A Return to the Topic of Consciousness

[Iwannaplato]

LOL They are in this very thread, as I have told you on numerous occasions, already. But, you appear to be completely blind to 'seeing' them.

Also, I do not care if anyone 'sees' my posts, or not, I have just been pointing out that even when I directly provide what you have asked me here for, you, still, somehow manage to 'miss' them, and then, what is Truly hilarious, you, still, go and accuse me of not providing the very thing you asked me for.

1) I believe you provide what might be support for your assertions in a response to one of my posts, but not to one of Flannel Jesus'. Generally in that situation, where you did not respond directly to the poster and they ask you about it, you would let them know where at the very least. That's polite behavior in online forums. It also moves the discussion to the next step, so in addition to being polite, it is more effective than merely saying you did something. FJ is correct, you did not use hyperlinks. If, however, you meant something else, then you still haven't learned much about context. Responding with 'they' for example should be interpreted to refer to what you quoted and the last part of what was quoted, which was about hyperlinks.

This

Also, I do not care if anyone 'sees' my posts, or not,

is utterly absurd. You put in the time to type them, to in this way communicate with us or with target audiences hinted at, perhaps named somewhere. The very phrase target audience entails you are aiming your communication at some entities.

If this is some word game based on 'see' meaning something idiosyncratic, then you are just wasting people's time by intentionally confusing people.

[Age]

Then I guess it's time for you to learn how to use hyperlinks if you want people to see specific posts... Get with technology grampa.

LOL They are in this very thread, as I have told you on numerous occasions, already. But, you appear to be completely blind to 'seeing' them.

Also, I do not care if anyone 'sees' my posts, or not, I have just been pointing out that even when I directly provide what you have asked me here for, you, still, somehow manage to 'miss' them, and then, what is Truly hilarious, you, still, go and accuse me of not providing the very thing you asked me for.

Nope, not what happened, there aren't hyperlinks from you already in this thread.

I did not have to, considering that:

1. This' started when there were only about three or four pages of this thread.

2. Someone else had already responded to and talked about the 'actual arguments' that it was you who wanted.

If you, still, cannot find the 'actual argument' I provided, for you, even after others have acknowledged and addressed them, then me linking you to them 'now' will certainly not help you find and 'see' them, this time.

If, however, you are referring to something else, then be as specific as you can, then I will link you, directly, with them.

Can I make any thing here more simpler and easier or you?

If yes, then please explain how, exactly.

[Age]

LOL They are in this very thread, as I have told you on numerous occasions, already. But, you appear to be completely blind to 'seeing' them.

Also, I do not care if anyone 'sees' my posts, or not, I have just been pointing out that even when I directly provide what you have asked me here for, you, still, somehow manage to 'miss' them, and then, what is Truly hilarious, you, still, go and accuse me of not providing the very thing you asked me for.

1) I believe you provide what might be support for your assertions in a response to one of my posts, but not to one of Flannel Jesus'. Generally in that situation, where you did not respond directly to the poster and they ask you about it, you would let them know where at the very least.

But, I did let "flanel jesus" know. I said something like it was a couple of posts after where you stated, ....

However, "flannel jesus" said something like, 'But that is not what I am talking about, or referring to. So, I then suggest that what it is 'referring to' would be on pages 1 or 2 of this very thread.

If, and when, "flannel jesus" is more specific in what it actually wants from me here, then I can be more specific in my directing, for it.

See, even you 'believe' that what "flannel jesus" is seeking here I provided in a response to you, as well. But, as far as I can ascertain 'this' is not what "flannel jesus" is seeking and asking for, 'now'. So, you and I both are Wrong here.

'We', now, just have to wait for "flannel jesus" to be just 'more specific'.

That's polite behavior in online forums.

Which I have already done.

And, what is also equally so-called 'polite' is to inform 'the other' of what it is, exactly, what they want and seek, from them, instead of just saying, 'That is not it', and then nothing 'more specific'.

It also moves the discussion to the next step, so in addition to being polite, it is more effective than merely saying you did something. FJ is correct, you did not use hyperlinks.

I would not have to thought I would of 'had to', after I directed "flannel jesus" to it being two posts after one of its, which I direct it to, exactly.

Even you here are saying and stating 'it' is in the exact same post that I have already directed "flannel jesus" to, directly. So, saying all you here now, when you also have the Wrong post here "iwannaplato", is also slowing down this discussion.

Moving this discussion, to the next step, and doing so 'politely' would just take "flannel jesus" to inform you, and I, of what it wants, exactly, so that you, and I, both do not get things Wrong here, again.

If, however, you meant something else, then you still haven't learned much about context. Responding with 'they' for example should be interpreted to refer to what you quoted and the last part of what was quoted, which was about hyperlinks.

This

Also, I do not care if anyone 'sees' my posts, or not,

is utterly absurd.

Why?

When one, for example, goes to a 'writing class', to learn how to 'write better', then should one care what one writes in 'that class'? After all they are not there necessarily 'to care' how nor what they 'write there', they are 'just there' to learn how to 'write better', for some other time maybe, right?

You put in the time to type them, to in this way communicate with us or with target audiences hinted at, perhaps named somewhere.

Again, I am not necessarily here 'to communicate' with you posters here. If any of you respond, then I stay. But, if no one responds, then I do not care. I just 'move on', an 'along'.

The very phrase target audience entails you are aiming your communication at some entities.

Very True. But, if no one 'sees' these writings here, yet I have already learned from 'these writings here', to 'write and communicate better' somewhere else, for my target audience', then I am, still, 'aimed at my target audience'.

Now, again, if you posters here stop reading, and/or stop responding, then I will just 'move along'.

These writings here will remain for a while, so they will be here for 'my target audience' for some time, yet.

If this is some word game based on 'see' meaning something idiosyncratic, then you are just wasting people's time by intentionally confusing people.

But, not if I am 'learning some thing' in the process.

As I have said and stated previously, I am using you people and posters here to learn from and to show things, in order to create and achieve 'my goal', HERE. Which by the way is for every one and is as well what every one Truly wants and desires anyway.

And, if you think or believe that this is 'wasting your peoples' times, in the days when this is being written, then so be it. But, others will find that you people here 'teaching me' how to communicate better with you people, while also showing how for all peoples to come how to living in True peace and harmony, forever more a 'waste of your time', but they, certainly, never will. you could not fathom the gratitude and thanks human beings give for and to 'the generation' of human beings who actually decided to change, once, and for all, for the better of every one, and not just for individual ones.

[Fairy]

Are we human beings just "meat machines" as one notable philosopher (forgotten which one) once put it? And if we are machines that are made of meat and we are conscious beings, then are other machines that are made of things other than meat also possibly "conscious beings"? And what is "consciousness"? How can we know if something is "conscious" or not?

Regarding the topic of Consciousness .

Consciousness cannot know “Consciousness” because there is only Consciousness, One without a second. There’s nothing inside of it or outside of it, which is secondary. Consciousness is all there is, without limit or boundary.

Even the word “Unconscious” is identical to “Conscious” they are both the same thing, identical, except they differ in appearance that’s all. On - Off both seemingly opposites, but ultimately two sides of the same reality, complimentary.

[anonymous66]

A few species on Earth seem to be self-aware. Say humans, some great apes, dolphins, whales, elephants, maybe a handful others. And the really interesting case, corvids, I think the study or corvids has the best chance of unlocking the secret of self-awareness.

What about cephalopods? Do they appear to possess self-awareness? I know some of them can do some remarkable things including unscrew the lid of a jar they are trapped in.

Apparently, some cephalopods pass the mirror test.

[Fairy]

Are we human beings just "meat machines" as one notable philosopher (forgotten which one) once put it? And if we are machines that are made of meat and we are conscious beings, then are other machines that are made of things other than meat also possibly "conscious beings"? And what is "consciousness"? How can we know if something is "conscious" or not?

Marvin Minsky of MIT “believes that humans are nothing but meat machines that carry a computer in their head” also made of meat. Minsky, who is an atheist and works in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), “claimed that people should give their money to AI research rather than their churches, as only AI would truly give them eternal life.”

[Gary Childress]

Are we human beings just "meat machines" as one notable philosopher (forgotten which one) once put it? And if we are machines that are made of meat and we are conscious beings, then are other machines that are made of things other than meat also possibly "conscious beings"? And what is "consciousness"? How can we know if something is "conscious" or not?

Marvin Minsky of MIT “believes that humans are nothing but meat machines that carry a computer in their head” also made of meat. Minsky, who is an atheist and works in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), “claimed that people should give their money to AI research rather than their churches, as only AI would truly give them eternal life.”

The quest for eternal life for human beings is a futile one. If everyone lives to be even 100 years old, the rest of the people making up the workforce wouldn't be able sustain the economy. At best, augments to give people eternal life could be something a few eccentric uber rich folks could do with themselves.

I think I'd rather die in a normal life span. There's nothing in this world to keep me entertained forever. Besides, the longer I live, the more chance I'll see some apocalyptic disaster hit the Earth. I'd rather die in a reasonably comfortable bed than face the dread of knowing the end of the world is coming or something.