3 ms·

What is a rock though? Is it not just a construct? A piece of dead skin on the surface of a living rock? Is it not like saying a synapse is not conscious becaus

by cam_l 8y ago

What is a rock though? Is it not just a construct? A piece of dead skin on the surface of a living rock? Is it not like saying a synapse is not conscious because it doesn't have a brain? The issue is not with the op's argument, it is with the nature of (our) reality. We are not saying anything because we are talking semantics. This is about definitions, not reality. The differences between a rock and a human mind are semantic constructs built on sensory constructs. Semantics are all circular.. and we lack the philosophical construct to understand circular argument.

3pt14159 8y ago
> What is a rock though? What is the purpose of this question if a rock is anything but? I'm not arguing you're wrong I'm arguing that if there is a debate here it's circularly inconsistent because it presupposes that words have meaning by sole virtue of their own ineptitude. I see no proof that truth is knowable by a mind (in our world, anyway) so at some level I agree with you that it's circular on a multitude of levels but this argument goes no where and to argue the other side of it (that a rock is a mind) to me amounts to someone saying something along the lines of "words have no purpose" it's even worse than circular dependancy it's circularly _inconsistent_.
- cam_l 8y ago
  Hence my point that our reality is the issue, rather than the argument. If we are using language which is inept, ie. unable to capture the reality, then how is cementing the meaning of that language supposed to help? Are we supposed to limit our understanding of reality by limiting the questions we ask of the language with which we articulate it? Or another way, how can we ask what consciousness is for a person or an animal or a computer, of we cannot answer it of a rock? It is not at all to suggest that words have no purpose or are meaningless. Words are currently our best definition of consciousness.

by cam_l 8y ago

3pt14159 8y ago

> What is a rock though? What is the purpose of this question if a rock is anything but? I'm not arguing you're wrong I'm arguing that if there is a debate here it's circularly inconsistent because it presupposes that words have meaning by sole virtue of their own ineptitude. I see no proof that truth is knowable by a mind (in our world, anyway) so at some level I agree with you that it's circular on a multitude of levels but this argument goes no where and to argue the other side of it (that a rock is a mind) to me amounts to someone saying something along the lines of "words have no purpose" it's even worse than circular dependancy it's circularly _inconsistent_.

cam_l 8y ago
Hence my point that our reality is the issue, rather than the argument. If we are using language which is inept, ie. unable to capture the reality, then how is cementing the meaning of that language supposed to help? Are we supposed to limit our understanding of reality by limiting the questions we ask of the language with which we articulate it? Or another way, how can we ask what consciousness is for a person or an animal or a computer, of we cannot answer it of a rock? It is not at all to suggest that words have no purpose or are meaningless. Words are currently our best definition of consciousness.