Search results

Yes, you follow trail of clues.

How is it a proof? it's merely provisional speculation, at present. Furthermore, to truly account for non-computable thoughts in humans, you would have to account for true randomness, which you can't, at present.

This is just the use of consciousness as a suitcase word. jump in front of a moving train and tell it not to crash into you because your consciousness determines its motion. You can't, though the magikal I.Q thinker might, if he wasn't a pussy and actually left his room.

give me 20th century thinking over plastic imitation English God squad crew who can't even accept an organised religion. it's abject, really. It is redolent of people who read nonce crowley and listen to david tibet I took acid and had a religious experience to Noddy current 93. Rather than...

In Penrose's theory quantum computing would have to take place in the brain before decoherence kicked in. All right, it's interesting, but A) it's provisional and B) nothing suggests that humans can even remotely think that fast.

There is no reason why in principle awareness couldn't be based on circuit boards as opposed to neurons. Of course, this would mean that the mechanical person would not be a machine, as the AI ideologists would have it. They would be conscious of death, and would have drives and desire.

consciousness is material. anything else is an absurdity, it is akin to positing the existence of souls.

object orientated choice itself is an ideological phenomenon and hence imaginary. It does not exist autonomously. the ultimate fantasy still exists. this fantasy doesn't have to be exclusively male or female, just of the other. There is no such thing as a non-ideological choice. Ideology allows...

that is a circular statement. is eating different for each type of person?

But this is different to the materialist assertion that there is something rather than nothing. And it is an assertion, let us be frank. But even materialism itself is itself a philosophy, a word. When materialism becomes a sensuous thing to be for us, then it shall cease to be a philosophy, and...

That means nothing, just because sexual orientation is an ideology, and provides the imaginary of object orientated choice, does not make it 'fake.' There is a real substructure, as it were.

Yes, if existence is fundamentally idealist, then one must logically accept God. It is impossible to an atheist or secularist and cling to the idea of a fundamentally idealist existence.

diminution is quantative though, not qualitative. so your point doesn't stand.

they are, religion is a holistic theory of the world. modern secularism is not, it is only a theory of a part of the world. Or to be more exact, it downplays mental states as being determined by matter in motion.

like Jean-Paul Sartre, you want to be a materialist as regards nature, but an idealist as regards society and the mind. this indicates your senile impotence to reproduce, fundamentally. Everyone must die, and monsieur mixed biscuits will die especially venally.

as a magikal i.q psychoanalyst it is your duty to bring the unconscious into consciousness. But, of course, you know as well as I that unconsciousness is an inexact formulation, another cop out. Even that which seems to be unconscious can be dissected, examined, sculpted. And when looking at...

lol I said this upthread about our interlocutor centring his feelings and he flipped his lid.

you're just putting things in extreme terms and leaping to conclusions about what I think.

coward. you can't even stand behind your perspective with the slightest pushback. emotive personalisation right.

if you're getting tired of the emotive personalisation then stop talking about your hunches and your feelings. Opinions are by nature emotive personalisation. You can't get around this, you can just decide to employ the facts, which you don't want to do.