|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Mike E. FullertonMike E. Fullerton Date: Apr 23, 2008 13:40
What do you think is wrong with this argument:
If bacteria and other simple life forms were not aware they would not be
able to feed as they could not distinguish themselves from food.
--
Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.
|
| |
|
| | 47 Comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Apr 23, 2008 14:25
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:40:29 GMT, "Mike E. Fullerton" spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote:
>What do you think is wrong with this argument:
>
>If bacteria and other simple life forms were not aware they would not be
>able to feed as they could not distinguish themselves from food.
It is all in the nanotech automaton zombie mechanism that they are.
No mystical magic folk lore theory like "awareness" needed.
None needed at any scale, except as a well practiced story.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Apr 23, 2008 14:43
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:40:29 GMT, "Mike E. Fullerton"
spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote:
>What do you think is wrong with this argument:
>
>If bacteria and other simple life forms were not aware they would not be
>able to feed as they could not distinguish themselves from food.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Don HDon H Date: Apr 23, 2008 15:45
"Mike E. Fullerton" spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote in
message news:19NPj.88107$Cj7.37455@pd7urf2no...> What do you think is wrong with this argument:
>
> If bacteria and other simple life forms were not aware they would not be
> able to feed as they could not distinguish themselves from food.
>
> --
> Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
> the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.
# It somewhat depends on how you define awareness, and how a life-form
feeds.
All living things have sensory apparatus which gives them a degree of
awareness of their surroundings. As to whether they...
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mark EarnestMark Earnest Date: Apr 23, 2008 15:58
"Mike E. Fullerton" spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote in
message news:19NPj.88107$Cj7.37455@pd7urf2no...> What do you think is wrong with this argument:
>
> If bacteria and other simple life forms were not aware they would not be
> able to feed as they could not distinguish themselves from food.
>
> --
> Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
> the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.
IMV, the very definition of life is self awareness.
How else could it experience the life that it is?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike E. FullertonMike E. Fullerton Date: Apr 23, 2008 16:13
Sir Frederick wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:40:29 GMT, "Mike E. Fullerton" spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote:
> >> What do you think is wrong with this argument:
>>
>> If bacteria and other simple life forms were not aware they would not be
>> able to feed as they could not distinguish themselves from food.
>
> It is all in the nanotech automaton zombie mechanism that they are.
> No mystical magic folk lore theory like "awareness" needed.
> None needed at any scale, except as a well practiced story.
So you're saying awareness is a kind of illusion? What would be the real
mechanism behind the illusion then?
--
Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike E. FullertonMike E. Fullerton Date: Apr 23, 2008 16:21
Art wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:40:29 GMT, "Mike E. Fullerton"
> spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote:
> >> What do you think is wrong with this argument:
>>
>> If bacteria and other simple life forms were not aware they would not be
>> able to feed as they could not distinguish themselves from food.
>
> There's nothing wrong with the argument.
Well could you argue then that atoms are similarly aware since they
"feed" by absorbing energy?
--
Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Apr 23, 2008 16:28
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:13:09 GMT, "Mike E. Fullerton" spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote:
>Sir Frederick wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:40:29 GMT, "Mike E. Fullerton" spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote:
>> >>> What do you think is wrong with this argument:
>>>
>>> If bacteria and other simple life forms were not aware they would not be
>>> able to feed as they could not distinguish themselves from food.
>>
>> It is all in the nanotech automaton zombie mechanism that they are.
>> No mystical magic folk lore theory like "awareness" needed.
>> None needed at any scale, except as a well practiced story.
>
>So you're saying awareness is a kind of illusion? What would be the real
>mechanism behind the illusion then?
Low level, "subconscious", deceit.
It worked for evolution, so now we are stuck with it.
Deceit can be quite useful.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike E. FullertonMike E. Fullerton Date: Apr 23, 2008 16:37
Don H wrote:
> "Mike E. Fullerton" spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote in
> message news:19NPj.88107$Cj7.37455@pd7urf2no...>> What do you think is wrong with this argument:
>>
>> If bacteria and other simple life forms were not aware they would not be
>> able to feed as they could not distinguish themselves from food.
>
> # It somewhat depends on how you define awareness, and how a life-form
> feeds.
> All living things have sensory apparatus which gives them a degree of
> awareness of their surroundings. As to whether they have any mental
> capacity to reason about it, is another matter. A bacterium doesn't
> necessarily say to itself, "I see that I am distinct from my habitat".
A bacterium has to think "There's some food!" otherwise it couldn't find
food and eat. Identifying something distinct from itself that it can
consume seems to indicate an awareness of itself distinct from its
environment. I don't see how this process doesn't involve reasoning.
|
| Show full article (1.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Apr 23, 2008 17:39
"Mike E. Fullerton" spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote in
message news:19NPj.88107$Cj7.37455@pd7urf2no...> What do you think is wrong with this argument:
>
> If bacteria and other simple life forms were not aware they would not be
> able to feed as they could not distinguish themselves from food.
Nothing whatever.
There is a 'group consciousness' that occurs , whether bacteria, cellular,
atomic, pack or society.
The substances that developed while in the womb, are no more conscious than
they were then.
Of course, that whole process is just a platform.
Be skeptical. Be VERY skeptical, for what you see is not what you get (or
are).....
BOfL
>
> --
> Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
> the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
