All things that (B)ehave, (M)ove.
Therefore, if (CO)nsciousness (C)auses (B)ehavior, then it (C)auses (M)otion.
(E)nergy (C)auses (M)otion.
If two entities (D)o the same thing, then the two entities are the (S)ame due to the fact that we can eliminate one of them through Ockham’s Razor.
117938Aa writes posts on philosophy forums.
Flannel Jesus writes posts on philosophy forums.
If two entities do the same thing, we can eliminate one of them.
Flannel Jesus and 117938Aa are the same thing.
Have you not considered what else consciousness might do, apart from “moving things”?
This is the belief that consciousness is an effect, not a cause.
This can be refuted as follows:
If consciousness is an effect and not a cause, then the cause of motion is random energy.
If all movement is random, then all movement is uncoordinated.
All movement is not uncoordinated.
Therefore the cause of motion is not random energy.
Coordinated is not defined, let’s define it.
A B and C are coordinated iff only A B and C together cause D and A B and C are enormously improbable and D is specified in advance.
For example, language is enormously improbable. The effect of language (D above) is that another speaker of the language can understand the beliefs of the speaker. Moreover, the arbitrary sounds that the speaker uses uttered in a grammatical/proper sequence is enormously improbable, that is to say, there are roughly 45 discreet sounds that a speaker of English can utter, thus the number of possible words composed of 4 sounds is 4^45 of which only about 20,000 are considered correct by an English speaker. In almost every human activity which involves achieving a complex goal the same follows. With dance the effect (D above) is to produce a desirable feeling in the audience. There are numerous sequences of possible dance-moves, only a very tiny minority will actually produce a desirable feeling in the audience.
Also, let me just deal with the obvious objection that someone is bound to raise, namely, a car crash causes a person to die and a bullet causes a person to die. Therefore, we can eliminate car or bullet.
Cars and bullets are abstract objects not real objects. The only real things are: quarks, leptons, bosons, consciousness and God. Everything else is an abstraction.
This argument fails because one expects that in a (not even very) large collection of random events, some will be coordinated given this definition. So point 2 is false.
This thread is just another example of this guy wanting to believe that everything is conscious and not having very good reasoning ability.
I will agree that consciousness and energy are the same in as far as objective and subjective are also the same.
All things are of the base reality, or at least the daemon would often say so.
Reality grows like a tree in some ways. It started as a spherical seed, then by its roots it stands.
In a large collection of random events you can find some rather bizarre coincidences but they will not be specified in advance. For example, if you look up at the stars which are obviously not coordinated you can see a big dipper. But this is an observation after the fact, cherry-picking.
This is a non-argument and it demonstrates your inability to reason correctly.
Consciousness might be expressible in energetic terms, but that is not to say that energy is consciousness.
It seems obvious enough that all examples we have of consciousness is accompanied with the physical processes found in specialised matter in an energetic state.
There is no evidence that it is even possible that consciousness can exist without both energy and specialised matter.
Both: energy and consciousness are terms which express something. They talk of potential and actual as two ways to become aware of certain foundamental manifestations in nature.
Ebergy can be desribed as the manifestation of certain potential forces. Which when applied, can effect movement, change in the way objects seem to relate.
Consciousness, similarly could be desribed as a process, by which objects and objectives can manifest ,themselves, by a continual and developing awareness of how these objects relate,.
So both tdesriptions are object relational processes. That's the extent of their sameness.
Are they relational concepts? Well of course$ how could people become aware of energy? Awareness of energy. Is a relation, where perhapps on the quantum level, there may be a real, physical relationship.
OK, but “specified in advance” is not part of anything you have written. And it will never be, because for all your talk of thinking about things, you never seem to actually improve anything. You really do not seem to be willing to change anything or competent to do so.
No, if someone looks at your posts, they see a bunch of non sequitors strung together that contain a bunch of wild claims gathered from creationist websites and new age mysticism websites. They also display a shocking lack of ability to communicate or think seriously about criticism. That’s basic reasoning applied to your posts. It is sad that you seem to be duped by these websites and I hope it doesn’t damage, too much, your ability to function in society.