Kelly wrote:Consciousness and knowledge are one and the same mental condition.
bullocks.
Knowledge is the finery of memory accumulated in acquainting phenomena. However, phenomena does not have to be conscious phenomena, or even subconscious. Phenomena can be things you don't know that you know and so somebody else has to tell you it and you'll have no idea how you know it, you just know it. Doesn't seem very "conscious" to me, and you can act on such knowledge with out knowing about it. You can do something, completely spontaneously, and have no idea where it came from, the initiative in you to do it, and yet it can be perceived as an intelligent act, people may question if you haven't planned it... how you explain that?
Whatever happened to miss-firing of neurons? Creativity FTW!
Sorry to appear a pedant. But the English word you want is bollocks, not bullocks.
It's the second time you've used bullocks and it kind of takes the wind out of your sails by causing amusement.
Invoking male bovines does not have the same impact as saying bollocks which a euphemism for testicles.
The Free dictionary.
bul·lock (blk)
n.
1. A castrated bull; a steer.
2. A young bull.
bol·locks (blks)
n. Vulgar Slang
1. The testicles.
2. Nonsense.
Urban dictionary.
1. bullocks
A term Americans mistakenly use when they really mean to say bollocks.
"Bullocks"? Bollocks, mate, say it right!
well if I want to call things castrated bulls, or just a young bull, I can do that if I want to!
I'm probably not gonna learn from that. I'm too into saying bullocks... but maybe, just maybe I remember to say bollocks next time, although that sounds... not so cool :/
Anyways... what he said was just so castrated bulls...
The Voice of Time wrote:well if I want to call things castrated bulls, or just a young bull, I can do that if I want to!
True. But I thought you meant bollocks. You in fact did , did you not?
I'm probably not gonna learn from that. I'm too into saying bullocks... but maybe, just maybe I remember to say bollocks next time, although that sounds... not so cool :/
I was not pulling your plonker. When you say bullocks in place of bollocks, it does not sound 'cool' but makes me laugh
Anyways... what he said was just so castrated bulls...
Yes, it was utterly bollocks. Bullocks don't have any.
Last edited by chaz wyman on Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kelly wrote:This so- called problem exist because philosophers have never understood the nature of knowledge.
For this we have epistemology. I'd say that philosophers more than any other type of scholar have thought more about the nature of knowledge.
Consciousness and knowledge are one and the same mental condition.
It's clear you have not really thought about this in any serious way. Most of our knowledge is tacit, we are not conscious of it.
I have no idea how my body manages to do all the calculations necessary to do the simplest thing like catching a ball, or playing the drums even though I've made conscious efforts to learn those things.
When our mind is exposed, through our senses, to physical things and conditions e.g. heat, cold, wind, color, est., what registers in memory are the attributes that equate to the existence of the physical thing or the condition our mind is being exposed to. How we each react and our ability to describe the experience of this exposure will be different. What is not different, in a philosophical sense, is the consciousness of every person is a construct of the attributes we remember that equate to the existence of things and conditions. There are no hard problems in all of Philosophy. There are hard headed philosophers who have failed to recognize the philosophical understanding of consciousness/knowledge is grounded in understanding the nature of existence of the things and conditions we are conscious of.
Yeah, like I say, you have not really thought this through.
It appears you have no competition. I am sending you the money as I believe your argument is ironclad. I ask you though to restate your argument from the beginning of the logic that supports a realistic understanding of the nature of consciousness. Do this and Project Logic will offer fifty dollars ($50) to the person who can refute it.
It appears you have no competition. I am sending you the money as I believe your argument is ironclad. I ask you though to restate your argument from the beginning of the logic that supports a realistic understanding of the nature of consciousness. Do this and Project Logic will offer fifty dollars ($50) to the person who can refute it.
The beginning of the logic necessary to understand the nature of consciousness begins with the logic necessary to understand the nature of existence. The following argument to support the concluding propositional sentence defining the nature of consciousness begins with the condition of if as every philosophical augment should. Philosophers recognized this but were never able to construct logical arguments to support their propositional sentences because that failed to understand the nature of knowledge/consciousness.
If a thing is itself and not some other thing, it must have different attributes else every thing that exist would be a single thing. Thus, things are different because every existing thing has attributes that are different from the attributes of every other existing thing. And it follows, if it is possible for an organism to recognize and remember which attributes equate to the existence of which things, it is possible for an organism to be conscious or have knowledge of things because it can recognize one thing from another by remembering their attributes.
Consciousness/knowledge is the attributes an organism remembers that enable it to distinguish one thing from another.
The Project believes your argument to be irrefutable. It is just one argument in a chain of logical arguments necessary to construct logical Philosophical Knowledge but it is the one argument that makes the others possible.
Project Logic will pay one hundred dollars ($100) for an argument that establishes logic more useful to construct logical Philosophy than Kelly’s’ argument.
The Project believes your argument to be irrefutable. It is just one argument in a chain of logical arguments necessary to construct logical Philosophical Knowledge but it is the one argument that makes the others possible.
Project Logic will pay one hundred dollars ($100) for an argument that establishes logic more useful to construct logical Philosophy than Kelly’s’ argument.
chaz wyman wrote:
I'll pay you $1000 if you stop this charade.
I'll bet a thousand dollars you are too cheap to pay up...
I'll take that bet!!!
When I pay up - I'll loose nothing - you'll be the one out of pocket!
In fact, we can cut out the middle man.
HEY, `Leggitt, If you two stop this charade VoT will pay you $1000!!
The Project is increasing the payout to one thousand ($1000) dollars. Payment will be made to the person who submits propositional sentences that construct a more logical consciousness of consciousness itself than Kelly’s argument. Merely editing Kelly’s argument does not qualify. Money will be available later for editing.
