know some trend but never the exact outcome. So it is likely that even when you know the exact game-rules of life in its deepest you cannot compute the outcome. That is also a thing why I think a computer cannot be a person, because a person is very likely not computational and many other probems too.

For the case someone is interested, I want to share my view on it. The initial thing was 'can a computer be a person' which means 'is life or acting and interacting of biological life-forms computational'. I think I didnt point out enough that randomness is not the only argument against it. I think what makes life not computational is also the huge number of problem-classes with 'infinite depth'. And they are not computational. For example if you look at the custom domino-game, the rule-set is simple, but still no computer-program can decide you can puzzle a given domino-set to an infinite-carpet or not in general. As a simplification of life you could think of certain simplified behavior rules which have at least the same effect as the domino game. You cannot compute all the consequences that can turn out because they are not computatonal.

Of course, if you look on top of life and how people interact with each other you will see certain rules repeating over and over, but at this scope it is always weighted with visible error, you just can know some trend but never the exact outcome. So it is likely that even when you know the exact game-rules of life in its deepest you cannot compute the outcome. That is also a thing why I think a computer cannot be a person, because a person is very likely not computational and many other probems too.

ryu:

is in the group deutschsprachiger Moderator.

registered on 2004-02-10 05:03:19 pm.

Gender: male

Location: germany

view all posts by ryu

ryu

2010-07-12 01:15:54 pm

I think it's a possible future. biological organisms appear to work like mechanisms to me anyways

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 01:24:13 pm

I would say that given the sheer size of the universe as we know it and the absolute staggering number of stars and planets in it - it would be folly to think there is no other life out there. Even folly to think there isn't already sentient artificial life out there. So, is it possible? As far as I'm concerned, it's a certainty.

Just not one humanity is capable of creating... yet.

TheGreenManalishi:

registered on 2008-06-30 11:04:09 am.

Gender: male

Location: England

view all posts by TheGreenManalishi

TheGreenManalishi

2010-07-12 01:40:34 pm

The flesh is spongy and bruised

In the future, we'll be able to make an artificial brain, tell it it's a person and it will behave like a person. What would the difference be then? It would grow and learn intellectually in a way probably similar to human infants.

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

Edit history:

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 01:55:44 pm

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 01:50:27 pm

2010-07-12 01:50:13 pm

The question was not can we create life or not. We can do it best by paassing on our genes:)

The question was 'can a COMPUTER be a person', is life computational? I know it takes a lot of qualification to talk about it and understanding this question first is a challenge itself but it is still interesting for me to see what people think about it.

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 01:55:28 pm

Quote from J_SNAKE:

The question was not can we create life or not. We can do it best by paassing on our genes:)

The question was 'can a COMPUTER be a person', is life computational? I know it takes a lot of qualification to talk about it but it is still interesting for me to see what people think about it.

... *must... maintain composure*

TheGreenManalishi:

registered on 2008-06-30 11:04:09 am.

Gender: male

Location: England

view all posts by TheGreenManalishi

TheGreenManalishi

2010-07-12 02:05:36 pm

The flesh is spongy and bruised

Quote from J_SNAKE:

'can a COMPUTER be a person'

Yup

Quote from J_SNAKE:

is life computational?

Being a person =/= having life

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 02:07:07 pm

Don't even try, 'Green. J_SNAKE is a troll, that much is obvious by now. Or his comprehension skills are simply non-existent.

TheGreenManalishi:

registered on 2008-06-30 11:04:09 am.

Gender: male

Location: England

view all posts by TheGreenManalishi

TheGreenManalishi

2010-07-12 02:11:12 pm

The flesh is spongy and bruised

Who do you think his last argument on his now-banned account was with? I'm just saying that a functional person might not need to be 'alive'.

TheGreenManalishi:

registered on 2008-06-30 11:04:09 am.

Gender: male

Location: England

view all posts by TheGreenManalishi

TheGreenManalishi

2010-07-12 02:11:41 pm

The flesh is spongy and bruised

and call me tgm, mate. It's shorter :P

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

2010-07-12 02:14:11 pm

Quote from TheGreenManalishi:

Quote from J_SNAKE:

'can a COMPUTER be a person'

Yup

Why do you think so?

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 02:15:20 pm

I find that an interesting discussion though, far more interesting than this mindfart of J_SNAKE's. The definition of 'life'. See, it is my belief that our definition of 'life' is far too limited. I can definitely imagine a form of artificial sentience that could be labelled... alive. Who are we to judge what is and what is not 'life'?

<--- Trekkie, used to very strange forms of life. Wink

ryu:

is in the group deutschsprachiger Moderator.

registered on 2004-02-10 05:03:19 pm.

Gender: male

Location: germany

view all posts by ryu

ryu

2010-07-12 02:17:36 pm

problem is it is very unlikely for this to ever really spark a discussion. I doubt anyone here knows exactly how the human brain works (or what mankind has found out about this so far), and that knowledge would be required to answer snake's question