John Cuthber

You seem to have missed a bit. I said that consciousness was like a house made from toy bricks. According to your "logic" there are 6 states of matter, the five you mention and "house". Does that really make sense to you?

Things may go better if you learn to use the quote function properly.

The SCREEN doesn't need to be in all caps. Also the screen is 3 feet way from me. I can't sense it directly. I can only sense what arrives at my eye. The thing that gets to my eye is light and sensing it is called seeing. So I see light from the screen. That light is, therefore, visible. Why are you trying to pretend that everyone else in the world is wrong?

What extraordinary claim? Scattering of electromagnetic radiation from electrons is well documented,

And yet I see the light from this screen. The light from it is certainly visible

That's a circular argument. If they are brightly enough lit, we can.

I'm not too fussy about whether it's "logical" or not but in principle, I can set up an experiment to let you see it happen. Electrons have no measurable size, yet they scatter light.

OK, so the cat is sometimes visible (if it happens to be where you can see it) otherwise it's invisible. And light is sometimes visible (if it happens to be where you can see it) otherwise it's invisible. So light is invisible in the same way that your cat is invisible. If you think light is invisible then you must also consider your cat to be invisible. Well, do you think you have an invisible cat? Let us know if that happens. In the mean time you have said that this argument isn't about semantics, and yet it depends on your assistance that invisible doesn't mean not visible.

How long are you prepared to wait? There are about 100000000000000000000000000000 atoms in the body. (I may have miscounted the zeroes slightly) If you could print a billion of them a second it would take about 100000000000000000000 seconds That's about the age of the universe (again, give or take a few zeroes)

So...?

Can you tell me what your cat looks like? Also, it seem you were too busy telling me I don't listen to see this.

It's not a matter of "the dictionary is king" it's a matter of the dictionary records what the words are considered to mean by the people who use them. If you use words to mean things that differ from what the dictionary says, then people will not know what you are talking about. If you do it knowingly- and deliberately- people with think you are trying to mislead them I listened to your beliefs- that's why I was able to show that they don't make sense. You seem to be the one who isn't listening. If you were paying attention you would realise that, in quoting what you said, and analysing it, I have demonstrated that I do pay attention to what you write. How, if you were listening to me, did you not spot that?

I'm always intrigued by this simple idea. If clairvoyance is real, why hasn't evolution made it universal?

Furyan, it works both ways I can also say "Unfortunately, you've been misinformed. Now you can either cling to your current, flawed belief, or choose to know the truth. It makes no difference to me what you decide. What I do hate, is wasting my time. So choose. A: learn the truth about the nature of light, colors and reality, or B: cling to your current, flawed beliefs." Do you see how it works just as well whoever says it? In order to distinguish whether it's right for me to say it or right for you to say it, we need to look at the evidence. Now, one bit of evidence is that your position relies on "not visible" being different from "invisible". But the dictionary tells us that they are the same. Since you are wrong about that- which forms part of the underpinning of your ideas- your ideas are, at best, unproven. Do you understand that?

"Consciusness IS NOT MATTER" Had anyone said it was? If I make a house out of Lego bricks, then pull the bricks apart, where did "the house" go? The idea of "house" an emergent property of the arrangement of bricks, rather than a thing in its own right or a property of the bricks. Consciousness is a property of an arrangement of matter, rather than a property of the brain's matter itself.

This is a science website. We are not likely to be cowed by someone pretending to use "big words" or technical terms (especially when you are defining what is real, but arguing that it's not semantics). Feel free to either explain what the terms mean, or accept that you are talking nonsense. Would you like to expand on that? Was that meant to be your post? You seem to have attributed it to me, though I never said it. Well, it's a false dichotomy Please try to do better

Yep. Air is invisible (ordinarily) from any perspective. In that regard, it's quite unusual for a physical entity. Your dog is not visible from here and is, therefore, invisible (at least, to me). The coast of China is also invisible (though not to the huge number of people who can see it). And the word "invisible" is thereby found to be one of those terms that needs some sort of clarification. It's like a whole lot of words - for example "above" that only mean anything if you point out the viewpoint. So a laser beam crossing the room in front of you is "invisible" from your perspective, but clearly visible from the point of view of the spider on the wall near where the beam hits. The juvenile (i.e. uninformed or uneducated) perspective is to ignore this fact and thus claim that- just because you can't see it- the sunbeam crossing the room is invisible. A more grown-up view is to accept that there's nothing special about you and if someone can see it, then it's visible.

No there isn't. One is definitively the opposite of visible- and so is the other. You are just making up silly definitions of the words to suit your purpose. That's more or less the sort of circular argument you wrongly accused me of. The coast of China is visible if you are in the right place. It is not, for example, visible from England. Whether or not something is visible depends on your viewpoint (literally). And if you are in front of a laser, you can see the light from it. If you are not in front of it then you can't so it's invisible. By which pointless argument, everything ,including light, is invisible (unless you are in a position where you can see it) and you "win". In the real world, light remains visible- just as it always was.

It's not a matter of making it more simple. You need to make it less wrong. Can you see the coast of China?

Wrong on both counts. "Visible" is called "visible", because that's what light is. You have offered no proof of anything. A five year old might be impressed by the argument like this; we are not. The coast of China is invisible. I can't see it, and nor can you- so it's invisible.

There's a whole range of electromagnetic radiation. It covers a massive range of wavelengths. The bit of the spectrum with wavelengths between about 400 and 700 mn is called visible light. So, what Furyan5 is claiming is that something that's definitively visible, is invisible. Many people will see that as a problem. The description is apt. The statement is not credible. Why are you offering it credence?

In my (, granted, not very well informed) opinion, those who suffer from prejudice are likely to recognise that it's wrong. Most people in the US who are not white males will have been on the wrong end of prejudice and will have had a clear lesson in the idea that it's just wrong. White men won't have had that lesson so much.

Redefining words isn't generally helpful.

It may be a linguistic thing, but there's a difference between somebody and something.

Quite right, you didn't. But others (not necessarily on this forum- I was using a rather more general "here") have done so. It can, but they tend to go hand in hand.