3 ms·

Except you were not replying to the nautilus article, you were replying to the one i posted by Grosz. You might like to have a read of it, it does not makes the

by cam_l 8y ago

Except you were not replying to the nautilus article, you were replying to the one i posted by Grosz. You might like to have a read of it, it does not makes the claims you are suggesting.

acqq 8y ago
> by Grosz. You might like to have a read of it, it does not makes the claims you are suggesting. I have read it. That article cites others, so you can wiggle out that it doesn't make claims alone, but what is inside is the same worthless "idea": "sub-atomic particles have a primary consciousness, an immediate self-perception or self-survey, an overflight without distance, immediately in touch with itself and its Umwelt, which in the case of the particle, includes not only the other particles comprising the atom but perhaps the entirety of all particles, the universe itself. Like the embryo, the brain or any living thing, sub-atomic particles act their being, perceive themselves, form and maintain themselves" Of course that idea is supported by... nothing but the trick that if we redefine consciousness as the interaction of anything with its environment (and call the environment Umwelt to sound more clever), then everything is conscious. Duh. However, scientifically, most of the animals have to be self aware, at least enough to survive: they have to differently handle their own body and their own situation in the environment compared to the surroundings. And that is the real limit: consciousness as we know it is a product of the evolution.
- cam_l 8y ago
  1. I was specifically replying to the flagged poster (flagged for good reason as they are being derisive without warrant), who let on that they did not actually mean to reply to my post. 2. Not wiggling, fuck i am not saying anything at all apart from that it does not make the claims they were suggesting—which it does not. I just said I liked the article. I like that it navigates a coherent path through a concept which is often quite.. far fetched. Gives framework around how to see consciousness differently without making any claims about consciousness than that which is observed. But seriously, the idea that you must take on the entirety of a cannon if you make reference to it (even when expressly arguing against it) is, how shall I put this nicely.. just fucking ridiculous. 3. You seem to suggest we should rest on our current conceptual understanding of various types of consciousness rather than trying to figure out how break them down into their constituent parts. Very scientific. >to sound more clever Really, why the snark? seems you don't understand how philosophy (or language for that matter works). The terms are used to maintain a meaning explained and argued previously, and to avoid common language meanings unrelated to the concept. What you said would be like chiding a mathematician for using esoteric terms like 'imaginary numbers'. edit: In the best humor, despite my better judgement, edited structure for clarity.
  - acqq 8y ago
    I'm sorry your response is so incoherent that I can't, even though I wish, contribute any more to this thread of the discussion.
    - cam_l 8y ago
      I'm sorry you cannot read, or argue in good faith.
      - acqq 8y ago
        Even after the edit it's content- and sense-free, sorry.
        cam_l 8y ago
        Wow, you are hilarious. Perhaps i should not have engaged with your original troll. I just thought it funny that it included the most misguided of arguments. There surely are plenty of other, real arguments you could have used (which might have been an interesting conversation), or even plenty of valid criticisms of the paper that did not involve: 1.scare quotes ("ideas") 2.questioning the basis of academic enquiry (no, a cite does not take on an oeuvre) 3.questioning the basis of language (words do actually contain specific meanings) 4.just restating the problem. I guess instead of admitting your original post was without merit, or even doubling down and proving me wrong, you just abdicated, in the most withering way (and then doubled down on your abdication.. pathetic).

by cam_l 8y ago

Except you were not replying to the nautilus article, you were replying to the one i posted by Grosz. You might like to have a read of it, it does not makes the claims you are suggesting.

acqq 8y ago

> by Grosz. You might like to have a read of it, it does not makes the claims you are suggesting. I have read it. That article cites others, so you can wiggle out that it doesn't make claims alone, but what is inside is the same worthless "idea": "sub-atomic particles have a primary consciousness, an immediate self-perception or self-survey, an overflight without distance, immediately in touch with itself and its Umwelt, which in the case of the particle, includes not only the other particles comprising the atom but perhaps the entirety of all particles, the universe itself. Like the embryo, the brain or any living thing, sub-atomic particles act their being, perceive themselves, form and maintain themselves" Of course that idea is supported by... nothing but the trick that if we redefine consciousness as the interaction of anything with its environment (and call the environment Umwelt to sound more clever), then everything is conscious. Duh. However, scientifically, most of the animals have to be self aware, at least enough to survive: they have to differently handle their own body and their own situation in the environment compared to the surroundings. And that is the real limit: consciousness as we know it is a product of the evolution.

cam_l 8y ago
1. I was specifically replying to the flagged poster (flagged for good reason as they are being derisive without warrant), who let on that they did not actually mean to reply to my post. 2. Not wiggling, fuck i am not saying anything at all apart from that it does not make the claims they were suggesting—which it does not. I just said I liked the article. I like that it navigates a coherent path through a concept which is often quite.. far fetched. Gives framework around how to see consciousness differently without making any claims about consciousness than that which is observed. But seriously, the idea that you must take on the entirety of a cannon if you make reference to it (even when expressly arguing against it) is, how shall I put this nicely.. just fucking ridiculous. 3. You seem to suggest we should rest on our current conceptual understanding of various types of consciousness rather than trying to figure out how break them down into their constituent parts. Very scientific. >to sound more clever Really, why the snark? seems you don't understand how philosophy (or language for that matter works). The terms are used to maintain a meaning explained and argued previously, and to avoid common language meanings unrelated to the concept. What you said would be like chiding a mathematician for using esoteric terms like 'imaginary numbers'. edit: In the best humor, despite my better judgement, edited structure for clarity.
- acqq 8y ago
  I'm sorry your response is so incoherent that I can't, even though I wish, contribute any more to this thread of the discussion.
  - cam_l 8y ago
    I'm sorry you cannot read, or argue in good faith.
    - acqq 8y ago
      Even after the edit it's content- and sense-free, sorry.
      - cam_l 8y ago
        Wow, you are hilarious. Perhaps i should not have engaged with your original troll. I just thought it funny that it included the most misguided of arguments. There surely are plenty of other, real arguments you could have used (which might have been an interesting conversation), or even plenty of valid criticisms of the paper that did not involve: 1.scare quotes ("ideas") 2.questioning the basis of academic enquiry (no, a cite does not take on an oeuvre) 3.questioning the basis of language (words do actually contain specific meanings) 4.just restating the problem. I guess instead of admitting your original post was without merit, or even doubling down and proving me wrong, you just abdicated, in the most withering way (and then doubled down on your abdication.. pathetic).