Hey Gabs!

I know RP and his wishy washy ways, I do not believe that is what he wants 
me to do at all.

I have just re-read my questions to him and they need no redefining at all, 
RP is merely being RP!

I mean look at them questions.

Are crows conscious?  It's either yes or no isn't it.  


On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:32:38 UTC+1, gabbydott wrote:
>
> Welcome back, Lee! Good to hear your voice again! - Now, what RP is 
> saying, is, that you need to redefine your question if you want to 
> receive a response that makes sense to you. You can ask, and that is 
> actually being done by scientists as well as poets, what are crows 
> aware of? and then start you apparatus of measuring and evaluating. 
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Lee Douglas 
> <[email protected]<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > Ahhhh RP!  You don't change at all sir do you. 
> > 
> > There are of course many, many people and soooo much literature that 
> > disagrees with your wishy washyness here.  So much of it in fact that I 
> > don't even feel the need to defend my stance at all.  So let me just 
> finish 
> > by asking you two questions. 
> > 
> > Are crows conscious? 
> > 
> > Is a crows consciousness the same as a humans? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:08:51 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote: 
> >> 
> >> That which exist is Being , and consciousness does't have levels but 
> >> parameters -- sound , sight , etc. 
> >> 
> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> 
> wrote: 
> >> > The we disagree again RP.  Unless you and I have differing concepts 
> on 
> >> > what 
> >> > consciousness is?  My cats are conscious, would they have an 
> >> > understanding 
> >> > of God as a human does?  I suspect not, but they are surely conscious 
> >> > creatures.  It may be that I infer I am currently in discourse with 
> >> > another 
> >> > conscious entity, but I'd rather say it is empirically correct that I 
> am 
> >> > doing so rather than it is an inference that I can make.  After all 
> are 
> >> > we 
> >> > not members of the same species?  Without being too general, I think 
> >> > such 
> >> > inferences that I can make about myself as a human must also hold 
> true 
> >> > for 
> >> > other humans.  I must breathe to live, so can I infer that others of 
> my 
> >> > species must also do the same, or can I claim knowledge that it is 
> true? 
> >> > 
> >> > I get what you mean of course, I can ever only really say I think, 
> >> > therefore 
> >> > I am.  However when an inference takes place day in and day out, I 
> think 
> >> > it 
> >> > better to regard such 'truth' as knowledge.  Thus I know you are 
> >> > conscious, 
> >> > as you are human, and I know I am conscious.  My cats show all the 
> signs 
> >> > of 
> >> > being conscious  and indeed as you would expect of conscious beings. 
> the 
> >> > both exhibit different attitudes and personalities. 
> >> > 
> >> > So once again we are back to the following two questions.  What do 
> you 
> >> > mean 
> >> > by 'being', and at what level of 'consciousness' does this proof of 
> >> > yours 
> >> > need to be, to be proof? 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 12:20:34 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote: 
> >> >> 
> >> >> As far as a person is concerned , there is only one consciousness , 
> >> >> that is , his. Others are inferred, as also the existence of god. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> 
> >> >> wrote: 
> >> >> > Meh! I know plankton exist, is it conscious, or would you not call 
> it 
> >> >> > a 
> >> >> > being?  Or perhaps we can discuss levels of consciousness?  Nope I 
> >> >> > can't 
> >> >> > get 
> >> >> > with this argument RP, far too many holes in it. 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > On Sunday, 23 September 2012 15:20:45 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote: 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Conscious beings are a proof of God because otherwise an 
> unconscious 
> >> >> >> Being 
> >> >> >> could not be said to exist. Existence is the seed which finds its 
> >> >> >> growth in 
> >> >> >> life. 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > -- 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > -- 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>

-- 



Reply via email to