27 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat I would like to see is for you to have at least a shred of intellectual integrity for once. Why is your view of consciousness so arbitrarily anthropocentric? Don't be so afraid of dissolving your ignorance and learning something: you can admit that lots of other species have the capacity for at least basic forms of consciousness and yet still cling to your cherished idea that humans are the darlings of the cosmic order.
thank you for your advise, naturally i will dismiss it as one would any other piece of sensationalistic journalism. science may teach us of the world around us, it certainly does not teach us how to live and be happy! and for the record i never denied that young humans do not have consciousness, i said that i did not know, for i have never thought ...[text shortened]... aterial from others, why don't you try to have an original think about things, its not so hard.
and for the record i never denied that young humans do not have consciousness, i said that i did not know, for i have never thought about it at any great length.
Right, the question of whether or not a newborn human is conscious gives you pause merely because of the species membership involved. But, you don't have any pause in dismissing out of hand as preposterous the idea that non-humans possess consciousness. Hey, when I ask about the consciousness of non-humans, you quickly give me some stupid crap about how your rabbits don't talk to you and don't contemplate the past and don't plan for the future. Well, newborn humans don't do those things either. If you're going to remain ignorant, at least be consistent and quickly admit that newborn humans aren't conscious (according to your own ignorant standards).
Of course, a better solution is for you to educate yourself more fully on 'consciousness' and the many different levels on which the term can be employed. Then you would see clearly that lots of species possess the capacity for consciousness (but with many cases on differing levels of consciousness). Perhaps you would also be able to identify specific higher-order levels of consciousness that are unique to humans. That would allow you to more reasonably recast your earlier ridiculous assertion (in another thread) that consciousness is unique to humans.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloi have not admitted , not not once, that other species have consciousness, why do you keep attributing statements and ideas , that i do not have?
What I would like to see is for you to have at least a shred of intellectual integrity for once. Why is your view of consciousness so arbitrarily anthropocentric? Don't be so afraid of dissolving your ignorance and learning something: you can admit that lots of other species have the capacity for at least basic forms of consciousness and yet still cling ...[text shortened]... rlier ridiculous assertion (in another thread) that consciousness is unique to humans.
27 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWTF? I know you don't admit that other species have consciousness. That's the whole point. You claimed in another thread that consciousness is unique to humans. The utter ridiculousness of this claim (and that level of ignorance you have that informs it) is exactly what I am addressing.
i have not admitted , not not once, that other species have consciousness, why do you keep attributing statements and ideas , that i do not have?
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by LemonJellook look, ill tell you what ill do, i have only very recently built a rather splendid abode for my rabbits, (it is a two tier affair, with en-suite rooms and a little ramp that lets them in and out of their now spacious enclosure) for they were complaining of the rather inadequate and somewhat ghastly nature of their previous one. we shall get together at its inauguration, and debate the matter and see what we can come up with. you cant ask fairer than that, can you?
WTF? I know you don't admit that other species have consciousness. That's the whole point. You claimed in another thread that consciousness is unique to humans. The utter ridiculousness of this claim (and that level of ignorance you have that informs it) is exactly what I am addressing.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's right, just keep on being ignorant. I don't know how many times now I have told you this: you ought to be ashamed of yourself and the way you just refuse to engage topics with any intellectual integrity.
ok look, ill tell you what ill do, i have only very recently built a rather splendid abode for my rabbits, (it is a two tier affair, with en-suite rooms and a little ramp that lets them in and out of their now spacious enclosure) for they were complaining of the rather inadequate and somewhat ghastly nature of their previous one. we shall get togeth ...[text shortened]... and debate the matter and see what we can come up with. you cant ask fairer than that, can you?
Yeah, okay, rabbits aren't conscious because they don't talk your language and don't debate with you. 🙄
Try getting a clue.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust as it looked like you were about to learn something here Robbie, the hatches came down, the hands went over your eyes, and your internal dialogue went something like this.
ok look, ill tell you what ill do, i have only very recently built a rather splendid abode for my rabbits, (it is a two tier affair, with en-suite rooms and a little ramp that lets them in and out of their now spacious enclosure) for they were complaining of the rather inadequate and somewhat ghastly nature of their previous one. we shall get togeth ...[text shortened]... and debate the matter and see what we can come up with. you cant ask fairer than that, can you?
'He makes so much sense, i feel myself starting to understand...........but NO!!!!!!!!!!...........The Watchtower is right, i must obey the Watchtower,...........must. Humans aren't animals, humans aren't animals, humans aren't animals.'
And you end making some crap joke about your rabbits again. Dude get back on the herb and start popping a few tabs again, you're gonna learn more about the world that way than reading copies of the Watchtower.
27 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobactually it was his use of expletives noobster, you cannot expect to enter into dialogue, in a civilised society with someone issuing forth statements in this manner. i had no intention whatsoever of entering into a dialouge with melony yellow, why he does not recognise this, i do not know. as for learning, well, that is something else! if you are to be a teacher, then is it not imperative that you take the background and educational level of your students into consideration? does one give higher maths to primary four students? he has his definition of consciousness , i have mine, i have not proffered to state what that it, yet once again, i am deemed to be close minded and ignorant? my reference to my rabbits is not a joke, on the contrary, if they are truly conscious as we humans are, for you people seem intent on making the assertion that we are no different, then it is not I who have the problem, but you!
Just as it looked like you were about to learn something here Robbie, the hatches came down, the hands went over your eyes, and your internal dialogue went something like this.
'He makes so much sense, i feel myself starting to understand...........but NO!!!!!!!!!!...........The Watchtower is right, i must obey the Watchtower,...........must. Humans a n, you're gonna learn more about the world that way than reading copies of the Watchtower.
science may teach you of the world, it cannot teach you how to live nor how to be happy, or perhaps we should look at applied Darwinism in action, shall we?
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStop being so soft. What are you a man or a mouse? Aren't you a fellow country of the great Robert the Bruce? Did he turn up at Bannockburn and refuse to fight becasue the English used a few fruity words?
actually it was his use of expletives noobster, you cannot expect to enter into dialogue, in a civilised society with someone issuing forth statements in this manner. i had no intention whatsoever of entering into a dialouge with melony yellow, why he does not recognise this, i do not know. as for learning, well, that is something else! if you are ...[text shortened]... to live nor how to be happy, or perhaps we should look at applied Darwinism in action, shall we?
Correction. People aren't making the assertion that we are no diffeernt than animals, that's just another 'straw man' argument that you have concocted in your head. It seems to be something that you do very often.
science may teach you of the world, it cannot teach you how to live nor how to be happy
True. But i don't need to invent fairytale Gods to do that either.
27 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobi am not saying that you do, noobster me ol son, however, would you enter into a variation of the queens gambit declined, with out any prior experience, no, for you would be a lamb to the slaughter, for them 1.d4 players are very well versed and tricky.
Stop being so soft. What are you a man or a mouse? Aren't you a fellow country of the great Robert the Bruce? Did he turn up at Bannockburn and refuse to fight becasue the English used a few fruity words?
Correction. People aren't making the assertion that we are no diffeernt than animals, that's just another 'straw man' argument that you have concoc ...[text shortened]... how to be happy
True. But i don't need to invent fairytale Gods to do that either.[/b]
i need to go to work noobster, my wife is hassling me like mad, gulp!
27 Aug 09
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou cannot seem to follow simple discussions. I didn't claim anywhere that we are no different from rabbits. Try going back and figuring out what I did actually say. You can admit that rabbits are conscious and yet still hold that rabbit consciousness and rabbit mentality is different in many regards from ours.
actually it was his use of expletives noobster, you cannot expect to enter into dialogue, in a civilised society with someone issuing forth statements in this manner. i had no intention whatsoever of entering into a dialouge with melony yellow, why he does not recognise this, i do not know. as for learning, well, that is something else! if you are ...[text shortened]... to live nor how to be happy, or perhaps we should look at applied Darwinism in action, shall we?
science may teach you of the world, it cannot teach you how to live
So what's the problem? Whether or not humans are animals (or, as another example, whether or not consciousness is unique to humans) are just descriptive inquiries. Whatever the answer, it wouldn't have any implications regarding value claims or regarding how one ought to live. So why are you afraid to engage such topics?
See, you religious nutters are always putting forth contradictory nonsense on this particular matter. You say on one hand that scientific claims cannot deliver normative implications or value claims (and that's one reason why, you claim, we need religion to give us guidance). On the other hand, you're basically telling me that if I accept that humans are animals (or, as another example, that consciousness is not unique to humans), then I will have a problem of thereby denigrating human value. That is nothing more than you contradicting yourself. If descriptive claims cannot implicate anything regarding value, then my accepting that, for example, it is descriptively the case that humans are animals cannot just thereby commit me to anything regarding human value status. Make up your mind: either scientific deliverances have implications regarding value, or they don't.
A related sleight of hand here is that if I claim that humans are animals, some religious nutter will tell me that I have just thereby committed myself to the idea that humans are "just" animals, with (vague) value connotations. But that doesn't follow at all.
28 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you going to address any of my concerns? I know you like to play the wounded theist whenever you don't actually have any substantive counter-argument. And then you go out and call others 'muppets' as it suits you.
then why do you visit the spirituality forum and try to converse with aforementioned 'nutters', does it not seem rather strange to you? it does to me, but i thank you for your condescension it is truly refreshing! Hazel says hello by the way!
And I know you have co-opted the term 'spirituality' and labor under the delusion that it has something inherently to do with your religiosity. But it just doesn't. You nutters and your ideas and ways are often just the weeds that sprout up in the garden of spirituality. People plant gardens in spite of the weeds, and in the same way, I come to the forum in spite of the nutters.
28 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJellono, I am watching dexter and dee dee, that's substantiation enough not to have to engage you in conversation. i have built a thin raft of friends on this site, especially in the spirituality forum, I am learning from some and have chosen to reject others, its what's termed discernment. i really have nothing to say to you, can you not condescend to teach someone else the art of strimming ones way through the spirituality forum, and firing rockets into cyber space with vague references to religiosity spray painted on the side? please go away and learn what this means
Are you going to address any of my concerns? I know you like to play the wounded theist whenever you don't actually have any substantive counter-argument. And then you go out and call others 'muppets' as it suits you.
And I know you have co-opted the term 'spirituality' and labor under the delusion that it has something inherently to do with your rel s in spite of the weeds, and in the same way, I come to the forum in spite of the nutters.
(Matthew 5:3) . . .“Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need. . .
and have a good evening besides, i really harbour no ill will against you lemonyjello, its just i have nothing to say to you, that's all. Now if you do not mind, i really love watching dexters lab, cya!
28 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have no idea what you're talking about.
i am not saying that you do, noobster me ol son, however, would you enter into a variation of the queens gambit declined, with out any prior experience, no, for you would be a lamb to the slaughter, for them 1.d4 players are very well versed and tricky.
i need to go to work noobster, my wife is hassling me like mad, gulp!