girl doesn't notice she's been stabbed in the neck - Page 5

On February 05 2010 10:48 KwarK wrote:

My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food.

Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis.

On February 05 2010 10:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:


Obviously intoxicated. I don't see how it's interesting for anyone in a non-destructive mood though.
Reductionalism is not interesting. It shrinks and shrivels the mental universe, rather than enhances it.

Let's take the example of an appendix. It's a physical part of your body. However if you lost it (in a non traumatizing way) would you agree you were the same person afterwards?

On February 05 2010 11:01 KwarK wrote:

I accept that you'd take emotional damage from the injury and that'd change your personality. My example was perhaps a poor one. I used legs because they're nice and easy to compare to a machine but they have value and emotional damage complicates the question. Let's take the example of an appendix. It's a physical part of your body. However if you lost it (in a non traumatizing way) would you agree you were the same person afterwards?

On February 05 2010 11:08 KwarK wrote:

I find these type of questions hugely fascinating. Humanity really is fantastic. I find this subject particularly interesting because it ties into technological evolution. You have hair to keep your brain warm in cold weather. The hair is a part of you. However hair is not an ideal solution because you overheat in warm weather, it's simply the best solution evolution has come up with so far. Mankind is capable of technological evolution, we've considered the same problem that nature was faced with and come up with the hat. An invention that keeps your head warm in cold weather and can be removed in warm weather. It's an improvement on the evolved natural solution but it raises the question, what is the difference between your hair and your hat?
If the hat is made of wool then they're both hair.
Hair isn't really alive, it's just strands of keratin, a substance created by the body but one you could equally easily synthesise.
Is it simply because your body made the hair? If so, you could make a woolen hat out of your own hair if you really wanted to.
At what point do you designate that your hair is not a part of you, or that the hat is?

On February 05 2010 11:13 inReacH wrote:


In my opinion if it contains your DNA it is a part of you.

Certainly moreso than if it is registered in your name, which is the debate here.

I find these type of questions hugely fascinating. Humanity really is fantastic. I find this subject particularly interesting because it ties into technological evolution.

On February 05 2010 11:35 MoltkeWarding wrote:


As much fun as you are having on your rampage, I have to decline to be swept away by the enthusiasm. Nothing personal, simply a matter of principle. What I resist here is semantic destruction: destructive, because by destroying semantic traditions, the very language on which thought is based no longer functions.

We have been told today that of legs and cars, neither is more natural or unnatural to man than the other. We have been told that the thinking organ is an extension of the unthinking organ. No doubt we can go further and destroy some more conceptual boundaries here and there- where's the difference between man and ape? music and noise? order and chaos? love and sex? Nothing is ultimately more anything than anything else, even on the most banal level. The sky is more blue than grass, but who is to say that it is more blue than the sea? And if a sea can be all shades of blue, including green, why can't grass be as blue as the sky?

Some people might find that argument interesting. I don't.

On February 05 2010 11:31 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:
it seems like my practical everyday working experience is not interesting to that theorycrafters.

On February 05 2010 11:42 KwarK wrote:

Next time you wish to express a complete disinterest in a subject feel free to not post. Posting to explain how the subject that fascinates me does not fascinate you isn't really relevant to anyone but yourself.

Although you don't actually provide any real disagreement, just long words about how you feel you should disagree. Lets try this.
Observations: Reproduction dates back to organisms with just a few cells whose actions were dictated by organic chemistry rather than any biology as we'd understand it. As they got more complicated they evolved intelligence.
Hypothesis: Intelligence evolved to improve the odds of success of an organism. The success of an organism is based around its ability to reproduce. Therefore the brain is essentially a sexual organ.

Now, you try and contradict that without any hypothetical questions as to the nature of the universe and the soul and without quoting any 19th Century Frenchmen. It'd make a change.