What is the purpose of a cat?

[drag]

Originally posted by heusdens
What does "fork - up" mean?

(Sorry my english is not so good...)

Are you serious ?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Bloody hell ! I got cunfused with the other thread,
I meant CONSCIOUSNESS not causality. SORRY !!!

That's alright. I've made the same mistake (but I edited, or erased just before posting).

I have. Thay are not different in terms of
physical laws. The are different in terms of the
concepts we use to discribe them (different
verbal/mathematical/whatever discriptions) because
they display different levels and types of
order within the very wide bounderies that these
laws allow for.

That's the point. The point is not whether they are physically different, at the subatomic level, but whether they are different.

Anyway, I want to understand clearly once and for
all - Do you think that consciousness is something
beyond/in addition to the laws of physics or not ?

Objection, this question is entirely irrelevant the discussion .

wuli dedicated whole threads to this.

One potential use, that I believe is indeed
very usefull (but I can't absolutely prove it )
is that such a perspective means that you
must respect all views and opinions (because
tomorrow they might just turn out to be correct).
This is VERY important I think, both in life and
for a scientist, for example. Another potential
benefit is the seemingly likely chance that this
perspective will not allow you to make mistakes
when dealing with philosophical and sometimes
potentially other types of ideas.

I urge you to read the last few pages of "I think therefore I am". Manuel_Silvio tried to argue for total Uncertainty (the doubting of all things), and it just doesn't work. The truth of the matter is: it is impossible to take for granted that you shouldn't take anything for granted. This should be obvious, but some people are just trying to hard to see the truth. It's like in the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance", where he said: "It's like truth knocks on the door, and you scream 'go away, I'm looking for truth', and so it goes away".

 

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
That's the point. The point is not whether they are physically different, at the subatomic level, but whether they are different.

Explain, please.

Originally posted by Mentat
Objection, this question is entirely irrelevant
to the discussion .

In light of what you appear to mean by consciousness
and purpose, I think it certainly is and could
save us a lot of time.

Originally posted by Mentat
The truth of the matter is: it is impossible to take
for granted that you shouldn't take anything for granted.
This should be obvious, ...

You do not understand what the PoE IS.
It is not true or false of something, it
can not be demonstrated by any clear claim
or argument. It can not be limmited or even
partially defined. If I say just one word of it
then I'm already denying its paradoxical nature.
This is the paradox of God, the Universe and
everything and that is precisely why the word
paradox is used (it's the closest thing we
have to call something totally undefinable).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Explain, please.

They are different at the macroscopic level, as you have agreed. This means that they are different (as a result order, connections, and the actions of the subatomic particles that make them up working together), even if not at the subatomic level.

You do not understand what the PoE IS.
It is not true or false of something, it
can not be demonstrated by any clear claim
or argument. It can not be limmited or even
partially defined. If I say just one word of it
then I'm already denying its paradoxical nature.
This is the paradox of God, the Universe and
everything and that is precisely why the word
paradox is used (it's the closest thing we
have to call something totally undefinable).

This means that the PoE, as a concept, is entirely impossible. You have said it yourself (repeatedly, if you ask me) in just this (quoted) paragraph.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
They are different at the macroscopic level, as you have agreed. This means that they are different (as a result order, connections, and the actions of the subatomic particles that make them up working together), even if not at the subatomic level.

I agreed to that ?!
I did not agree, at any time as far as I can
remember, that there is some different, from
normal - physical theory, thing called consciousness.

Originally posted by Mentat
This means that the PoE, as a concept, is entirely impossible. You have said it yourself (repeatedly, if you ask me) in just this (quoted) paragraph.

Hmm... Maybe wuli's way works better at times.

"On the surface of the ocean one can see unconcievable
depth or just a reflection."
Me (copyrights reserved )

P.S. I HATE most of these so-called meaningfull quotes.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I agreed to that ?!
I did not agree, at any time as far as I can
remember, that there is some different, from
normal - physical theory, thing called consciousness.

I never said that you agreed to anything like that. I said that you agreed that physical objects are different at the macroscopic level, than at the subatomic.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I never said that you agreed to anything like that. I said that you agreed that physical objects are different at the macroscopic level, than at the subatomic.

That depends on how you define "different".
To me the difference is the same as the difference
between the pieces of a huge puzzle which has
infinite solutions using the same pieces and
provided that the pieces fully respect the laws
of physics once the puzzle is set in motion.
Nothing more.

Peace and long life.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?

why, to make more cats, of course. isn't that our purpose as well?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
That depends on how you define "different".
To me the difference is the same as the difference
between the pieces of a huge puzzle which has
infinite solutions using the same pieces and
provided that the pieces fully respect the laws
of physics once the puzzle is set in motion.
Nothing more.

No offence, but your sentence needs re-wording, or there is no chance of it's making sense to me. Again, I don't mean to offend, I just can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
No offence, but your sentence needs re-wording, or there is no chance of it's making sense to me. Again, I don't mean to offend, I just can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say.

What's unclear ?
I basicly said that for me the only
difference is the scale and accordingly
complexity of the entities and laws at work.
No fundumental differences involved.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
What's unclear ?
I basicly said that for me the only
difference is the scale and accordingly
complexity of the entities and laws at work.
No fundumental differences involved.

Live long and prosper.

Well, I disagree (and apologize for not having understood before). I don't think there would be such different branches of Science, if there was no difference between the behavior of something's fundamental particles, and the behavior of the [macroscopic] thing itself.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, I disagree (and apologize for not having understood before). I don't think there would be such different branches of Science, if there was no difference between the behavior of something's fundamental particles, and the behavior of the [macroscopic] thing itself.

Why is researching a single grain of sand called
chemistry and researching many sand dunes called
geology ?
Complexity.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Why is researching a single grain of sand called
chemistry and researching many sand dunes called
geology ?
Complexity.

You're just making my point. Complexity makes something of an qualitativly different order.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
You're just making my point. Complexity makes something of an qualitativly different order.

Not exactly. Mathematics (which is primarily
what modern science is) IS apparently capable of
predicting the higher complexity levels from
the lowest ones we have. It's just extremely
difficult for us today.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Not exactly. Mathematics (which is primarily
what modern science is) IS apparently capable of
predicting the higher complexity levels from
the lowest ones we have. It's just extremely
difficult for us today.

Live long and prosper.

While this is true, it doesn't change anything. Mathematics can describe anything (for the purpose of this argument, let's not argue that point, please), but that doesn't mean that everything it describes is of the same qualitative order.