That’ll be up to Sheldon. I will be the blushing bride and Cog is already my first pick. He looks GREAT in pink.
And you look good in a purple dinosaur suit singing funny songs and doing a dumb laugh lmao 
You’re not gonna try to pretend you are a virgin during your honeymoon, are you?
Hey. What can I say. The kids are our future.
I think everyone knows this isn’t my first rodeo, Tin Man! If you know what I mean. I can say with a smile that I’ve wrestled a few “bulls” in my day. Even had a run in or two with a few “bears” wink wink, nudge nudge.
But I wanna play with @Nyarlathotep.
Seriously. You don’t read a whole post before you reply do you?
I get the aching feeling in my brain that you basically pick things apart as you go. That’s the case, isn’t it?
The longer the post, the more banal shit spit you spew out your pie hole.
Mmm. Quite so. However the consciousness of a memory is not. It is non-physical. It is non-material. That much is obvious. You can neither isolate it nor measure it. You can measure the underlying process which produces it. But you can’t measure the product itself. And as for how exactly you think that is the case, I am still waiting. I am also waiting for an admission that consciousness is immaterial from you. Contrary to your assumptions, I was able to provide adequate proof of that fact. You have yet to acknowledge it. Which is also, incidentally, why you refuse to answer the mind-body question.
Sounds? We’ve dealt with that already. Have you forgotten? Or just ignored the problem. The process is physical. Vibrations are created in the air after things like “laughing” “sneezing” and “coughing”.
It’s very simple Sheldon. If you can express the nature of a perception in an entirely physical way, I will admit defeat.
Until then, the perception of a sound is immaterial whereas the production of a sound is material.
I actually feel sorry for you. In all honesty I know you have a problem. You have some kind of attention deficit problem or you’re on the spectrum at the very least.
Somehow, I feel like you can be reached. I absolutely abhor replying to every mental masturbation you jerk into existence. But for now, there’s a chance you’ll admit you’re wrong.
The process which produces consciousness is material. The product itself is not. And for fucks sake you douche. Can you even admit to your self that your very own experience of consciousness is immaterial? Jesus Christus.
If you can’t admit a subjective experience of consciousness, how can you establish that it is even real? Why should I believe you’re conscious?
Do you have a point?
It’s hard to believe this needs explaining to anyone, but reading the posts of others is not mandatory, so doing it then complaining that you find the facts and logic in it boring is pretty fucking hilarious, but also extremely stupid thing to say, to keep repeating your whining claim is a level of idiocy that’s hard to fathom. Read them, don’t read them, but ffs stop being such a fucking crybaby.
Nope, still just a completely unevidenced superstitious assumption you’re making, and all the while ignoring multiple arguments and ample evidence against your claims. try the weighing thing again that was pretty funny, oh I forgot when your superstitious bs is dismantled you just roll on, now is that honest debating I wonder?
Can you measure a laugh? How about an itch, or a headache? This assertion was already destroyed, shifting the goal posts dishonestly from weighing to measuring won’t help.
Ah so you’re going to throw in an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy as well, it’s not going to change the fact that not being able to measure consciousness does not make the process immaterial as you’re claiming, Why would I accept your unevidenced superstitious claim, when we have objective ample evidence the process is a function of a physical brain, and not a shred of objective evidence it is immaterial?
What a preposterous lie, what on earth do you hope to achieve with such obvious duplicity when everyone can read the thread and see it is untrue?
I have yet to see any evidence let alone proof, by all means repeat this “proof” everyone has inexplicably missed, Well of course you have ignored multiple questions from me, but just repeat it then. If this is another lie though ratty, be prepared to get spanked again.
That contradicts your rationale that a process must be immaterial if it can’t be weighed, since a cough can’t be weighed, a physical brain can be weighed, consciousness requires in every single instance a physical brain, just a s a cough that can’t be weighed, is also part of a physical process. The sound is a physical phenomenon yes, but is a product of the laugh, just as Nyarl explained to you all the posts on your screen are a physical result of our consciousness, so your analogy fails miserably yet again. So how many times are you going to dishonestly rehash this guff, and pretend your argument has not been thoroughly refuted I wonder.
I could care less that you’re impervious to facts, but Occam’s razor applies, what you do or do not admit doesn’t alter the fact that in every single instance consciousness requires a physical brain, and si an emergent property of a physical brain. Anything claimed beyond that will need to be evidenced by you, since you’re the one making the claim here, and demanding contrary evidence to your unevidenced claim is simply an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Indeed, and you’re not seeing the irony of that fact for your claim that not being able to weigh consciousness makes it immaterial. Can we weigh a brain, can we cite neural activity in areas of it that correspond to various functions that aid and produce consciousness? Do take your time.
Ad hominem, feel any way you want, it isn’t going to rescue your unevidenced claim here.
Since everyone here knows that my criteria for belief is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrate to support a claim, assertion or belief, then you’re not telling anyone anything they don’t know. The problem is you don’t understand or don’t want to, what objective evidence is, and are unable to make cogent rational arguments, at least on woo woo topics you’ve fallen for and are emotionally invested in.
So, what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support these claims, I will number them to make it easier of you want to tackle them one at a time.
Number 3 of course directly contradicts your subsequent claim consciousness can’t be weighed, but sadly having your assertions and arguments roundly contradicted or refuted (even by your own claims) isn’t going to help, since we can all see here and elsewhere that you cling doggedly to belief without rational justification, like a drowning man clinging to a raft. You are simply too emotionally invested in some of the beliefs you hold to see reason.
Adaboy, angry vituperation and yet more petty ad hominem, but no, I can’t see this unless someone can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support the claim, so no cheese for you.
I have never denied that our perceptions of reality are subjective, why would you even try using such a lie? I have even pointed it out ta the start of this debacle to refute one of your achingly stupid claims:
Also note one of my many questions that you have pointedly ignored during your many histrionic rants, masquerading as debate.
1 Like
Why? I’ve never understood the theistic enthusiasm for torture myself, but one can’t rationally try to claim such a notion is moral and then complain at the suffering humans have caused, even Shitler. Also if one could orchestrate magic why not undo the suffering he perpetrated instead, surely a more consistent rationale than allowing suffering it could easily prevent, yet does nothing so it can torture humans forever after they die.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, you are doing the classic mistake many theists do. They make a claim, and when asked to provide evidence, attempt to reverse the burden of proof by stating “prove it isn’t so”.
You have stated that perception is supernatural. When asked to prove it, your response is “prove it isn’t so”.
Sorry, the burden of proof is on you, you must prove your claim.
4 Likes
Exactly correct, and as you will be aware it is a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, making his argument irrational by definition. Occam’s razor would also apply of course, as I pointed out to ratty earlier, we know consciousness exists, we know a functioning brain exist, we know natural physical process exist and that all these are possible, if ratty is going to add unevidenced claims then Occam’s razor demonstrates this is flawed reasoning.
It comes back to the theistic trait of fearing the unknown, and more importantly fearing admitting ignorance, whereas the admission of ignorance is a first and essential requirement of all scientific endeavour.
5 Likes
Yeah. People don’t think the way you think. They don’t approach public online debates the way you do.
I am engaging with you on your terms. But that’s only because you know of no other way.
For instance. I’m making a single point. That consciousness is immaterial. I’ve already provided strong evidence for that.
You, however, seem to think that there’s A HUNDRED different things going on here. When there’s really only one thing to address.
What the fuck are you on about?
Can’t put it on a scale. Doesn’t have mass. Ergo, it isn’t material. What the fuck problem do you have with that line of reasoning.
I’d like to point out how fucking religiously stupid you are. “Unevidenced” when I have given evidence. “Superstitious” when it is grounded in fact. “Assumption” when it is grounded in observation of reality.
Really. How many times have I said in the previous post that. And I fucking quote dillweed:
“The process is material”
“The product is not.”
Totally and utterly misrepresenting me because you know EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS the very instant you admit that consciousness is an immaterial result of a material process.
Kay. I’m going to assume your just reading impaired.
The process is MATERIAL.
The PRODUCT is not.
Yeah. All that and a bag of chips doesn’t explain how a material process gives rise to an immaterial product!!!
Explain the relationship there. Do take your time.
I don’t think this will be the last time, but here we go again.
The process can be weighed, mapped, analyzed, timed, and predicted.
The actual product of that process is immaterial.
You’ve fucking misread me dipshit.
Got it yet. Read the fucking post before you go off on your obfuscation rants.
Read the next sentence you ape. “About as light as space”. What does that say to you, little man? How goddamn light is space you third degree moron? Very light? Very, very light? Like … so light it doesn’t have mass.
Nice fucking attempt. There’s nothing inconsistent with what I’ve said - if not for the use of a bit of poetic licence.
“Light as Space”. Fucking duck brain.
Ad hominem. I recall very clearly agreeing that we would be insulting each other to no end in this little marriage of discussion. You’re not ALLOWED to use that phrase anymore big poppa. You’ve already made just as many insulting comments in my direction. Now you resort to your tool box of ad this and ad that.
Sure. Good point. Chew on that bone for a while.
Claim: Consciousness is immaterial. Not the process. The product. The effect. Not the cause. Not the thing that gives rise to consciousness. Consciousness itself.
Evidence: it cannot be weighed. It never has been weighed. No one has ever isolated consciousness, put it on a scale, and measured its mass.
This is not an argument of ignorance. It just can’t be done. Everyone knows that.
Claim: Light is immaterial.
Evidence: it can’t be weighed. It never has been weighed. No one has ever isolated light, put it on a scale, and measured its mass.
I am absolutely shitting my pants in amusement over this little comparison. You think I’m afraid of the unknown? What don’t I know exactly?
Do I not know whether consciousness can be put on a scale? The product. Not the process.
I’m absolutely CONFIDENT that you cannot take consciousness and put it on a scale and measure it.
Science wouldn’t even bother trying.
I agree
From Oxford …
Spiritual … spiritual, rather than physical.
That you must prove.
Just like my brain, the hard drive on my computer consumes energy, receives data, alters it internally and sends out data. And it does not change mass. I understand that it is folly to claim that my hard drive has anything to do with the supernatural.
So what is the difference between my brain and my hard drive in this context?
2 Likes
Awareness. Sight. Hearing. Touch. Taste. And smell.
They all have an underlying physical process which gives rise to them. And none of those things in them selves can be defined physically. Or if you try, the definition comes short of the reality.
Or if you try, you end up with a very complicated explanation to a very simple quality of mind.
From Are Photons Massless? | Brilliant Math & Science Wiki
Any photon of frequency νν has energy E=hνE=hν and hence, in accordance with Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence, E=mc2E=mc2, the photon has a relativistic mass of m=hνc2m=c2hν. The consequence of the relativistic mass of photons has been verified countless times, the famous example being gravity bending photons.
Does my hard drive possess supernatural properties?
Once again you are making a claim and attempting to reverse the burden of proof. It is not incumbent on anyone to prove it does not exist, you made the claim, you must prove it exists.
@rat_spit This is fundamental logic.
4 Likes
My hard drive receives data from my processor, which inputs data from my keyboard, mouse, internet, and any other devices. It then outputs to devices such as my monitor, speakers, and internet.
My brain receives input from my senses, such as Sight. Hearing. Touch. Taste. And smell. It then outputs to muscles and glands, along with other bodily functions.
From this point I decided to delete five paragraphs.
First you must prove your claim, that consciousness is supernatural.
2 Likes
He really believes in that bullshit?
I’m a firm believer to the fact that our brain and the mind are one. Destroy the brain, the mind goes with it.
Can Consciousness Exist Outside of the Brain? | Psychology Today.
Edit: spelling correction
3 Likes
I don’t believe your claim, and you have demonstrated no objective evidence at all, and your arguments are very poor, and not at all compelling.
So just like a sneeze or cough then? How about a wink, can you weigh a wink? You seem content to rant and insult and rage, but have failed to address this flaw in your argument. Here’s clue then, you are the one implying consciousness is some sort of separate entity form a functioning physical brain, I can’t speak for others, but I don’t believe that, and no you have not provided a shred of objective evidence it is. There is however overwhelming objective evidence that consciousness is merely a product of the a physical brain, like touch or smell, incidentally they can’t be weighed either.
Why would I need to explain to you, how your claim works, when I clearly don’t believe it? I think you may have eaten some iffy cheese.
Sigh, can a sneeze, itch or cough be weighed, clearly they cannot, are you saying they are immaterial then? Dreams can’t be weighed, but then dreams don’t exist independently of a functioning brain either. Despite your endless assertions you have yet to show consciousness can.
Er you didn’t say as light as, you said about as light as, maybe if you managed to control your temper tantrums you wouldn’t be making such a fool of yourself. I’d like to believe that, but you’re making it very hard.
FYI, since you seem to think my language comprehension is at fault here, and for clarity “very light” doesn’t mean no weight, anymore than “about as light as” means the same weight as, dear oh dear…
Sigh, except you didn’t as light as, you said about as light as. Fuck me it’s like arguing with an angry semi literate child. 
See about as light as space implies it’s not as light as space, and of course it was unevidenced woo woo to boot, just truly hilarious meltdown here champ. Maybe you should take a break or something. try and get control of yourself.
You used ad hominem from the very start, and anyone can scroll up and see that I gave you several chances to act like an adult, and then warned you. The difference is I warned you you’d get it back as and when I was minded to if you continued, but unlike you I have completely lost the plot here.
Seriously, grow up man.
Except you have only expressed subjective opinion, you even admitted this at the start and admonished me for challenging it, as if offering opinions were bizarrely ringfenced from debate. The few facts you’ve offered simply don’t support your belief, and just because you’re offering your subjective observations of reality does not mean it doesn’t involve assumption on your part, as anyone can read in this thread and attest for themselves.
2 Likes