Area54

So, in your view in both states we are, essentially, behaving mechanically?

.evol

You reminded me of an incident at a Cowboys game in the late 70s. The only one I ever attended. Around the same time there had been some disrespectful comments made by an American official about Queen Elizabeth. I considered not standing when the national anthem was played as a protestagainst that. Three things argued against this action: no one would no why I was protesting; I wold embarrass my American friends whose guest I was; it might cause an incident in which people might be injured. So I stood. If we wish to have freedom of speech we should use that freedom responsibly. (Today I would kneel, and damn the consequences.)

Good thinking. The classic "turn it off, then turn it on again". That worked. Much appreciated.

You have just taught harry.y that they don't have to make any effort to learn things. They can just ask their homework questions here and someone will answer them. Do you think that is a good character building technique?

That's what I would expect, but it's not what is happening for me. I've double checked that I still have the member on Ignore and I do, yet I can see their post here. Odd. Thank you for checking.

I recently placed a member on Ignore. The following 'events' have confused me: Initially their posts continued to appear, possibly for more than 24 hours. Later there posts were hidden, with an in thread notification of their presence. A short while ago I was able to directly access a thread they had started and see their post. I presume I've done something wrong. Any ideas?

If countries of the British Empire were represented on many maps in red how can the viewing figures of X-Factor continue to decline?

To answer this you must first define what value is attached to freedom of speech.

Were all the conflicting studies you referenced using the same quantity of interest? If not, surely the disparities you see are to be expected.

How would you then classify the creative elements encountered in some dreams? I refer specifically to concepts that may then be applied constructively in ones waking state.

In tar's case this is probably accurate.

Not, I think, as long as I took to get back to you. More things happen outside the forum than inside it. No apolgies are required. And yet you made a couple of statements regarding evolution that were, demonstrably, in serious error, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding. Gees: If consciousness is not necessary for evolution, can you give me an example of a life form that evolved without consciousness? I answer with a quesion: in what way was the evolution of lactose tolerance in adult humans dependent upon consciousness? Gees: Feeling good and evolution within species is very much related. And to me, which is why I took you to task earlier, for throwing out disjointed ideas. My objections, and those of other members, seem to have had a positive effect in that your most recent posts are coherent and unambiguous. All well and good, but it took a great deal of effort to get you to make that as a clear, unambiguous statement. In an early post you made the necessary distinctions, but then, for the greater part of the thread, you (and perhaps some others) used consciousness repeatedly without specifying which type you were talking about at that point. To say this frustrated me is like saying the Pope may be Catholic. I do not wish to revisit this yet again. You are now being clear. As the recipient of your prior communication I can assure you that you were not previously being clear. We now have a foundation on which to move forward. Let's do so. Good. I don't think anyone was disputing this, but for a time it seemed that you were. There is a school of thought that would say that mere chemical reactions continue all the way up to humans; that a bacteria is a biomehcanical machine and so are humans. If this distinction is important to your thesis it will require more discussion. As far as I am concerned the jury is still out (and sitting in a jury room several light centuries away, so that we can forget about receiving news of any early verdict). Some biologists consider viruses to be alive. I consider argument over the point to be unimportant. There are almost as many definitions of life as there are biologists. There is a range of complexity going from non-life to life. Molecules such as amino acids lie close to one end, prions a short distance along, viruses slightly further. We can debate and agree their relative positions, but to fight over where we put up the big Life/non-Life customs barrier is, in my view, a waste of time. I should prefer, Populations will also adapt and if they cannot adapt they will become extinct. No. That is a bizarre non-sequitur. We are told the first life on Earth was microbial because that is consistent with palaeontoloigcal observation. Perhaps what you meant to say was something like "Evolution has led to increasing complexity. If we reverse that complexity it implies that early life was single celled and simple."

I guess I never got issued my copy of The Boy's Own Book of Codewords for Use in International Politics.

The thread of yours to which I was replying appeared, in isolation, to be supporting Mikeco's views on proof and belief. I have revisted your earlier posts in the light of the one quoted above and realise you do not hold the views that seem to emerge from the single post I responded to.

Don't fret over the lack of attention DrP. We all love you.

As to the "weirdness" of aborted sneezes, I share the general view there is nothing unusual about them. The OP seems to have been properly answered so something which, if not weird, is certainly unpleasant. Have any of you experienced a simultaneous hiccough and sneeze? The muscular actions involved seem to be contrary. I suspect, if both were powerful enough, one could break ones neck, or certainly do some kind of damage.

I could have said "Your assertions in this thread have been unsubstantiated and laced with an unwarranted self righteousness." Instead I chose the pithier partial quote of your own words. I shall address your posts with more seriousness, when there is something in them that merits seriousness.

We know there are many alternative methods of producing Easter eggs. For one thing we can visit a factory that manufactures them. Your desire for Easter eggs and the subsequent success in obtaining them is proof that they exist, not how they are produced.

That's a bit of a harsh judgment on a non-native speaker.

Thank you for throwing me a lifeline, I mean a Heinlein. However, I was with you until the fifth word, because your first four were "I do not think". I thought that was an honest and accurate summation.

Well, if this wasn't the case there would be little need for planetary science. Science is, after all, a process for explaining what currently cannot be explained, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make. So, to dip into some of your examples a little, here are some observations: Earth's Geothermal Energy I found it odd that, in a blog confirming the importance of radioactive decay to the Earth's heat balance, you should single out one short sentence: " The rest is leftover from Earth's formation or other causes yet unknown, according to the scientists involved." It seems clear to me that the "other causes yet unknown" was simply a cautious recognition that we never know everything. Nowhere in the article was there any suggestion that there is any evidence pointing to unknown causes. I am not aware of any serious, recent research suggesting that may be the case. Do you have any? If not, this instance can be dismissed. Ceres The words you quoted " The mystery of the dwarf planet Ceres' lonely ice volcano may have just been solved" kind of gave me the impression that " the mystery of the dwarf planet Ceres' lonely ice volcano may have just been solved" and consequently this was a phenomenon of planetary activity which can be explained by modern science. Mercury Likewise, I do not see how an article expanding our knowledge can be used to support a thesis that " there are many phenomenons of planetary activity which seem can't be explained by modern science". Moreover, I would question the claim that other planets are lacking geological activity. Mars has evidence of recent vulcanicity and I believe some researchers claim the same for Venus. I'll defer comments on your other examples until you have clarified what direction you wish to take this in.

I agree. A lot of clarity is even better. I have been unclear. I do not wish, at this stage, to read your theory of consciousness. (I can see that my phrase "well defined thesis" was poorly chosen.) I simply wish you to clearly agree to, disagree with or edit the following statements: Consciousness has multiple levels. Tthe simplest of these levels is present in prokaryotes and is, in essence, a suite of reactions to their environments. The more advanced levels, that we are aware of, are reached by creatures such as humans, cetaceans etc. There are other "levels", or "phases", or "stages" between these two. Different "levels", or "phases", or "stages" may be present in an organism at different times, under different conditions and at different points in its life cycle. Unfortunately all these levels/phases/stages are considered by one or more authorities to be consciousness. This lack of granularity causes confusion, misunderstanding, derailment of arguments, etc. In view of the foregoing, and in particular the last point, for the love of whatever deity you choose not to believe in would you please be very specific about which consciousness you are talking about in each post, or in each part of a post. Had you done so from the outset we would all have lived happier lives over the past couple of weeks.

I was with you until you moved on to the fifth word.

Many people in this thread have been frustrated by your unwillingness or inability to define which of the many definitions of consciousness you wish to use. If I have understood you correctly you believe the term may be applied to everything between the biochemical reactions of a unicellular organism, up to the self awareness of a human. In this you are supported by many philosophers and branches of philosophy, although not all would be in agreement with each other. The discussion then comes down to one of semantics. Until you have given and continue to give precise definitions of consciousness as you are using it at that moment you will obfuscate your message rather than expound it. You have been told this multiple times by multiple members, but instead of taking this on board you have retreated into the "I am a knowlegeable philosopher and you are Phillistines" approach. Now that, to use your own terminology, is shit! So, if you wish your discussion to advance I recommend that you come of your high horse, recognise the valid objections of other members and offer clarity of statement and a well defined thesis. That shouldn't be difficult for someone well versed in philosophy.