[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38351910]Sometimes I wonder where the line is for attributing consciousness to an animal. What is a mind like that you would consider baaarely not conscious or baaarely conscious.[/QUOTE]
I attribute the fact that the seagull has a conscious mind to the fact that it performs actions with a reason or target in mind, say gathering food or making a nest in a hidden area so that it's young won't be eaten. The consciousness of say a mosquito isn't a viable preposition (imo, yay opinions) since it's actions are heavily reliant on outside stimulation. It doesn't consciously think: If I fly into that really bright buzzing light I'm going to get fried- it just flies into it and dies because it isn't wary of danger.
I don't know if that is a real answer to your question per se but it is my reasoning behind thinking that a seagull is capable of conscious thought and planning in it's actions.
what if the actions of a seagull are just more advanced reactions to outside stimulation?
as in genetic memory (more inherited instincts than assassin's creed shit) and such.
If you had an exact clone made of you, you would both be amazed by this.
But he wouldn't be a mirrored-copy from you, raising his hand simultaneously when you do it.
Now I want my own clone that would be kinda scary but also kinda cool
theyre not the same star thats fucking retarded theres definitly two fucking stars
You're missing the point. I'm not saying there's only one. I'm saying that they are, in some sense, the same. If you took a basketball and make an exact atom-for-atom replica, and I studied them for a while, to determine that they're identical, I'd say they were the "same ball." I'm not claiming there's only one. I'm claiming there is only one distinct ball. Here is a set: {1,1}. How many elements are in that set? Two. How many [I]distinct[/I] elements are in it? One. They're indistinct because they're the same thing.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38458478]You're missing the point. I'm not saying there's only one. I'm saying that they are, in some sense, the same. If you took a basketball and make an exact atom-for-atom replica, and I studied them for a while, to determine that they're identical, I'd say they were the "same ball." I'm not claiming there's only one. I'm claiming there is only one distinct ball. Here is a set: {1,1}. How many elements are in that set? Two. How many [I]distinct[/I] elements are in it? One. They're indistinct because they're the same thing.[/QUOTE]
If I recall correctly there can never be absolute identical things. They may be similar in some ways, but there's a million things that can make them apart such as mass, weight, environmental conditions, ect.
[QUOTE=Smooth-e;38459379]If I recall correctly there can never be absolute identical things. They may be similar in some ways, but there's a million things that can make them apart such as mass, weight, environmental conditions, ect.[/QUOTE]
that's what's so funny about what johnny is saying.
even if what he said were to happen, it's a one in a... well there probably aren't numbers big enough to describe the chance of such a thing happening.
[QUOTE=Smooth-e;38459379]If I recall correctly there can never be absolute identical things. They may be similar in some ways, but there's a million things that can make them apart such as mass, weight, environmental conditions, ect.[/QUOTE]
Sure there can. I'd say there aren't any identical things because the chance is so low that they exist, but that doesn't really matter as long as we can imagine them.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38465279]that's what's so funny about what johnny is saying.
even if what he said were to happen, it's a one in a... well there probably aren't numbers big enough to describe the chance of such a thing happening.[/QUOTE]
That's not really important at all. The point is to use reason to come up with a thought experiment that reveals general philosophical principles. It doesn't matter if the situation is realistic. Tons of thought experiments in physics are completely unrealistic but have been useful for understanding new physical principles.
Like the space elevator in general relativity. If you're in an elevator with no windows you can't tell if you're hanging in a gravitational field or accelerating in deep space. That isn't really true unless the elevator is infinitely small, but it's a useful model.
it is important because you ideas are based on abstract ideas whereas other people are thinking about it more literally and practically.
it's like trying to fuck a dick with a dick, it doesn't work.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38470905]it is important because you ideas are based on abstract ideas whereas other people are thinking about it more literally and practically.[/QUOTE]
Philosophy is abstract. It's taking what we see and deriving general principles. What we see practically every day tells us what is possible, and what is possible lets us think of useful scenarios within the realm of possibility (completely irrelevant how likely they are as long as they are possible) which show more obviously the general guiding principles behind things.
See the relativity anecdote. Idealized scenario based on what we see in reality that reveals a general principle with practical results.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38470905]it's like trying to fuck a dick with a dick, it doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that vacuous and vulgar nonsequitur.
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
Speaking of nonsequiturs, this has strayed so far from the soul discussion.
screw all that noise. honestly it's really dumb at the rate it's going. it is like trying to fuck a dick with a dick, that wasn't a non sequitur, it's a statement on the kafkaesque nature of the entire discussion.
like we're all having an argument about vampires and we're all using different mythos but we're completely oblivious to that fact but we argue anyway.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment[/url]
the fuckin professor who played the warden actually became apart of his own experiment. like psychologically. fuckin insane.
i'm watching some nat geo doc on evil right now.
hey johnny just to let you know, I followed this argument but felt like I did not need to contribute as neoseeker was playing the devils advocate in my mind, but I wholeheartedly agree with you.
But neoseeker I don't think your stupid or anything, I just think its a differing of opinions kinda thing
at some point in my life i may have agreed with him.
Same. I used to believe that "if you teleport, you die" was clearly the scientific answer but my view has changed over time.
yeah but there were two "no, you don't die" answers based upon two completely different conclusions.
yours being that they are functionally the same exact thing, so in essence, the same person.
mine being that if one were to be completely intact spiritually (for lack of a better word) at the other end then it's basically someone's consciousness being transferred over into a new body.
How can you guys make teleportation of somebody so complicated? Clearly, it depends on the quality of the teleporting device whether you die using it or not.
As for whether teleporting is actually possible so that it wouldn't mess you up in the process, none us really know. But only time will tell, so [i]oh, the year 3000..[/i]
at the end of the day, there is two stars and not one star
The rating system should be removed. I think it might be one of the best solutions to solve or at least minimize the massive amount of bandwagoning occuring on FP, especially in forums like SH where public opinion of one or several posts is very often influenced by the ratings given, which themselves are often influenced by the already standing ratings, thus opening the way for the evil circle (ex. people read posts in a much more positive light if it has a lot of positive ratings and will then give it even more positive ratings).
Mass Debate got the right idea.
I dunno why but lately I have become more and more frustrated by the general lack of individuality from FPers. I mean I know that FP has always been a closet hipster and often prone to bandwagons, but somehow it has seemed to become worse and worse the past few years, it's going to extremes, people are becoming more open and pronounced/aggressive about it. I mean, in the slenderman thread I saw this shit.
[QUOTE=ProffesorAssHat;38478681]We don't really hate Slenderman. We hate what people have DONE to Slenderman.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;38455186]I remember when slenderman had a niche group of people that followed it and were interested in the backstory and creepiness of the character. Now it's everyone and Pewdiepie who believe they know everything about Slenderman by playing Slender[/QUOTE]
We used to laugh at shit like that because it's just silly hipster pride, but now everyone are agreeing and dead serious about it.
The fuck does it matter what people have done to the concept :v: It's just a random internet meme/joke that was treated as such back then, nobody really took it serious (well at least I didn't think they did), and like any random internet meme it was bound to die out or just evolve into something else, and now all of a sudden FP is treating it like it was a perfect and glorious masterpiece, and that anyone who would dare to even change the concept a litte was dumb. Interesting, what sentimental value the majority of FP suddenly holds for this slenderman figure.
I guess it's partly because of FP being a relatively medium-small community with, I'm guessing, a declining amount of new active users (Gmod is getting old..), which helps creating a sense of community, a sort of "nationalism" (forumalism?) and a Us vs Them attitude (which is glaringly apparent in how FPers generally tend to hold a lot of baseless aggression towards rival forums like 4chan and Reddit). This in turn also fuels the crowd behavior and opinion because FPers are getting more and more used to it, they feel secure and comfortable in the crowd where they don't have to think as much. They trust all of their fellow FPers to properly convey their thoughts and agree on what the majority agrees on to fit in.
Oh and before you say "ratings don't matter", I agree completely. But them just being there does a lot more harm than good because of how easily people will revert to crowd opinion, its just much easier to think what everyone else thinks but in the end it makes for a much dumber forum with one major, popular crowd opinion that dominates and very little stimulating intellectual debate and arguments because of the aggressiveness of the defending crowd, who often resort to using violent insults with little actual argumentative value (a typical example of crowd behavior), thus conveying superiority and warning the user with the "wrong opinion" to back off.
Just felt like expressing some of my recent thoughts about the crowd psychology of facepunch and other internet forums. At least people here can be more chill and sensible without slamming me for trying to give people insight.
And I'm sorry for any fucked up grammar or whatevs, I'm too benzed to care or even notice for that matter.
i think ratings themselves are a dismissive and immature way to respond to a post.
they were originally designed so that one could respond to a post without actually replying, getting rid of all the rhetorical posts that disagree or agree with an opinion. mainly those two, dumb is just another form of disagree basically. really all ratings are either a form of agree or disagree or in rare instances convey a particular reaction to a post.
really though that defeats the whole purpose of a message board in general. a message board is a collection of messages, generally messages in response to a stirring message. with the ratings system's original purpose it defeats the purpose of a forum so instead of forming an actual idea you just doll out some faceless and motiveless response.
thing is people don't just stop at rating most of the time either. they'll agree or disagree or rate dumb and then respond (response is more likely with the two latter choices).
imo ratings are meaningless and should be taken away from this forum. all they do is either inflate one's e-penis or cause trouble.
i hate to disrupt any conversation that is currently going on, but i feel this is an appropriate thread to kind of vent whatever thoughts are on my mind
i can't help but shake the feeling that dying young would be a great way to go. the next 4-5 years of my life will be the greatest years of my life, according to what people have told me.
I know raising children, grandchildren, etc. is an amazing experience, but honestly, i get sad at the thought of growing up. its just something that's been getting at me lately, and i needed a place to express my thoughts.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38478361]yeah but there were two "no, you don't die" answers based upon two completely different conclusions.
yours being that they are functionally the same exact thing, so in essence, the same person.
mine being that if one were to be completely intact spiritually (for lack of a better word) at the other end then it's basically someone's consciousness being transferred over into a new body.[/QUOTE]
Good point. Guess I never would have agreed with you fully. But I did at one point have a view with a completely opposite conclusion to what I had now, is what I mean.
[QUOTE=skynrdfan3;38485335]i hate to disrupt any conversation that is currently going on, but i feel this is an appropriate thread to kind of vent whatever thoughts are on my mind
i can't help but shake the feeling that dying young would be a great way to go. the next 4-5 years of my life will be the greatest years of my life, according to what people have told me.
I know raising children, grandchildren, etc. is an amazing experience, but honestly, i get sad at the thought of growing up. its just something that's been getting at me lately, and i needed a place to express my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
Growing up biologically is mandatory. Growing up mentally is a choice. It's definitely worth it to mature and grow up.
children. i dunno. i always had a pretty good reason to not want to have a kid, ever.
now when i look at it and see it in real life and in media i have this giant nagging feeling like my glasses will become so rose tinted one day i'm going to decide not to pull out that time.
i mean when it comes down to the basic genetics of it.
you're probably going to have to find some bitch just as fucked up and dysfunctional as i am.
she's probably born with brains as scrambled as mine when i was born.
one poorly made person + another poorly made person = a poorly made baby.
dunno why but i get the feeling at least my first (and last hopefully at that point) kid will be a girl.. i've had dreams about this shit and it scares the fuck out of me. either everythings all insanely metaphorical or deadpan literal, either way my daughter is the biggest fucking trainwreck on the god damn planet, and it's all my fault.
which completely destroys me emotionally in the dream (leaving me waking up wanting to smash my skull on a sharp corner of a table) because i guess having a kid will be the last attempt at doing something at least kinda great. i don't feel like i'm going to accomplish much and almost don't want to either. a humble life would be the one for me, and the most likely one as well.
science fucking drys out this life
science does the opposite imo
Pigs can fly
[QUOTE=pancaker94;38500336]science fucking drys out this life[/QUOTE]
Before science, people thought that the Earth was everything, along with Heaven and Hell.
Now, we know this:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g[/media]
Call logic and science dry if you want, but I'd rather have the intricate, complicated and weird truth than the convenient "God hung a bunch of lights on a crystal sphere that rotates around the centre of the universe: us."
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38490468]children. i dunno. i always had a pretty good reason to not want to have a kid, ever.
now when i look at it and see it in real life and in media i have this giant nagging feeling like my glasses will become so rose tinted one day i'm going to decide not to pull out that time.
i mean when it comes down to the basic genetics of it.
you're probably going to have to find some bitch just as fucked up and dysfunctional as i am.
she's probably born with brains as scrambled as mine when i was born.
one poorly made person + another poorly made person = a poorly made baby.
dunno why but i get the feeling at least my first (and last hopefully at that point) kid will be a girl.. i've had dreams about this shit and it scares the fuck out of me. either everythings all insanely metaphorical or deadpan literal, either way my daughter is the biggest fucking trainwreck on the god damn planet, and it's all my fault.
which completely destroys me emotionally in the dream (leaving me waking up wanting to smash my skull on a sharp corner of a table) because i guess having a kid will be the last attempt at doing something at least kinda great. i don't feel like i'm going to accomplish much and almost don't want to either. a humble life would be the one for me, and the most likely one as well.[/QUOTE]
This is far from truth. While you might be broken it's usually not genetic, at least not entirely. You are shaped the most during early childhood, just make sure that if and when you do get a child (on accident or purpose) to be mentally, emotionally and somewhat economically stable.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;38500368]science does the opposite imo[/QUOTE]
dawg, we know how much the earth weighs
theres seriously almost nothing left but logic and reason
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.