The Order of Things......

[worm]

"no knowledge" is nothing, a void, an empty space, a blank canvas yet to be painted - yes?

[eFestivals]

I mean unrealised potential.

The lights are on but no one is home. An empty vessel. A blank canvas. A person before activation. You could have said yes to the first time I asked the question. f**k me, I can see this is going to be hard work.

Anyway....

So what is then required - the prerequisites - for that empty-vessel-person to experience their first sensation (and by having that first sensation for them to come into being, to exist)?

Edited March 30, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

So what is then required - the prerequisites - for that empty-vessel-person to experience their first sensation (and by having that first sensation for them to come into being, to exist)?

Edited March 30, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Existence.

I don't dwell in metaphysical stuff. It could be that God switched the lights on, or that we're plugged into the matrix, or, indeed, that we're the imagination of ourselves as someone very wisely posted earlier.

We don't know.

As I've pointed out before, you're completely shit at analysis, and so you prove again.

Things can only move onto to 'creating' the existence of a self-aware being when the pre-requisites for that existence are met. Existence and a simultaneous first experience which informs a being of their existence is the product of the pre-requisites. You've already said this in this thread, so I'm saying nothing here you don't already know.

"We don't know"? Then you can't have any firm idea about any of this, because the certain ideas you claim to have absolutely require you to know. So you're talking bollocks again, because you've spent days telling me how you know all these things for certain, and that would require you to be certain of the reference points you drew those certain conclusions from. So as you're talking bollocks when you say we don't know I'll be kind and forget you've even said that.

Because you've already shown how you'll spout empty bollocks rather than give the straightforwards answer, I'll attempt to speed thing up by answering the question for you, and we'll see if you're able to agree....

The pre-requisites are:-

1. the "empty-vessel-person" who will have the experience of sensation.

2. equipment that is able to sense (obviously, this is attached to that "empty-vessel-person"). For ease, we'll call this "the equipment".

3. a stimuli, which will cause the sensation that "the equipment" will detect.

Yes? Or no?

Edited March 30, 2011 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

Day 1 in Worm's first thread household and Neil and Worm have spent a day trying to decide the meaning of words before they get into a proper ruck.

[eFestivals]

Day 1 in Worm's first thread household and Neil and Worm have spent a day trying to decide the meaning of words before they get into a proper ruck.

I've just been ensuring we're referring to the same things, precisely so there won't be a ruck. Within 5 more steps he'll be stuck for a reply.

[worm]

As I've pointed out before, you're completely shit at analysis, and so you prove again.

Edited March 30, 2011 by worm

[worm]

1. the "empty-vessel-person" who will have the experience of sensation.

2. equipment that is able to sense (obviously, this is attached to that "empty-vessel-person"). For ease, we'll call this "the equipment".

3. a stimuli, which will cause the sensation that "the equipment" will detect.

[worm]

I've just been ensuring we're referring to the same things, precisely so there won't be a ruck.

Edited March 30, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Rubbish. There is no ''things can only''. Things are. There is a self aware being.

a self-aware being who is self-aware enough to know that he didn't always exist. So there was a "before". I'm talking about that before.

[worm]

a self-aware being who is self-aware enough to know that he didn't always exist. So there was a "before". I'm talking about that before.

[eFestivals]

For the love of God, there is nothing that comes before consciousness. Nothing.

OK, think of it your way (it doesn't make a difference) - at the exact moment of conciousness, there are those three things interacting in some manner (we don't have to know how) to bring about that conciousness, yes?

And that conciousness, it needs all three of those things else it can't happen (there would be nothing), yes?

[eFestivals]

There is no 'before'.

it's an aside to the point, but....

Of course there was. There was a 'before' your own personal conciousness existed. You know you exist, and you know that in the past you didn't exist - your existence has informed you of 'before' your existence.

To know of your existence requires you to know of the nothing before your existence. We only know difference, remember? You say it often enough.

[worm]

And that conciousness, it needs all three of those things else it can't happen (there would be nothing), yes?

[worm]

Of course there was. There was a 'before' your own personal conciousness existed.

Edited March 30, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

how does that fit with discovering parts of the universe, and what it's made of, by instruments that measure things that we have no knowledge of (without such instruments)?

we can't see infra-red but we accept that it's there....

Edited March 30, 2011 by feral chile

[worm]

Because science is based on hypothesis, for very good reasons. It isn't dogmatic, it understands that experience of the world (scientific discovery) is only relevant up to the current moment in time, and the next experience could disprove the hypothesis. That's what culty's black swan example was about.

[Ed209]

Because science is based on hypothesis, for very good reasons. It isn't dogmatic, it understands that experience of the world (scientific discovery) is only relevant up to the current moment in time, and the next experience could disprove the hypothesis. That's what culty's black swan example was about.

There are two types of reasoning, inductive and deductive. Science uses inductive reasoning, which can never be certain. This is not a bad thing. Think of the quest for certainty in some dogmatic religions, when evidence to the contrary is totally disregarded.

Science is all about evaluation of evidence against current theories, with the best-fit theory/evidence being subjected to probability tests.

If you think of most scientific theories, there are disputes among the experts, because not all the evidence fits. So new hypotheses are generated, and these are tested against the evidence, including new evidence.

And thus human knowledge advances. By questioning.

We're very curious animals, in more ways than one.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Ed209

[worm]

That cant be so. At some point you have to determine for the first time. You don't know any isn'ts to make an is. Unless you already had the knowledge inherently

Edited March 30, 2011 by worm

[llcoolphil]

For the love of God, there is nothing that comes before consciousness. Nothing.

[worm]

Apart from God obviously

[llcoolphil]

You've said that on purpose. If that twat's already written all of this then I'll be awfully cross.

[Ed209]

slight edit to my post above

[eFestivals]

Who knows?

You do and I do.

You've spent the last five years telling me and anyone else within range that if they don't have the same certainties as you and agree with you then they're thick.

Why the sudden coyness?

Why are you suddenly having such major doubts about the thing you've stated countless times that you're so certain of?

Either you've already joined up the dots enough to see where this is going (and that all you've said before will be shown as wrong), or you've turned yellow with cowardice and don't wish to subject your views to scrutiny in case you're shown as wrong.

Ah well, anyway, you've said you don't know how conciousness comes about - and so you have nothing further to say in this thread, and that you have no idiot stick of fraud to beat people with in future. That'll do me.

(and I guess being shown up yesterday [not by me] as having HUGE holes in your claimed knowledge of this subject also got your fraudulent brain working for once too )

I guess I can close this thread now, now that worm has said that he doesn't know the order of things and that no one does.

Edited March 31, 2011 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

apart from maths, which is a deductive science

edit: This includes the field of mathematics that Quantum Theory is built on, which is a huge and elegant pure mathematical construct that holds completely true even if it was isolated from it's application. Much of it was actually developed as a discipline for its own sake, without care for physics and before quantum theory was even talked about. It just so happens that this field of mathematics can be applied and describes the quantum world with remarkable accuracy.

How does that fit into to all this stuff?