What is the purpose of a cat?

drag

Then this definition of yours matches
what I said about vague "assisting term"
for relativly higher complexity level stuff
sciences. And yet, it is clear then that it
has no precise definition or bounderies.

I'm glad we cleared this up because I
enitially assumed you were talking about
some super-natural stuff or something.

Peace and long life.

Mentat

Yes, it fully predicts it, thus limiting the amount of "free will" that one can have.

Note: I'm not saying that I believe in Free Will (I happen to believe that it's unprovable, and therefore about as useful as Solipsism). I'm just making a case for it's also not being disprovable.

Mentat

Consciouness can, indeed, be defined. Besides, something that exists may be undefinable.

drag

Please do, then.
Indeed.

Live long and prosper.

Alexander

Consciouseness = active state of neurons.

LogicalAtheist

1. Drag - I see in some of your posts you continuously ask that once a person say X can be defined, you demand of them to define it.

You need to realize that one can prove that X can be defined without defining it.

Furthermore you continuously assume one means X has an ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE DEFINITION. We aren't making this assumption, you are.

Please look into this.

2. To the cat comment, the origon of this post. I will disregard your word PURPOSE, for the sake of an ecological answer.

The "purpose" of a cat in an ecological environment is extremely complex. But to see the basics, one must look at what the cat gives out that others take in. that's it's purpose. Simply put.

If you're not looking for an ecological answer, sorry purpose doesn't exist.

If you're looking for one in terms of HUMAN ecology, and the human based domesticated cat.

It's still the same answer as a template, but specifcs are so different.

The cat gives "out" something the human recieves.

1. attention from another organism
2. Pleasing sensations, licking, purring, warmth, furriness
3. etc.....

drag

Why do you need to use this semanticly complicated
word to define something so simple that can
just be called that. btw, is that an official
scientific definition ?
Also, you do realize of course that consciousness
is then also, for example, the nerve from my
little finger connected to two active electrodes.
Not a great thing it is then, is it ? [:D]

Live long and prosper.

Adam

To be fed by humans.

What is the purpose of humans? To feed cats.

Alexander

No, purpose of humans is to drink good beer.

drag

I really like both ! [:D]

Mentat

That means that I needn't define it, in order for it to exist, right?

Anyway, I will define it: The state of being aware.


If you'd like an example, how about the fact that you are aware of my question right now?

Mentat

No, active state of neurons produces consciousness. There's a very big difference.

drag

Greetings Mentat !
Then explain "aware"...[;)]
This chain breaks down in the end or is infinite
because you have no concrete explanation. And, the
simple fact is that because you only have
this singular unexplainable thing - which you
might consider your consciousness or the result
of physical proccesses as explained by science,
you can not make use of it due to lack of definition.
That is, maybe you're right (nothing is certain -
including this satement [:D]), but even if you
are - while we have science which explains the
obseved by dealing with SEPARATE things in the
observed data, we do NOT, apparently, have anything
else with which to associate consciosness or
we do not have the appropriate reasoning system,
for now, to incorporate consciosness into
science. So, it may exist and it may not, but
at the absense of a system in which to put it
we probably can't deal with such a separate
and singular concept. And if we can't deal with it
or draw any data from it - we can't make use of
it and might just as well ignore it, until purhaps
it does appear in context with something else or
is discovered to have a structure we can deal with.

This is like receiving data input from the
Universe on totally different unconnected levels.
So, either one of the levels is not real at all
but a mere assumption and a result of the other
level, or - we're the connection but we have
not yet succeeded in fomalizing it. (Or, maybe
it's something comletly different...)


Live long and prosper.

Alexander

Exactly what is the difference?

LogicalAtheist

Alex. See the difference between these two statements...

Betty = Alex
Betty produces Alex

COme on now, it' sobvious!

BTW - active neurons don't produce "consciousness" unless your definition of "consciousness" is "the active state of neurons". Get it?

Define terms...

Mentat

The difference is that the active state of neurons is a physical phenomenon, while consciousness is a metaphysical consequence of that physical phenomenon.

Mentat

No, it does so because language is dependent on it's own definitions. I could take any word, and follow the "define that new term" road forever, if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that the use of the word lacks concrete explanation.

Not ture, we have the active "firing" of neurons, which happens during "concious thought".

BTW, I think you should see some of my responses to Manuel_Silvio about his Uncertainty idea (that nothing is really certain), in the thread "I think therefore I am", because I clearly explained that it is a paradoxical (and completely unusable) concept.