Freewill exists

[surreptitious75]

There is no evidence that anything other than biological organisms are capable of consciousness
Inanimate objects have no neurological system or mind so cannot be conscious in any real sense
Panpsychism has no evidence to support it and is just a pseudo scientific belief and nothing else

[Karpel Tunnel]

There is no evidence that anything other than biological organisms are capable of consciousness

Which does not constitute evidence that it is not possible. You stated that it was not the case.

Inanimate objects have no neurological system or mind so cannot be conscious in any real sense

1) we do not know if neurological systems are necessary for consciousness. Plants are now being regarded by many scientists as conscious, but do not have nervous systems. Most importantly, we can only test for functions - memory, response, etc. - function and consciousness may not be dependent on each other. IOW there may be bare awareness without functions we associate with consciousness. Note: we have had a long bias: and this has been embarrassingly true within science, of not granting consciousness to animals. In fact it would damage one's career to even mention consciousness, desire, intention, etc. in relation to animals. That bias towards waht is like us gets granted consciousness, and even then reluctantly, continues today. And imagine who stupid those scientists looked to pet owners, animal trainers, indigenous people and so on, babbling on about no evidence.

Panpsychism has no evidence to support it and is just a pseudo scientific belief and nothing else

There is evidence, but it is not accepted in the mainstream of science yet. Just as animal consciousness and then more recently plant consciousness met with incredible resistence. Certain people set the default at consciousness is a radical exception and they have looked down for hundreds of years on people who had nearly the opposite default. That default had no evidence. And I notice that the advocates of that consciousness is the radical exception bias 1) never notice a distinction between function and consciousness in this discussion 2) never remember the embarassing history of their punishing even their own, up to the 60s and 70s even, for granting animals consciousness.

The bias is strong.

The people who just noticed awareness where scientists could not found them amazingly strange.

[Artimas]

Consciousness should be defined as the ability to understand complexity.

The animals/plants should be defined as subconscious, the ability to possess knowledge, (awareness and instinct but not aware of those instincts, not understanding without a direct experience/result, very basic.).

The things like basic matter that isn't aware, should be defined as unconscious, (instinctive only.)

Instinct is the basic premise or foundation of consciousness so yes, everything is technically alive.. Just not with the ability to understand consciously.

Instinct should be defined as the conscious or non-conscious action of reacting with something else or a pursuit in reaction, embedded pursuit of change by reacting to other stimuli. Which change is inevitable..

There are steps.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Consciousness should be defined as the ability to understand.

The animals should be defined as subconscious, the ability to possess knowledge, (awareness and instinct but not aware of those instincts, not understanding.). The things like basic matter that isn't aware, should be defined as unconscious, (instinctive only.)

Instinct is the basic premise of consciousness so yes, everything is technically alive.. Just not with the ability to understand consciously.

Instinct should be defined as the conscious or non-conscious action of reacting with something else or a pursuit in reaction, embedded pursuit of change by reacting to other stimuli. Which change is inevitable..

There are steps.

Consciousness is another way of saying experiencing. Animals experience. They are aware of things, for example, in their visual field. They are not just subconsciously aware, they are consciously aware. You are mixing a bunch of different kinds of ideas. And please, let's not get into a discussion of whether they are 'as' conscious as us. That is a whole, different discussion. They have consciousness, the experience, they are aware of things. Yes, they have unconscious processes and arguments that these exert more control over their actions and choices can be quite strong arguments. But that is another issue. They are aware, they experience, they have consciousness. And we do not know what does not have consciousness.

[Artimas]

Consciousness should be defined as the ability to understand.

The animals should be defined as subconscious, the ability to possess knowledge, (awareness and instinct but not aware of those instincts, not understanding.). The things like basic matter that isn't aware, should be defined as unconscious, (instinctive only.)

Instinct is the basic premise of consciousness so yes, everything is technically alive.. Just not with the ability to understand consciously. Along with matter in general.

Instinct should be defined as the conscious or non-conscious action of reacting with something else or a pursuit in reaction, embedded pursuit of change by reacting to other stimuli. Which change is inevitable..

There are steps.

Consciousness is another way of saying experiencing. Animals experience. They are aware of things, for example, in their visual field. They are not just subconsciously aware, they are consciously aware. You are mixing a bunch of different kinds of ideas. And please, let's not get into a discussion of whether they are 'as' conscious as us. That is a whole, different discussion. They have consciousness, the experience, they are aware of things. Yes, they have unconscious processes and arguments that these exert more control over their actions and choices can be quite strong arguments. But that is another issue. They are aware, they experience, they have consciousness. And we do not know what does not have consciousness.

It's only because animals and plants too are moving up while we do. Monkeys/apes are in the stone age.

Everything is on a different level of consciousness. That's the point I am making. But we should fix the semantics. Instead of just saying "oh hey, that stone is conscious" the point of philosophy is for us to understand each other and isolate these terms so we can create better differentiation for complex things to be understood easier, especially when we die and are no longer present to defend those positions.

Consciousness implies too much by context, what is behind the word is too complex and doesn't show a differentiation when there clearly is one or multiple.

We need to be clear, like a chameleon on a window.

[surreptitious75]

I accept that animals and plants and maybe even bacteria have consciousness because they are all biological organisms
I would even accept that it could also exist elsewhere but not until any empirical evidence actually demonstrates this

Sometimes language can be confusing in relation to this :

Physicists talk about stars dying when they can no longer convert hydrogen into helium
The implication here is that while they are capable of doing this they are actually alive

They may very well be so but is this actually the exact same type of alive that animals are ?
Stars are very dynamic and energetic but they are not actually conscious as we are are they ?

The same language is used about the Universe in relation to heat death
Again the implication is that before that happens it is very much alive

I am alive because I am conscious but is there a cut off point where I am not alive ?
Are the hydrogen and carbon atoms that I am made of also alive or are they dead ?

Where exactly does something become alive - the sub atomic level - atomic level - molecular level - cell level - protein level ?
Is this even a valid question to be asking or is it as equally unanswerable as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?

And what about machines of the future that will be able to pass a Turing Test - will they be conscious ?
I do think it is inevitable that artificial intelligence will be regarded as such at some point in the future

But do we think there is consciousness and non consciousness simply because we like to put all of our definitions into nice neat little boxes ?
For do we not understand by now that our mapping of reality is not the same as actual reality but instead is merely an approximation of it ?

[Ecmandu]

You're talking about billiard balls as neurons. Nobody considers billiard balls to be sentient.

The truth is, no matter how you look at it, we are using neurons to decide how we want neurons to fire.

I made a mistake in this post because I was too lazy to deal with the fallout. For a shaman, there is no problem talking about the "billiard ball spirit"; that they communicate with this.

Let me ask you a question to this regard, how do you know that the billiard balls are not controlling US! To be moved to where they want to be moved to?

And again! We know for a scientific fact, that we are using neurons to decide how we want neurons fire.

What's interesting about this exchange is that I dropped a good 5 arguments or so in this thread to move to this one, but silhouette considers this defeat, no! I can still defend those arguments with more content, I just decided to move on.

Hold this thread in it's entirety in your head and ask yourself if silhouette demolished it.

[surreptitious75]

Let me ask you a question to this regard how do you know that the billiard balls are not controlling US

Because like any classical object they move according to Newtons Three Laws Of Motion
And they have to obey these laws as they cannot just move anywhere that they want to

[surreptitious75]

We know for a scientific fact that we are using neurons to decide how we want neurons to fire

We are not really conscious of neurons when we are doing any deep thinking though
We focus on what it is we are thinking about not the mechanics behind that process

[Ecmandu]

Let me ask you a question to this regard how do you know that the billiard balls are not controlling US

Because like any classical object they move according to Newtons Three Laws Of Motion
And they have to obey these laws as they cannot just move anywhere that they want to

*buzzer sounds*

Wrong answer surreptitious75!

Next contestant please!

You have ZERO way of knowing that!

They may not be able to move in a way the WE think of as independent, BUT! As a different species, the only way they can move is to control us!

[Ecmandu]

We know for a scientific fact that we are using neurons to decide how we want neurons to fire

We are not really conscious of neurons when we are doing any deep thinking though
We focus on what it is we are thinking about not the mechanics behind that process

And our thinking outside the mechanics of it solves as the same, we are using our will to determine our will.

Now we have the tools to say that even at the mechanical level, we are using neurons to determine how we want neurons to function.

[surreptitious75]

Billiard balls are inanimate objects not a different species [ whatever that means ]
So stop attributing mental capabilities to things that have no capacity for free will

[Ecmandu]

Billiard balls are inanimate objects not a different species [ whatever that means ]
So stop attributing mental capabilities to things that have no capacity for free will

You have lived a quite sheltered life. Aren't you the same one who thinks that if we cease to exist, that we can exist right now? (Contradiction) (that We die in totality at brain death?)

[surreptitious75]

So because I do not think that billiard balls are conscious I must have lived a sheltered life ?
What a ridiculous non sequitur - you seem to be rather good at them - they your speciality ?
You have an interesting relationship with reality Ecmandu if you really believe what you say

[surreptitious75]

I think death is simply a transition from consciousness to non consciousness and nothing more
But everything dies including the Universe - you might have heard of this thing called entropy

[Ecmandu]

So because I do not think that billiard balls are conscious I must have lived a sheltered life ?
What a ridiculous non sequitur - you seem to be rather good at them - they your speciality ?
You have an interesting relationship with reality Ecmandu if you really believe what you say

Every shaman who has ever lived in planet earth not only believes but operates their entire life under the knowledge that every object has its own spirit.

Like them, I have seen it.

Yes, you exist in a very narrow bandwidth of life knowledge.

Children know this too, but they have it beaten out of them by "education"

[Ecmandu]

I think death is simply a transition from consciousness to non consciousness and nothing more
But everything dies including the Universe - you might have heard of this thing called entropy

If the universe dies, you right now, being a subset of the universe, couldn't possibly be here.

Did you ever think of that?

As we engage in this, I am expanding your consciousness, school took it from you.

[surreptitious75]

I do not use the imaginations of shamen to inform me of my understanding of reality
So do you have any actual evidence for panpsychism or are you just babbling as usual

[Ecmandu]

I do not use the imaginations of shamen to inform me of my understanding of reality
So do you have any actual evidence for panpsychism or are you just babbling as usual

How about the imagination of every child born on earth, including you?

[surreptitious75]

The Universe will eventually die though it will still exist in a physical state
It just wont be able to produce any atoms at a fraction above absolute zero
So it will therefore be nothing more than a vacuum of near virtual emptiness

[Ecmandu]

The Universe will eventually die though it will still exist in a physical state
It just wont be able to produce any atoms at a fraction above absolute zero
So it will therefore be nothing more than a vacuum of near virtual emptiness

You're a subset of you dying.

If YOU die at any point in the future, the subset of you now, your complete death, couldn't possibly be here right now.

Did you ever think of that?

[surreptitious75]

You appear to have convinced yourself that immortality is actually possible but you may be disappointed
I have no need for this belief because I have no fear of death and so will accept it when the time comes

[Ecmandu]

You appear to have convinced yourself that immortality is actually possible but you may be disappointed
I have no need for this belief because I have no fear of death and so will accept it when the time comes

I wanted to die eternally. Turns out that it's not possible. Go figure. It sounded great to me, dying eternally, it was the force and only meaning of my life!!

With a billion times more power than you ever put into it!!!!!

Turns out, it's impossible.

Man was I pissed!

[Ecmandu]

Silhouette, I didn't want this buried:

viewtopic.php?p=2729635#p2729635

[Karpel Tunnel]

I think death is simply a transition from consciousness to non consciousness and nothing more
But everything dies including the Universe - you might have heard of this thing called entropy

There are many reasons to believe that things will not end with the heat death of the universe. Check out the popular, in physics, cosmologies. The fact that the universe sprang into existence or seemed to, in a radically anti-entropic event, indicates that the second law either does not hold always or is local or some other options.