David Martorana discussing ""Consciousness & Hell"" with me...
 RT>> So consciousness is an emergent quality of a complex self-interacting
 RT>> system. What is it though? You haven't defined consciousness itself,
 RT>> only the mechanisms that possess it.
 DM>      ...Another shot!
 DM>      ...That quality of being that IS .....AND KNOWS IT THRICE+? !!!
 DM>      ...now we must define "knows" 
The self-interacting bit of my statement already covers this. Can you show 
that consciousness is anything more than the "software running on the 
hardware"?
 DM>      I would have to think some on defining "hell" (if asked)!
I won't ask you then.
 RT>> Plato may have suggested this but he has no basis of truth
 DM>      There is NO "basis of truth" beyond some relative convenience of
 DM>      agreement (gravity temporarily excepted).
Is that statement true or false?
 DM>      But!  there is a "collective likelihood" (especially if the
 DM>      arithmetic LOOKS good); and "surgical imagination" where we can
 DM>      share among candle options that "feel us right" intellectually,
 DM>      scientifically or even irrationally. Such insights, substituting
 DM>      for tRUTH, carry little "absolute" baggage but often makes for
 DM>      the beginnings of mutual understanding. Philosophy seems not
 DM> always
 DM>      comfortable with evidence, being more the art of exploring for it!
 DM>      Once the evidence gets TOO THICK, it moves over to science, where
 DM>      engineers, bean counters and file clerks take over. Personally, I
 DM>      see a call for evidence "suborning poetry", .....poetry, a strong,
 DM>      though often occult component of initial explorations into what
 DM>      little tRUTH can be known .....(if any)!
IIUY, you're agreeing then? Plato had no evidence. As you say, once 
philosophy is bogged down with evidence it finds it hard to move. Does this 
tell you anything about philosophy?
It seems like you're approaching philosophy as if it is the sounding ground 
for speculative ideas with the intention of speculating even more. Surely, 
for philosophy to be of any use it is to study the logic behind truths?
 RT>> from which to make the assertion. Yes, the brain is a physical thing
 RT>> and memory may be stored in your brain, but when we die the brain
 RT>> reformats itself chemically and thus would destroy the data.
 DM>      Because we are ignorant of something makes it neither SO, nor
 DM>      not so.
These are the facts David. Physically speaking, nothing escapes decay.
 DM>      We may well find all memory is stored "in a somewhere" or
 DM>      might even go FAR beyond that.
As every physical thing decays, then this "somewhere" you mention must be 
non-physical.
 DM>      Part of mind is that objective
 DM>      imagination which has not really yet worked out all the directions
 DM>      time can be approached from (we barely pulled our pants on in the
 DM>      20th century).
I don't know what this means. Sorry.
 DM>     If we, as Day suggests, can discover means of
 DM>      recording, it is NOT such a stretch of imagination to believe
 DM>      that such (and more) is not a new idea item. We might believe
 DM>      that, INFERENCE, from what already IS (or can be imagined),
 DM> supplies
 DM>      a rich cookie jar of likelihoods, however lean on specific
 DM> clarity.
I don't know what this means either. Sorry.
 DM>      i.e Fair to new, our cells and genes take on an ever increasing
 DM>      collection of talents. Might be soon that we can project such
 DM>      tiny wonders onto a wall and see more in an instant both forward
 DM>      and backwards (and to sides) than ever seen before. We may have
 DM>      found (one pair of) God's eyeglasses, and "She" might even enjoy
 DM>      our discovery celebration......
 DM>      ......................There is more to knowing than knowing! 
 DM>      ...than knowing ...than knowing ...than knowing-
Probably because I don't understand what you've written above, I don't 
understand this either. Again, sorry.
 RT>> As to introducing the concept of a god that can somehow access this
 RT>> information and make it available to you and your friends when you have
 RT>> died is wholly unsupported.
 DM>               Being some atheist with a warm spot for "first principal
 DM>      engineering", my take on DB's use of the "God" symbology is still
 DM>      exploratory within a range of options. *IF* he COULD "support" his
 DM>      use of a concrete GOD definition, THEN I would tend no longer to
 DM>      take him serious. But! as his-to-Her exploratory reaching, he is
 DM>      as dead on course as I've seen among us mortals......!
I don't understand this. Sorry.
 DB>> As again, we see in  postings where the greatest ignorance is
 DB>> abundantly accompanied by  the evidence of illogic and dementia.  A
 DB>> fool isn't only untaught;  he is unteachable.
 DM>             Most almost great minds are intolerant?
Not that I've noticed.
 RT>> Indeed. I have met many people like this here in Fidoland.
 DM>      .....yes! as WE "many people" have also met YOU & Mr Brown!!!
And who am I?
    Relatif Tuinn
... Black holes are where God forgot to cancel the infinities
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------