quickquestion

Dogs and cats have high intensity "other" consciousness. They also have communications skills and intelligence skills. I would hazard a guess and say babies have less sentience than dogs or cats. Baby consciousness is essentially just whining around, where as dogs and cats are cunning predators and can detect emotions of humans.

some days my depression gets real bad. and i lose the motivation to do anything. I think that if earth wasn't such a garbage world the quality of science would increase. Science wouldn't even be a "thing" just a basic piece of conversation like music. Instead of "Oh, did you listen to the latest Pop tunes" people would discuss equations with each other. I remember googling something and it showed scientific evidence that depression decreases intelligence in the brain. When i am depressed I dont feel as smart...and the sad thing is that during these moments I dont even care. I dont remember what search terms I put exactly so I can't find the link. basically, i hate this world and i wish for a better world. basically if i was a character on the big bang theory or Eureka i would be an anti-social villian.

Ok, here is an example of a Tyre Curve: This is totally missing a dimension: speed. If a car is going 1 mile per hour...shouldn't it have 100% grip and no slip at all times? Similarly, if a car is going 200 mph sideways, shouldn't it have much less grip than the diagram implies? So I'm basically unsure how to approach this in terms of using this for realistic car physics.

Hate is a neurological alert system to alert the organism that something in it's environment is damaging/potentially going to damaging it. It is very similar to pain. For example, people when they say "I hate Justin Bieber" are really saying "I hate him because his music damages or annoys me and causes me pain, and I also hate him because he has a lot of social power to continually damage me in such a manner." Forgiveness, tolerance, and acceptance, is a last resort option...like if you are too weak to fight being terminally ill, that you just "roll" with being terminally ill and accept your defeat. Or like if Alien overlords take over Earth and make you their slaves, instead of fighting back, you just say "I'm down with the alien overlords and I forgive and accept them, even though they make my life hell".

The question is not whether a Canon has consciousness, but whether or not if a Canon had consciousness, would the Canon be able to see in color?

I'm no expert on Langrangians, but from what Wikipedia implies, Langrangian physics is more useful to simulations than Newtonian physics. Now what I mean by friction force being fictitious, is that Yes, friction exists, but it is not a single-vector thrust force like the Newton diagrams imply. And yes, the Fmax uS and uK components are somewhat derived from reality so they have some moderate usefulness. But in terms of simulations, treating friction like a single-thrust vector can become kind of problematic. Also, I don't know what you mean by factually fractional.

Now this I agree. I don't think people should be judged by their credentials, but whether or not what they are saying is logically solid. I made my position regarding brain death clear and if you were not sure what my position on it was, that shows me you are not taking the time to read my writings in depth and are missing some things and probably missing out on vital concepts of what I am saying. Probably because, you just want to read fast and quickly so you can teach me your position of how you view things afterwards (probably because it makes you feel like a historian/librarian/encyclopedia brown/teacher kind of feeling.) Doesn't this paragraph contradict your earlier logic when you said I was wrong for saying "We know consciousness is in other brains"? I mean, you are now litterally saying we can know consciousness is in other brains. So in that spirit I am going to contradict myself, and say we actually don't know consciousness is in leucotomy patients. Unless you yourself have had a leucotomy, you don't actually know for certain it's affect on consciousness. And thus it brings me to my next point - consciousness discussions are never certainties, they are mostly based on gut instinct. When we talk with other people, we use our gut instincts and assume there is an "us" inside of them a being and not a pzombie. But we can never be sure. And this is the crux of consciousness discussions. Since the crux of consciousness discussions is about what feels reasonable, you can't just say say "Oh give me empirical evidence" over and over. How am I supposed to give you emperical evidence that someone else is not a pzombie? How am I supposed to empirically prove that someone is sentient and has awareness and consciousness? Constantly demanding for empirical evidence is absurd and ridiculous. We don't use empirical evidence, we just use our "gut" and say, my gut tells me solipsism is not real and other people are beings with feelings just like me. That being said, there IS one kind of empirical evidence that people refuse to explore regarding consciousness. Hospitals around the world REFUSE to put a paper-code above the bunk-bed of dying patients (Most of them don't even have bunk-beds, but all that is needed is perhaps a Food table above their eye-level.) THIS would be empirical evidence that we can leave our bodies, if they can leave their bodies during an NDE and correctly report the paper code (or mystery object) above eye level. Of course...noone will do this, because the world is ran by mostly just a bunch of idiots. Of all the billions of people in the world, of the few that can OBE on command, not one will setup anything scientific for me. I even go to hippie circles and I tell them..."Can we set up a science experiment and do this right" and they just ghost me and refuse to set up anything scientifically. I guarantee if I go to a hospital and instruct them how to set it up scientifically, they will just blow me off, give me the runaround and not setup anything in a scientific manner. I would want to prove, once and for all, whether or not OBE's are real. But noone want's to know. And it's obvious why they don't want to know. What you are describing is personality and ego. Not the core "us". When a cat yells at me and beckons me to open the door...that is the real "us". That animal awareness. And of course our personality dies with the brain. But I'm not 100% sure of that, it could be retained maybe, who knows. In any case, you seem to be conflating personality with "ou"/"us", and it's damping the discussion. Personality != Consciousness.

Hate is a consequence of cruelty. Snap your fingers and envy won't disappear. If 90% of the population is wealthy and has daily orgies, while the other 10% live in lovelessness and squalor...rest assured, blood will be shed.

By energy do you mean a couple of molecules floating out in a vacuum, very low energy, or do you mean a potential for energy? How much energy are we talking about here? Yes but my point was colors don't exist without Consciousness. A machine can only detect the wavelengths of photons as word-number, it cannot see the color red. At a fundamental level, Relative was not explaining things well. Basically, how I would explain it, is that the Sun is an energy emitter, and that we as Beings sense the Energy emitted from the Sun. So our eyes are Energy Sensors. So when Relative said "All is darkness" it doesn't make any sense. Because there is Energy in the universe, and we perceive this energy as the opposite of darkness.

Consciousness in that brain is nonexistent. But there is plenty of evidence of Consciousness in other brains after someone dies. May I ask, do you believe reincarnation is impossible or possible? EDITED since new members only get 5 posts. Ok, so you made the statement "The truest evidence of consciousness nonexistence occurs at brain death when minimal to no brain activity is detected. " That has equal value to the statement "There is evidence of consciousness in other brains." Essentially, what I am trying to say is you are being silly. Your method to determine the "nonexistence of consciousness in brains" is that you see zero electrical activity in their brains, and thus say it is reasonable to say there is no consciousness in those brains. (So far, you are right. It is reasonable to say there is probably not any consciousness in those brains.) But when you start to trip up, is when you say that using the almost exact same methodology (seeing electrical activity in brains, and saying there is probably consciousness in those brains) is unreasonable. (Hint, it is not unreasonable to say that electrical activity indicates a high probability of consciousness in brains.) Essentially what you are doing is using the solipsism argument when it is convenient, this isn't really interesting for scientific debate. It's a bit like having a philosophic discussion, and someone jumping in and saying "The flying spaghetti monster is real, and you can't prove it otherwise because he lives in another galaxy." I mean...sure the spaghetti monster could be real, sure solipism could be real, but get real. Furthermore, I also know that consciousness is in my brain...and there is a correlation to electrical activity and the amount of consciousness in my brain...and sure we could throw out all correlations out the window...saying others might not have consciousness even though they have the same electrical configurations...we could say that it was one giant conspiracy and our scientific instruments were part of some Grand Cosmos's conspiracy to deceive our very eyes, and that we can't say consciousness was really in our brains, since our brains were possibly an illusion made by Barney the Purple Dinosaur's Pinky toe... and all scientists and scientific journals were also holograms and all scientific data could be fake...Or, that everytime we do a logic, our memory is altered and half of we believe is actually false. Could happen. But not really conducive to getting anywhere in a discussion. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is also nothing to suggest that such a thing would be impossible. We already know spontaneous birth and entrance of consciousness is possible. So there is nothing to suggest that further spontaneous births and entrances of consciousness are impossible. Actually, in order for reincarnation to not happen, an infinite amount of time would have to occur where there is zero probability of consciousness ever becoming conscious of anything again, which seems very far fetched when you realize that none of us actually ever gave consent to be here - we just spontaneously existed. So it seems rather silly to believe that a series of utterly powerless individuals would suddenly have the inherent, unconscious ability to prevent any such spontaneous existences from happening in the future. I mean...sure if I jump off the Grand Canyon, a UFO from another galaxy detects I am an important being and teleports to me right the moment before I fall off, saving me... or sure, after 5 billion more years in the Cosmos, Spontaneous Consciousness never happens again...ok. In Eastern/Asian philosophy, believing you that don't reincarnate is like having a religious superstition... The whole goal of Buddhism is to learn how to NOT reincarnate...because reincarnation just seems like an apparent brutal fact of nature, like death and gravity. The idea that Buddha had the power to force himself to not reincarnate is the crux of the fairy tale.

I'm pretty sure humans observed the phenomenon of gravity long before Newton. What Newton did is write a bunch of convenient equations for people to use in physics modeling. Though, I am not too impressed by Newtonian diagrams of friction modeling - most of the diagrams in high school display a vector arrow to represent "Friction Force" in a somewhat fictitious manner...the diagrams do not actually list the quantity of friction force, only return an "Fmax" value that determines the uS or uK friction coefficient to be used. The amount of actual friction thrust force is "assumed" to be min(mass*velocity,uS or uK*weight) Of course, friction as thrust force is a fictious idea, since friction is more similar to a damping field or gear mechanism. Using Newtonian physics is problematic for modeling wheel physics, since wheels behave as a gear/cog on rails mechanism, not as a thrust force.

Reading through some of Relative (molecule's) posts, he inspired me to make a clear, scientific definition of what darkness and light is. Basically, much of what Relative was saying hurt my brain and didn't make much sense to me. But if he still checks backs on these boards, maybe he can read my ideas of what dark and light is. Darkness, is basically, a lack of energy. A stillness. Okay, let me rewrite this. Human darkness, is when the energy frequency is out of bounds (<4000 angstroms>8000). Also, to Bender. Giving a robot a color sensor will not say whether or not it can see in color. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness If I am browsing a black and white science document that tells me the wavelength of each color, I would not be seeing in color, only the numbers (an abstract reference of what color is.) Similarly, a simple robot would mostly likely know the numbers of colors, but not see in color. Creating a sentient robot is very dangerous if you do not know the secrets of consciousness...you could create a very unhappy being...imagine creating a person that never feels happiness. Or if it's circuits were wired in such a way where it always felt pain, but it was programmed in such a way that it would not say it was not in pain when it was. Light is like a vibration on the ocean, a wind. We have evolved to feel this wind as different colors. Simply by changing the width of the sine waves, our Conscious perceives it as a kind of color. Basically, the sun is an entity that generates waves outward from where it is. So when you think about it like this, "color" doesn't really exist without Consciousness converting the sine waves into "Consciousness's Color". The "color" changes when the width of the sine waves changes. Just like the taste of grape doesn't really exist as a mathematical quantity, consciousness converts the mathematical shape and pattern of activated neurons into the taste of grape - the hard problem of qualia. I wonder if Relative was trying to say something along these lines, but in a very inarticulate way.