ATTN FORUM: I challenge Red5angel to prove "scientifically"that his mind exists......

[Fu-Pow]

Ok....prove right here and now "scientifically" that your mind (ie your conciousness) exists.

It should be simple....right Mr. Wizard?

[red5angel]

you also challenged me to fight at some point but you haven't lived up to that challenge either.

[norther practitioner]

lol, I usually occuse him of being mindless....

[red5angel]

lol, I usually occuse him of being mindless....

no, usually you say "GET OFF MY WOMAN RED!!!!"

[Merryprankster]

Fu Pow is spouting again.

Red, please look in the mirror. Do you recognize yourself? Are you capable of distinguishing yourself from, say the dog?

If so, congratulations! You've just demonstrated that you have a conciousness independent of the other things around you!

If such a test were conducted by a researcher and the questions put TO you instead of relying on yourself, this would constitute an empirical experiment, hence, proof.

See, that's the difference. We can conduct a very simple experiment to demonstrate Red's conciousness.

[red5angel]

it can't be MP!!!! Surely you jest?! :p

[spiraler]

how to prove the mind (conciousness is real? you cannot. we live in a holographic world. the human mind can only percieve 2 percent of reality on a sub level. there are so many things that exist on wavelengths that we cannot see hear or grasp with any of our pitiful senses.

[Merryprankster]

no, usually you say "GET OFF MY WOMAN RED!!!!"

I think you've screwed up the punctuation.


It's more like:

GET OFF! My Woman!!!

REEEEEEDDDDD!!!!!


After you two get caught.

[red5angel]

Roflmao!!!!!!

[Merryprankster]

how to prove the mind (conciousness is real? you cannot. we live in a holographic world. the human mind can only percieve 2 percent of reality on a sub level. there are so many things that exist on wavelengths that we cannot see hear or grasp with any of our pitiful senses.

On the contrary, conciousness is merely the ability to distinguish the "self."

Hence, it is entirely perception-based. Consequently, all that matters is the perception of "self" and "not-self." It is quite real because it is relative.

What you are commenting on is the nature of reality and whether or not people are capable of determining that nature - a separate issue.

[spiraler]

on the contrary, a newborn baby has no concept of self in any sense yet he has conciousness.conciousness is not merely the awareness of self,it is the ability to percieve reality, yet what is reality? it is only what your feeble human mind can percieve. does that make it ultimate? no.

[spiraler]

does that make it proveable? impossible. how can you prove the unknown?

[Merryprankster]

on the contrary, a newborn baby has no concept of self in any sense yet he has conciousness.

Actually, researchers have demonstrated that newborns DO have a sense of self. They can distinguish themselves from "other."

From the following study:

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~gallaghr/G&M1996.html

Gallagher, Shaun and Meltzoff, Andrew. 1996. "The Earliest Sense of Self and Others: Merleau-Ponty and Recent Developmental Studies,"Philosophical Psychology. 9: 213-236.

Furthermore, infants are capable of external perception and of imitating the gestures of others much earlier than Merleau-Ponty thought. The recent studies of newborn imitation suggest that an experiential connection between self and others exists right from birth.... [it is not] a confused and undifferentiated experience


In english, the only way this could happen is if the newborn knows it is not you - it must have an innate sense of self to what it is doing or else it WOULD be a confused and undifferentiated experience, precisely because it could not differentiate between itself and the environment (and things in it).

But it can, and does.

But thanks for playing our game!

Note that this is ONE study of several which point to this activity.


Again, the rest of your post deals with the metaphysical question "What is the nature of reality, and what of that can we observe/know?"

A fundamentally different question altogether, because individual differentiation is a RELATIVE, perceptive distinction, NOT a question of the ultimate nature of reality.

[Gangsterfist]

I think, therefore I am.

[Merryprankster]

I think, therefore I am.

Precisely, Gangsterfist. This simple statement goes right to the heart of it.

[MasterKiller]

You guys should watch "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

While it takes some liberties, it does a pretty good job of demonstrating that with a scientific quantum mechanics model, the mind is pretty formless and shapes the reality you experience to immense proportions, so much so that every outward experience you've had may or may not actually have existed outside your body in the first place.

Anyway, it's an interesting way to spend 100 minutes or so.

[Fu-Pow]

Fu Pow is spouting again.

Typical MP. Makes 500 posts a minute hoping that nobody can respond that fast.



Red, please look in the mirror. Do you recognize yourself? Are you capable of distinguishing yourself from, say the dog?

What you are asking red5 is does he identify with the image that presented to him in the mirror?


If so, congratulations! You've just demonstrated that you have a conciousness independent of the other things around you!

But this still doesn't tell us WHO or WHAT is doing the viewing in the mirror. It doesn't tell us WHERE the conciousness known as Red5 is.

Yes Red5's body is in front of the mirror. But where is the conciousness known as Red5? In the body? Where in the body? In the brain? Where in the brain?

Again, the mind/consciousness doesn't have a simple location therefore it can't be studied by positivistic material Science.

But red5 is going to show us how it can......I can hardly wait *pulls out popcorn*.

[Gangsterfist]

You know, I kind of agree with Fu Pow to a point. Every human mind is different, on every different level. How can you study and generalize the mind? My mother is a shrink and she always psycho-analyzes me and it drives me nuts. I have read up on froid, and about his ego, super ego, and the id. However, its just a theory, and I don't think it should be taken as facts.

If you take 10 random people from around the world and run them through a bunch of basic general tests about the human mind, and you will not get the same results.

However, I think that we can all justify our own existance. I just went to the bathroom a few minutes ago to alleviate myself of all the water I had drank earlier. Simple cause, and effect, and I am aware of the effects and the consequences. I can use deductive logic to find out why I had to go to the bathroom.

Personally, I disagree with a lot of what is taught as psychology in schools, b/c of my experiences with my thoughts and my conscience. I think that a lot of us assume to know a lot about the human mind but we really don't. My brother was extremely hyper active as a kid. He would run around the house and be crazy. I mean he was really just full of energy always, always running aroudn and into stuff, and drove everyone in the family nuts. He fooled every doctor he ever saw about his hyper active disorder. My whole family, including myself, knew he had it, but he managed to fool every doctor we ever took him to. What does that say about modern science and the mind?

At about age 12 or so he started to calm down, but I mean before that he would just do the most annoying things and had a really short attention span. Now that we are older and he is in his 20s, he is pretty much normal now. My guess is because his mind developed differently over other people and it just took him longer to mature or whatever.

I do not think we need to prove it exists, because it already does exist. However, I think we need to really step back and look at the human mind and think about if we really know what we are talking about.

[Gangsterfist]

Fu pow,

I will use math based proofs, to prove I know myself in the mirror.

I look at my reflection in the mirror, and I know it is myself due to transitive property.

In geometry, when you are proving which sections of what line are in what part of shape, you can use proofs. For example, if you know that triangle A is a right triangle, then line ab, and line bc are at a 90 degree angle from each other (considering the top point is a, the middle point b, and the point acrros from b is C). You also know that there are 180 degrees total in each triangle if you add up all three angles in it. So the last two angles in the triangle are probably 45 degrees each.

Transitive property: Line ab = line ab, because its line ab

So, I know I am who I am in my reflection, because I know who I am.

Mathimatical logic used. I hope this is all accurate I haven't really read into geometry in a few years.

[Fu-Pow]

You guys should watch "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

While it takes some liberties, it does a pretty good job of demonstrating that with a scientific quantum mechanics model, the mind is pretty formless and shapes the reality you experience to immense proportions, so much so that every outward experience you've had may or may not actually have existed outside your body in the first place.

Anyway, it's an interesting way to spend 100 minutes or so.

That movie is f-ed up. Just so you know it was produced by some followers of J.Z. Knight ....that is, the woman who believes she can channel a 5000 year old sage known as Ramtha. They took a bunch of quacky particle physicists and "healers" and put together this new-agey, feel good movie. But the overall message of the movie is pretty good and that is that your "Intent" is a powerful thing.

[Fu-Pow]

So, I know I am who I am in my reflection, because I know who I am.
.

That's called circular logic. :D ;)


Red5-

Mr. Wizard where are you? Come'on then prove the existence of your mind!!!!!

[PangQuan]

What about that flight simulator that can be flown by that rat brain?

[FngSaiYuk]

Y'know, this thread relates to something that's interested me for a while-

As our technology advances, we'll be able to replace broken or worn out pieces of our body over time. Now eventually (given a long enough time line where we haven't been destroyed and the level of tech continues to increase) we should be able to interface with the brain to the point where we'll be able to replace the broken or worn out pieces over time.

Well... this kind of brings up, where does the mind reside? What is the mind and consciousness composed of? If the whole body were replaced while maintaining all the important functions so that there is no disruption in the conscious experience, then what is the link between the body and the mind? etc etc

lots of interesting questions... hopefully I'll live long enough, technology and humanity advances enough to get decent answers.

[spiraler]

i think therefore i am. so then the universe must think. and so does that rock in your front yard. you cannot think your way out of conciousness, nor can you think your way into it. conciousness just is, and you will never know why.

[Gangsterfist]

i think therefore i am. so then the universe must think. and so does that rock in your front yard. you cannot think your way out of conciousness, nor can you think your way into it. conciousness just is, and you will never know why.

I had no idea rocks could think. Rocks are nothing but minerals. The human body is a highly sofisticated bio-mechanical system.

Animals have thoughts, but their thoughts are mostly based off instincts, where as human beings think with emotions. Its what seperates us from animals, that and the opposeable thumb. I could bring up apes in this conversation, since their DNA is about a 99% match to human DNA. Also, read up on some jane godall (sp?) studies that she did on chimps. They have society, and they can create fire, and they can think for themselves. They also have memories. Yet they cannot understand our philosophy of the conscience, they are not aware of that. Does that mean they are real, and we are nothing but electrons moving around in someone's brain?

You are what you think you are. Philosophy might say something like, your mind is empty, and the only thoughts put in your mind are you own. So, who is to say you are actually real and not a thought of someone else?

I try not to dwell in such philosophy though I do however find it interesting. You only got one life to live, so I say live.

My conscience is mine, and I control it, no one else does. I think, therefore I am. I make decisions every day based on what I think is best for me, or for the task at hand. So, its my philosophy to say, stop and smell the ****ING roses sometime, because someday they may not be there.

[Merryprankster]

Yes Red5's body is in front of the mirror. But where is the conciousness known as Red5? In the body? Where in the body? In the brain? Where in the brain?

Ah. A different question.

You asked for proof of red5's conciousness - his sense of self. This is amply and easily demonstrated.

However, now you are asking for its physical residence. Typical Fu Pow - he gets *****ed so he changes the subject. I refer you to the second quotation in my signature....

Are you familiar with the term reification? It's a logical fallacy that occurs when you treat an abstract concept as a physical thing in an effort to demonstrate that the abstract concept isn't true. It would be like saying "Yeah, fine, you say there is a transitive property in math, but SHOW me one!!!!" After all, where is it? Where does it reside?

Conciousness is not something that you can pull out and look at. You can't see it or taste it or smell it.

Show me a "quickly." What does one look like? Where is it? Where does it reside?

Rubbish.

However, much like the transitive property, we can DEMONSTRATE the existence of consciousness - and many studies have.

This makes it distinct from your cute and precious conception of qi, which seems to defy demonstration. If you want to BELIEVE in it, go ahead. I have no problem with it. But unless you can demonstrate it, then don't expect the world around you to accept it as a fact.

You and Kung Lek should have a little party. Both of you are impervious to logic and evidence. You could wear funny little hats with foam on the inside to protect yourselves when you accidentally whack into the edge of the short bus. I think the driver is handing out chocolate and bubble wrap to play with on the way to the petting zoo.

As far as "where" it is, strangely, researchers are working on that to try and figure it out.

BTW, "science can't explain...." isn't an appropriate trump card (although terribly popular with the cognitively impaired). All that means is that our current understanding of things can't currently explain it. Science is a PROCESS for discovery, not a set body of knowledge.

Science may one day demonstrate the existence of something we can call qi. Then, you can be vindicated.

If you really want to make the case, become a researcher and start doing research. Of course, this will require thinking and logic, so perhaps you're just better off not doing it.

[Merryprankster]

and they can create fire

Really? Wow. Hadn't heard this!

[Gangsterfist]

Yeah I saw it on one of her documentaries. They are also extremely violent and hunt out monkeys from other "tribes" (for lack of a better word, pack, pride, murder, flock, whatever) and brutally kill them. They also barter.

Its crazy how much they are like us, and yet how different they are too.

[Merryprankster]

Yeah, I was aware of the other bits...but they actually MAKE or just recognize fire?

[Shaolinlueb]

oh my god, this thread is a big waste of freaking hard drive space. someone should delete this before these become more common ;)

[Becca]

on the contrary, a newborn baby has no concept of self in any sense yet he has conciousness.conciousness is not merely the awareness of self,it is the ability to percieve reality, yet what is reality? it is only what your feeble human mind can percieve. does that make it ultimate? no.
I take it you don't have kids and have never been around them enough to know which end eats and wich end ****s... :rolleyes: ;) :p

Hold a newborn up to a mirror and play "peek-a-boo" with him or her. You will be astounded at how quikly they catch on. This is teaching the baby the difference between self and others. This is also teaching baby that just because they cant see you, you are still there. This is the skill known as perseption.

[Merryprankster]

Hold a newborn up to a mirror and play "peek-a-boo" with him or her. You will be astounded at how quikly they catch on. This is teaching the baby the difference between self and others. This is also teaching baby that just because they cant see you, you are still there. This is the skill known as perseption.

Becca, if you take a look at the study I posted (or any like it), you'll see that newborns don't have to be taught the concept....they've got it from minute one!

Not hard for you to accept I'm sure :D

[Becca]

Yeah, I was aware of the other bits...but they actually MAKE or just recognize fire?
One chimp in the study figured out how to use broken bottles as a magnifying glass to lite grass. She did it several times, though I don't know id she figured out what to do with it.

[Becca]

Becca, if you take a look at the study I posted (or any like it), you'll see that newborns don't have to be taught the concept....they've got it from minute one!

Not hard for you to accept I'm sure :D
PThhhhhh! :mad:
Fine. You are not teaching them in the sence that it is a skill they have naturally. You are teaching them to use it by stimulating thier mind. :mad:













;) :D

[Merryprankster]

One chimp in the study figured out how to use broken bottles as a magnifying glass to lite grass. She did it several times, though I don't know id she figured out what to do with it.

Wow. It'd be really neat if some meat "fell near the fire." I mean, I'm sure it took us a long time to figure it out, but perhaps we could "encourage" such a discovery...

[ewallace]

You all take it easy on Red5. He's had a tramatic adulthood, and his driveway doesn't quite reach the street. Plus he's practically a Canadien.

As far as scientifically proving it, I would like to see Red5 take a small biopsy of his brain. If you analyize it, you will probably find that even though it is a small portion of his entire mind, it is probably thinking about somebodys' mom.

[cam]

Red, a Canadian? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :ee

[red5angel]

That's called circular logic. :D ;)


Red5-

Mr. Wizard where are you? Come'on then prove the existence of your mind!!!!!


Had to go to class, then home to bed.

This thread highlights the very problem with Qi believers. See, they assume some sort of mystical process is going on that they don't understand, because they make things way mroe complicated then it is.



Yes Red5's body is in front of the mirror. But where is the conciousness known as Red5? In the body? Where in the body? In the brain? Where in the brain?


Superstitious drivel. Your mind exhists in your brain and hence your body. It doesn't float about you and it doesn't exist "somewhere else". You can overcomplicate it all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not going to get into a religious argument. Scientifically every thought that you have, for example when I look into the mirror, can be measured by instruments measuring the electrochemical processes of the brain. To say the Brain isnot the seat of conciousness is like saying the heart is not where the blood get's pumped from. It shows a really rudminetary understanding of biology in my opinion.
It's just ridiculous how fast and how hard people will latch onto some sort of magical explanation to understand their world. It's like the fukking dark ages sometimes.

[red5angel]

You all take it easy on Red5. He's had a tramatic adulthood, and his driveway doesn't quite reach the street. Plus he's practically a Canadien.


Hammering the sheeeit out of your mom for a hobby does not equate to a traumatic adulthood :D AND HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF BEING PRACTICALLY CANADIAN!!!! That sir, is a slight I shall not take, you, me, pistols at dawn!!!!

[ewallace]

That sir, is a slight I shall not take, you, me, pistols at dawn!!!!
Funny if that actually happened. You would probably show up with an old-school entertech automatic uzi watergun. Meanwhile I would show up with an AR-15.

[red5angel]

Funny if that actually happened. You would probably show up with an old-school entertech automatic uzi watergun. Meanwhile I would show up with an AR-15.

and sadly, I'd still be the victor

[ewallace]

and sadly, I'd still be the victor
My buddy from chicago had a friend named Victor who was of an "alternative" lifestyle. Anyways, because of the way he carried himself, everyone used to call him ***** victor.

So in that sense, yes...you would be the victor.

[red5angel]

My buddy from chicago had a friend named Victor

Does your buddy still call you Victor?

[ewallace]

Does your buddy still call you Victor?
He did once, but I informed him that he had mistaken me for some jarhead from Minnesota.

[Fu-Pow]

Ah. A different question.

You asked for proof of red5's conciousness - his sense of self. This is amply and easily demonstrated.

No I asked for specific criteria. That criteria was to "scientifically" prove that his mind exists. Your "demonstration" was believable but not scientific..in order to study something using the criteria of positivistic material science it must exist in physical space.

I'm not saying that the mind doesn't exist. I'm saying that Science is inadequate to study it. Science can study the brain but it can't really study conciousness in the same way. That is because it exists as an interior awareness rather than in a simple physical location.

Math is not Science. Math is an abstraction created by human consiousness. Obviously Math exists, just as conciousness exists, but not in any singular location.If its not clear by now. TO DEMONSTRATE SOMETHING LOGICALLY DOES NOT EQUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF!!!!! The history of Science is littered with carcasses of ideas that seemed perfectly "logical" but were shown empiricallly to be false.


This makes it distinct from your cute and precious conception of qi, which seems to defy demonstration. If you want to BELIEVE in it, go ahead. I have no problem with it. But unless you can demonstrate it, then don't expect the world around you to accept it as a fact.

My theory is that Qi is a very vague concept. The ancient Chinese were looking for the connection between mind and body. Qi was the best that they could come up with and on many levels it works. I reject the idea that Qi=bioelectrical energy. Qi is what happens when you focus your interior awareness and you gain a higher level of control over your body function. Many masters have demonstrated this across the history of martial arts.



BTW, "science can't explain...." isn't an appropriate trump card (although terribly popular with the cognitively impaired). All that means is that our current understanding of things can't currently explain it. Science is a PROCESS for discovery, not a set body of knowledge.

Actually, your partially correct. Science is a process. Its a process to describe the material natrural world.


Science may one day demonstrate the existence of something we can call qi. Then, you can be vindicated.

My point is that Science never will. Qi is one-half mind and one-half physical manifestation. It is the "ether" that unites mind and body. The expression in CMA is that Qi follows Yi (mind-intent).

Believe in Qi or not, I really don't care. Qi is a useful concept on many levels. I reject Red5's earlier claim that it is not useful. Does it need more study....sure. But I'm saying that the concept is useful today, right now, without more study.

[Fu-Pow]

Your mind exhists in your brain and hence your body.

Where in your brain? In order to study something "scientifically" it has to have a location.



Scientifically every thought that you have, for example when I look into the mirror, can be measured by instruments measuring the electrochemical processes of the brain.

And yet they cannot tell you one single thought that I'm having in my head. For that you'd have to ask me.



To say the Brain isnot the seat of conciousness is like saying the heart is not where the blood get's pumped from. .

You need the brain for human conciousness. But the brain is not the same thing as conciousness.


It's just ridiculous how fast and how hard people will latch onto some sort of magical explanation to understand their world. It's like the fukking dark ages sometimes.

Actually, whats amazing to me is that its like some of you people are living in 19th century Victorian england. Your knowledge of Science, its methods and its limitations is ridiculously inadequate.

[Gangsterfist]

If memory serves...

Man created fire around 1.5 million years ago (estimated of course). We were back then known as ****-habalis(sp?). It is known that we used crude stone and wooden tools to build stuff back then. We also used those same tools for hunting, fishing, starting fires, etc.

Those same tools are used for the same thing even today with modern chimps. The similiarities between us are very interesting.

**EDIT**

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I can't say

H O M O H A B A L I s

[red5angel]

Where in your brain? In order to study something "scientifically" it has to have a location.


Uh, I believe the Brain qualifies as alocation for your purposes. Where in the sun is hydrogen being combusted?


And yet they cannot tell you one single thought that I'm having in my head. For that you'd have to ask me.


but, in theory you still have thoughts, the process of forming those thoughts can be measured. Down the road it might even be possible too read those processes. Before the Rosetta stone Egyptian Heiroglyphs couldn't be read......


You need the brain for human conciousness. But the brain is not the same thing as conciousness.

You need an internal combustion engine to drive a car but the energy produced is not the same as the engine itself.


Actually, whats amazing to me is that its like some of you people are living in 19th century Victorian england. Your knowledge of Science, its methods and its limitations is ridiculously inadequate.

What's that saying? When you point your finger at someone you're pointing 4 back at yourself? ;)

[Merryprankster]

In order to study something "scientifically" it has to have a location.

Uh.....

1. No it doesn't. Please see reification.


2. As Red said, we're pretty aware it's in the brain. Ask Terry Schiavo about that....


Red, GREAT analogy with the sun! Not that I expect Fu-Pow to get it.


but, in theory you still have thoughts, the process of forming those thoughts can be measured. Down the road it might even be possible too read those processes. Before the Rosetta stone Egyptian Heiroglyphs couldn't be read......

Nice! Once again demonstrating that science is a PROCESS to arrive at knowledge, not the knowledge itself!

But, again, I don't expect Fu Pow to get it. His consciousness appears to be co-located with his lower intestine.

[MasterKiller]

Uh.....
2. As Red said, we're pretty aware it's in the brain. Ask Terry Schiavo about that.... So if Red steps into a cloning machine that makes an exact duplicate of himself, which one is him?

Let's say, for arguments sake, that the cloning machine destroys Red5, but rebuilds an exact duplicate of him and his brain on the other side. Is that still Red5? Or has there been a continuity disruption?

[red5angel]

nice work pointing out the Shaivo thing MP! If we were football players that would have deserved a pat on the ass ;)

Ah, MK is delving into some of my favorite territory. I've given this a lot of thought and discussed it quite a bit. I use the idea recently proposed for teleporting matter. Essentially you tear the object down on one end, and store it's a blueprint of it's components and structure, send THAT data on to the recieving end where you essentially build an exact replica.
In my opinion Red would have ceased to exist when he was dissolved into his most basic components.
Of course again this enters into a potential metaphysical argument that I think complicates things more then it needs to be. If you believe in a soul or that you are something other then what you see before you, then of course there is an issue. However if you understand that everything you are, is right there, then you can easily see what I'm saying.
Metaphysics is just a way of complicating the obvious in my opinion.

[Merryprankster]

Metaphysics is just a way of complicating the obvious in my opinion.

Well, I disagree with THAT! But whatever floats your boat.

However, and more to the point with respect to this thread, we are once again ranging ****her afield than the original challenge.

Red can prove that his consciousness exists without determining the fundamental nature of consciousness and reality.

And, as usual, the naysayers can only fall back on "well, we don't really understand it, so you haven't proved anything!!!!"

Well, no. It doesn't work like that. I can demonstrate a volcano exists, even if I think it's a fire god that's running the show. Just because I don't understand the nature of the volcano doesn't make the proof/evidence irrelevant. I can demonstrate that the engine is what makes a car go, even if I think it's little green men inside making it work.

Unless you're just stupid. Then you can say "well, we don't fully understand the nature of the thing, so there's no evidence/proof."

[Ming Yue]

in a similar vein...

my dad used to toss stuff like this at us when my brother and I were kids - If you have a boat, and over the years you replace everything on it, is it the same boat or a different boat?

[MasterKiller]

Of course again this enters into a potential metaphysical argument that I think complicates things more then it needs to be. If you believe in a soul or that you are something other then what you see before you, then of course there is an issue. You don't need to believe in a soul to believe in the duality of mind and body.


However if you understand that everything you are, is right there, then you can easily see what I'm saying If that were the case, the clone would be you.

Are you a compilation of body parts or a singular consciouness housed in a body? Are "you" the microbes that live in your gut? If I cut off your finger, and it lays on the floor in front of you, is that still you?

If I take your brain and put into Merry's body, are you Merry or Red5? If you have Red5's memories and experience, and personality, most people will admit you are now Red5, but tougher and with less hair.

But what if I take half of your brain? One third? Exactly how much of your physical brain does it take to make Merry become Red5? The cerebellum? The cerebral cortex?

[red5angel]

You don't need to believe in a soul to believe in the duality of mind and body

that's just an issue of semantics. what I mean is, the mind and the body are not seperate things. You are what you're made of if that makes any sense.


If that were the case, the clone would be you.

I disagree. As a concisouness, there is some continuity to who you are. While most of the cells in your body are replaced over time, your brain cells are fairly consistant, some die, others grow, but they don't work like other cells of the body. however, if you destroy those cells, and replace them with exact duplicates, you're dealing with a copy, plain and simple.


Are you a compilation of body parts or a singular consciouness housed in a body?

there is no seperation, no housing.



But what if I take half of your brain? One third? Exactly how much of your physical brain does it take to make Merry become Red5? The cerebellum? The cerebral cortex?

You've dissasembled what I am. the Brain is the key to who I am, the rest is sort of along for the ride and replaceabel in larger or smaller chunks. The problem is people like to draw a line between the brain, and every other part of you. While your body parts are "you" while they are attached, your brain is always you, until you start to pull it apart.


In essences you are what you are as long asthe vital part, your brain remains intact.

[MasterKiller]

You've dissasembled what I am. the Brain is the key to who I am, the rest is sort of along for the ride and replaceabel in larger or smaller chunks. The problem is people like to draw a line between the brain, and every other part of you. While your body parts are "you" while they are attached, your brain is always you, until you start to pull it apart.


In essences you are what you are as long asthe vital part, your brain remains intact. But people, especially young children, can live, normal vital, full lives with only half a brain in tact. For example, if a child has a severe accident that disables or destroys the right half of the brain, the left side will re-map and take over all the normal functions of the right and still perform it's own functions.

So, in theory, I could take a brain, split it in two, and those halves would eventually learn to function as completely independent units, albeit now in two separate locations. If that host brain belonged to Red5, after I cut it up and the separate sides remap themselves, are they both you?

[red5angel]

But people, especially young children, can live, normal vital, full lives with only half a brain in tact. For example, if a child has a severe accident that disables or destroys the right half of the brain, the left side will re-map and take over all the normal functions of the right and still perform it's own functions.

Sure, but that's still a function of the organ itself, not a hard to pin down concept called "you" or "me".


So, in theory, I could take a brain, split it in two, and those brains would eventually learn to function as a complete unit, albeit now in two separate locations. If that host brain belonged to Red5, after I cut it up and it remaps itself, are they both you?

Interesting. I'd have to look more into the effects on people like your first paragraph. I'd have to say no though. You are two sides of a brain until they are split. One of you still exists but now they have a clone of you in another body with the advantage of having half your brain. It would make for an interesting experiment to see what happens but my guess is the actual event would be "less" exciting then the imagined possibilities.


It's like the argument on the teleporter. If it's an exact duplicate, and you can't tell the difference, then what is the difference? You could say it's some sort of conciousness transferrence but my guess is you would cease to exist and someone who is a lot like you would begin to exist.

[Gangsterfist]

Here goes an illustration of what a sophisticated monkey society might look like....

[red5angel]

Here goes an illustration of what a sophisticated monkey society might look like....


LOL!


;ashdfjkhsadfl;ajshf

[Fu-Pow]

Uh.....

1. No it doesn't. Please see reification.

I looked up "reification" it means to regard something that is abstract as something concrete. In other words to regard to confuse mind for body. So in actuality you and red5 are the ones guilty of reification. You are trying to make the mind concrete by saying that the mind and the brain are the same thing.




Nice! Once again demonstrating that science is a PROCESS to arrive at knowledge, not the knowledge itself!.

About the natural (ie material) world. You can try to apply some kind of scientific method to interior awareness/conciousness and people have tried but it doesn't work quite as nicely as it does in the physical world.

[red5angel]

So in actuality you and red5 are the ones guilty of reification. You are trying to make the mind concrete by saying that the mind and the brain are the same thing.

Here is where reading comprehension would come in handy. I'm not saying they are the same thing, I'm saying the "mind" is a product of the brain.

[PangQuan]

"Mind" is a concept very similar to that of Qi. The mind can be viewed as a product of the brain, yet it can also be linked to that of the spirit. Its a matter of belief on this one also. Like I believe that the spirit is what gives us our conciousness, yet being human we are cut off from the rest of infinity and the creator due to our tangability and mortality. It is our curse, so to speak. But this spirit always was, and always will be. Even the gods are spirits, and even the gods must go through a tangable moment and die. Like General Guan Dao, who eventually after his passing from this plain, was excepted as the chinese god of war. Your spirit or mind has always been, and will always be, passing from this plain is not the end, simply change. This is where the aspect of reincarnation comes from. It is due to the ideal of spiritual mind.

I am. My brain is just like anyone elses. My mind is completely unique. Thus there must be an influence on my consiousness that is not derived from my tangable existance.

[red5angel]

I see we're not really bothering to read this thread are we fu pow? MP already explained that sufficiently I think. The fact that you're using the tools you use today, the words you use, the typing on the internet, it's all proof of the product of your brain. The fact that while you "think" the process can be measured.
How about gravity Fu Pow? Is that Qi too? I mean, here I am sticking to my chair and the floor beneath it, and the building isn't floating around but I don't see gravity. I can't smell it.

[Gangsterfist]

I think that on internet forums, the following words (phrases) should be stricken from everyone's vocabulary:

Challenge

Prove it

I have a hot model girl friend

[ewallace]

You are two sides of a brain until they are split. One of you still exists but now they have a clone of you in another body with the advantage of having half your brain
The outcome would be one right handed Red5 and a left handed Red5.

Then you could share a screen name with something like "Red.5Angels"

[Ming Yue]

so if I guy makes a butt out of himself on an internet forum, then grandly announces he's leaving said forum, then shows back up as a different but immediately identifiable alter ego on the same forum, repeats the same hind-end behavior and predictably bids the forum farewell again, only to continue to post as the original ego....

does he exist?

[SimonM]

so if I guy makes a butt out of himself on an internet forum, then grandly announces he's leaving said forum, then shows back up as a different but immediately identifiable alter ego on the same forum, repeats the same hind-end behavior and predictably bids the forum farewell again, only to continue to post....

does he exist?

Yes but only until some independantly wealthy Forumite gives him the Jay and Silent Bob treatment.

[spiraler]

define "mind" if youre talking about intelligence, that is a learned ability, so is your personality, the human body was designed to survive. thru evolution we gained the neccesary skills to survive, a sense of self, the abilty to solve problems, the ability to think and build, create. if you were to clone yourself that clone would not be you, it would be a clone of you.to exist is to be a physical manifestation, solid matter in any form. conciousness is a gift solely for you, one could call this a soul,regardless, science will never be able to track its birth or its end. that is what makes it immortal, untouchable. the only to destroy it, is to forget it. before you there was nothing, and after you there will be nothing.

[red5angel]

so if I guy makes a butt out of himself on an internet forum, then grandly announces he's leaving said forum, then shows back up as a different but immediately identifiable alter ego on the same forum, repeats the same hind-end behavior and predictably bids the forum farewell again, only to continue to post as the original ego....

does he exist?



BWAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA :D :D :cool:

[Gangsterfist]

hmmmmmmmmmm


relak?

[SevenStar]

so if I guy makes a butt out of himself on an internet forum, then grandly announces he's leaving said forum, then shows back up as a different but immediately identifiable alter ego on the same forum, repeats the same hind-end behavior and predictably bids the forum farewell again, only to continue to post as the original ego....

does he exist?


Classic. :D

[Fu-Pow]

so if I guy makes a butt out of himself on an internet forum, then grandly announces he's leaving said forum, then shows back up as a different but immediately identifiable alter ego on the same forum, repeats the same hind-end behavior and predictably bids the forum farewell again, only to continue to post as the original ego....

does he exist?

Ghey. :rolleyes:

[Fu-Pow]

define "mind" if youre talking about intelligence, that is a learned ability, so is your personality, the human body was designed to survive. thru evolution we gained the neccesary skills to survive, a sense of self, the abilty to solve problems, the ability to think and build, create. if you were to clone yourself that clone would not be you, it would be a clone of you.to exist is to be a physical manifestation, solid matter in any form. conciousness is a gift solely for you, one could call this a soul,regardless, science will never be able to track its birth or its end. that is what makes it immortal, untouchable. the only to destroy it, is to forget it. before you there was nothing, and after you there will be nothing.

Beautifully put. :D

[Ming Yue]

Ghey.

oh sorry, you spelled that wrong. That's spelled

O-W-N-E-D.

[red5angel]

Ghey.

I think that is the point she was trying to make.

[Gangsterfist]

oh sorry, you spelled that wrong. That's spelled

O-W-N-E-D.


Wait this is the internet, shouldn't be

PWNED JOO

or something like that?

[Fu-Pow]

oh sorry, you spelled that wrong.

Oh you're right....should have been spelled.....

S-U-P-E-R-G-H-E-Y

[Gangsterfist]

This thread is pointless and ridiculous. Fu Pow you aren't even listening to what people are saying and now it has twindled down to name calling.

You call for proof, people present you evidance of their proof, and you still argue. Seriously man, go out for once, have a beer, talk to a girl, get away from the internet for a while. Go read a book, whatever.

Then come back and chat.

[Merryprankster]

I think that on internet forums, the following words (phrases) should be stricken from everyone's vocabulary:

In addition to your suggestions, I advise also:

I have a 10" *****



Fu-Pow has gotten grumpy I see. I suppose I would be in a foul mood as well if I'd spent the whole day like this:

Fu Pow's Day (http://www.drittmer.com/Misc/Head_up_Ass.jpg)

[Merryprankster]

Fu Pow you aren't even listening to what people are saying and now it has twindled down to name calling.

In fairness Gangsterfist, it started with name calling. I know I went on the offense from moment one. I have a low tolerance for willful stupidity.

[Fu-Pow]

This thread is pointless and ridiculous. Fu Pow you aren't even listening to what people are saying and now it has twindled down to name calling.

Actually, I thought it was a good thread despite people trying to put me down with insults. And I'm listening but I'm not hearing anything that would change my stance.




You call for proof, people present you evidance of their proof, and you still argue.

I still argue because nobody has made a convincing argument. Red5 has not given me hard scientific evidence that his mind exists. Therefore, much like Qi, it must not exist.

[PangQuan]

ok, your right it doesnt exist. Your not real. Nothing around you is real. Its not a hallucination, nor a projection of the senses. Nothing is real. There is nothing.

its either that or the undeniable fact that the mind mind does exist, which in turn would be proof. you choose. its left up to you. you can be serious, or you can be delusional.

[Becca]

If memory serves...

Man created fire around 1.5 million years ago (estimated of course). We were back then known as ****-habalis(sp?). It is known that we used crude stone and wooden tools to build stuff back then. We also used those same tools for hunting, fishing, starting fires, etc.

Those same tools are used for the same thing even today with modern chimps. The similiarities between us are very interesting.

**EDIT**

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I can't say

H O M O H A B A L I s
The last show I watched on Animal Planet on this topic thoerized it had everything to do with the type of protien our ansestors consumed in relation to what type the other primate ansestors ate. Ours were more likely to eat red meat, and therefore could support a bigger brain, allowing use to evolve much faster. Very interesting. If this thoery is correct, we could very well be watching a recreation of our own evolution.

[omarthefish]

its either that or the undeniable fact that the mind mind does exist, which in turn would be proof. you choose. its left up to you. you can be serious, or you can be delusional.

You guys are just addicted to making fun of Fu Pow. I know it's hard to resist but really. Even Merry Prankster blew it on this one. "Undeniable fact"? Never mind if Red's conciousness exists. You can't even prove "CONCIOUSNESS" exists. It's one of those things actual real scientists like to debate in their spare time. It's unproven. This debate came up on another board a while back on a religious debate and somone posted the results of a pole of professional scientists where they were asked to name things they believed existed even though there was no proof. "Conciousness" was a popular answer.

Weak thinking on this thread. weak weak weak...

[Fu-Pow]

You guys are just addicted to making fun of Fu Pow. I know it's hard to resist but really. Even Merry Prankster blew it on this one. "Undeniable fact"? Never mind if Red's conciousness exists. You can't even prove "CONCIOUSNESS" exists. It's one of those things actual real scientists like to debate in their spare time. It's unproven. This debate came up on another board a while back on a religious debate and somone posted the results of a pole of professional scientists where they were asked to name things they believed existed even though there was no proof. "Conciousness" was a popular answer.

Weak thinking on this thread. weak weak weak...

Thanks for the vindication. :D

[fa_jing]

"[...]
What is this consciousness of consciousness? We suffer to such an extent from the illusion of the primacy of knowledge that we are immediately ready to make of the consciousness of consciousness an idea ideae in the manner of Spinoza; that is, a knowledge of knowledge. Alain, wanting to express the obvious 'To know is to be conscious of knowing' interprets it in these terms: 'To know is to know that one knows.' In this way we should have defined reflection or positional consciousness of consciousness, or better yet knowledge of consciousness. This would be a complete consciousness directed towards something which is not it; that is, towards consciousness as an object of reflection. It would then transcend itself and like the positional consciousness of the world would be exhausted in aiming at its object. But that object would be itself a consciousness."

[fa_jing]

" It does not seem possible for us to accept this interpretation of the consciousness of consciousness. The reduction of consciousness to knowledge in fact involves our introducing into consciousness the subject-object dualism which is typical of knowledge. But if we accept the law of the knower-known dyad, then a third term will be necesssary in order for the knower to become known in turn, and we will be faced with this dilemma: Either we stop at any one term in the series--the known, the knower known, the knower known by the knower, etc. In this case the totality of the phenomenon falls into the unknown; that is, we always bump up against a non-self-conscious reflection and a final term. Or else we affirm the necessity of an infinite regress (idea ideae idea ideae, etc.), which is absurd. Thus to the necessity of ontologically establishing consciousness we would add a new necessity: that of establishing it epistemologically. Are we obliged after all to introduce the law of this dyad into consciousness? Consciousness of self is not dual. If we wish to avoid an infinite regress, there must be an immediate, non-cognitive relation of the self to itself.[...]"

[fa_jing]

Fa-jing: so basically, Descartes' ontological proof is a reflective cogito, but Sarte believes consciousness requires a pre-reflective cogito.

[omarthefish]

I always hate it when people try to use that Descartes thing out of context. Descartes wasn't even TRYING to prove he existed. That was besides the point. He was trying to prove the existence of God. Go back and read the whole thing guys.

And in the context of the discussion, the fact that you think only proves that you exist to yourself. You can't demonstrate the proof to a 3rd party. You can only prove that you yourself exist but not that anyone else does. "I think there for I am..." YOU I dunno. And if you DO exist, I have no way of proving to YOU that I exist.

Fa-jing:

Rock on dude. That **** is why I gave up on German philosophers a long time ago. Too abstract. Abstractions of abstractions. What's the point. I'm much more of a practical philosopher.

[Merryprankster]

You guys are just addicted to making fun of Fu Pow. I know it's hard to resist but really. Even Merry Prankster blew it on this one. "Undeniable fact"? Never mind if Red's conciousness exists. You can't even prove "CONCIOUSNESS" exists. It's one of those things actual real scientists like to debate in their spare time. It's unproven. This debate came up on another board a while back on a religious debate and somone posted the results of a pole of professional scientists where they were asked to name things they believed existed even though there was no proof. "Conciousness" was a popular answer.

Good for them. I and a large number of psychiatrists and psychologists disagree.

[Christopher M]

Merryprankster is right:

There are psychiatric disorders where the only impairment is consciousness (as in qualia). If, as some suggest here, an assessment of consciousness (as in qualia) was not available to the language and methods of psychological science, this diagnosis would be meaningless. That it's not meaningless is proof that this suggestion is fallacious.

[Fu-Pow]

Good for them. I and a large number of psychiatrists and psychologists disagree.

Owned. :p





Ten Characters

[Fu-Pow]

"[...]
What is this consciousness of consciousness? We suffer to such an extent from the illusion of the primacy of knowledge that we are immediately ready to make of the consciousness of consciousness an idea ideae in the manner of Spinoza; that is, a knowledge of knowledge. Alain, wanting to express the obvious 'To know is to be conscious of knowing' interprets it in these terms: 'To know is to know that one knows.' In this way we should have defined reflection or positional consciousness of consciousness, or better yet knowledge of consciousness. This would be a complete consciousness directed towards something which is not it; that is, towards consciousness as an object of reflection. It would then transcend itself and like the positional consciousness of the world would be exhausted in aiming at its object. But that object would be itself a consciousness."

Nice find. What is that from?

[YuanZhideDiZhen]

merryprankster:

you precisely are the dog in the mirror. the dog you train reflects your values. imagine if you will Mocha. stroke the velvety smooth ears and the dry cracked nose. let the mut take you for a walk. is the froth on your mocha java the same as the as the slime on the lacross ball? how are they different and why do they both bring you pleasure? dare you say that you are separate from the dog?

about leashes:
mocha viewed the leash and the ball as the means to get out of the house. sunshine viewed the leash and the ball as an agreement to interaction.

can you not look into the mug and sniff the java and not see the dog or smell it or have some link to your memory of the dog by the experience of the mocha? if you start that brew and drink it for three weeks would you not roast big brown mut?
and when you do will you realize that you were that dog? and the part of you that was that dog died. :cool:

[omarthefish]

lol@Merryprankster who thinks he exist.....

Only in my imagination dude. . . .

[Merryprankster]

lol@Merryprankster who thinks he exist.....

Only in my imagination dude. . . .

Once again, the problem is that people keep trying to expand the argument.

You want to get into a metaphysical discussion about the ultimate nature of reality, the nature of consciousness and the role of consciousness in interpreting, forming that reality.

But this wasn't the question. The question was merely about the EXISTENCE of consciousness, which empirical methods have amply demonstrated (See Chris M's post). The rest of the stuff is immaterial - an attempt to change the subject, really.

[FuXnDajenariht]

im trying to wrap my brain around this discussion but i been keeping my mouth shut. one question though.

can you really separate a question about "proving" consciousness, with the issue of the nature of reality, let alone the nature of consciousness?

[Merryprankster]

can you really separate a question about "proving" consciousness, with the issue of the nature of reality, let alone the nature of consciousness?

You bet!

I can prove that two lodestones point north for some reason, or attract bits of metal without knowing why. I don't understand it's nature. I have no knowledge of the fundamental nature of the invisible force that causes this to occur, but I can sure as heck demonstrate it exists.

[Gangsterfist]

none of this really exists, its all just a bunch of 1s and 0s interpreted by a machine into what we think it is.

[omarthefish]

You bet!


Nah....you have to first get me to swallow your a priori assumption that you exist for the question of conciousness to even be relevant. That's the problem with a priori's and that's where some people start believing in the soul of God or whatnot. If you are completely intellectually honest with yourself you realize you can't actually any **** thing at all. Somewhere down the line you are stuck with accepting something is true "just because" or "because...well...just LOOK at it! It's obviously true." For example:

a = a

Why? It jsut is.

But that's doesn't matter. I'll accept your supposition that you exist for the moment just so we can keep playing this little game.

Even if I take it, I still say you can't prove conciousness. There's no way to really show that a mathematical reductionist view can't explain all the evidence of conciousness. Then you get bogged down in debating wether or not a sufficiently complex computer + OS + interactive software is concious or merely a similulation. The simple definitions like understanding the difference between "self" and "other" would mean that even my laptop is concious since it is part of a network and has to discriminate between its self and the other computer on my network. So I don't see where you draw the line.

Ultimately, to prove conciousness you end up trying to prove a concept as abstract as god or more to the point "the soul". Otherwise, how do you differentiate conciousness from good software?

[Christopher M]

I still say you can't prove conciousness.

"Merryprankster is right:

There are psychiatric disorders where the only impairment is consciousness (as in qualia). If, as some suggest here, an assessment of consciousness (as in qualia) was not available to the language and methods of psychological science, this diagnosis would be meaningless. That it's not meaningless is proof that this suggestion is fallacious."

[red5angel]

You guys are just addicted to making fun of Fu Pow. I know it's hard to resist but really. Even Merry Prankster blew it on this one. "Undeniable fact"? Never mind if Red's conciousness exists. You can't even prove "CONCIOUSNESS" exists. It's one of those things actual real scientists like to debate in their spare time. It's unproven. This debate came up on another board a while back on a religious debate and somone posted the results of a pole of professional scientists where they were asked to name things they believed existed even though there was no proof. "Conciousness" was a popular answer.

Weak thinking on this thread. weak weak weak...



Ah Omar Allow me to set you and FU Pow straight. See, you're playing a weak game of semantics, while guys like myself and MP are showing Fu Pow that what he seeks exists and is definitely proveable. Here:

Main Entry: con·scious·ness
Pronunciation: -n&s
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness>
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes


All of that stuff is readily identifiable through simple means, just go back and read the thread. It's not a hard concept and it's no where near the whole Qi Myth that guys like Fu Pow like to hold to such high esteem without being able to prove or justify.
That's why we like to make fun of Fu Pow, he's an easy target. He makes grandiose statements and challenges he obviously doesn't understand. Just because He is not understanding what we're explaining to him, does not mean it's false, it just means he's an idiot ;)

[red5angel]

Just to help you along fu pow, because you seriously need it:

Main Entry: 1mind
Pronunciation: 'mInd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gemynd; akin to Old High German gimunt memory, Latin ment-, mens mind, monEre to remind, warn, Greek menos spirit, mnasthai, mimnEskesthai to remember
1 : RECOLLECTION, MEMORY <keep that in mind> <time out of mind>
2 a : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b : the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c : the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism
3 : INTENTION, DESIRE <I changed my mind>
4 : the normal or healthy condition of the mental faculties
5 : OPINION, VIEW
6 : DISPOSITION, MOOD
7 a : a person or group embodying mental qualities <the public mind> b : intellectual ability
8 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b
9 : a conscious substratum or factor in the universe


Does your definition of what you wanted us to prove lie in there somewhere?

[Fu-Pow]

Conciousness exists because the dictionary says so.


You still don't seem to get it. You can't "prove" conciousness through material scientific means. You can't tell what someones intent is until you ask them.

"Demonstrating" conciousness and giving material scientific proof are completely different things.

I can demonstrate logically that the sky must be blue because someone painted it that way. But its not "true" in the scientific sense.

Logic and Science are not the same thing. Logic can be a "closed" system of logic. Science is an "open" system of inference that has to be supported with real world data.

You can take a "scientific" approach to conciousness (ie psychology) but you cannot prove that conciousness exists empirically because it exists in the realm of interior awareness.

Does conciousness exist. Absolutely. But you cannot prove it scientifically.

So my point is that something can exist that is out of the realm of scientific study altogether (eg Chi).

And the more I think about I think that "Chi" is simply the lower level psycho-sexual intent of your body. To gather "Chi" means to focus the bodies natural intent. Just as meditation is to gather the intent of the mind (ie "Yi" mind-intent.)

[Merryprankster]

Omar, both Chris M and I have pointed you to sources demonstrating that there is empirical evidence for a thing called conciousness. We have pointed to evidence that does so independently of the metaphysical question you so desperately wish to argue about. All reasonable questions regarding the mere EXISTENCE of consciousness have been asked and answered. Just because we don't precisely understand the mechanisms of the thing does not invalidate its existence.

At this point, I can only say that you are entitled to your wrong opinions.

[PangQuan]

Nothing is real.

[Fu-Pow]

Omar, both Chris M and I have pointed you to sources demonstrating that there is empirical evidence for a thing called conciousness. We have pointed to evidence that does so independently of the metaphysical question you so desperately wish to argue about. All reasonable questions regarding the mere EXISTENCE of consciousness have been asked and answered. Just because we don't precisely understand the mechanisms of the thing does not invalidate its existence.

At this point, I can only say that you are entitled to your wrong opinions.

You haven't shown a thing except that you know how to hurl insults.

You keep on thinking that closed systems of logic = science. :confused:

[Christopher M]

You haven't shown a thing except that you know how to hurl insults.

"Merryprankster is right:

There are psychiatric disorders where the only impairment is consciousness (as in qualia). If, as some suggest here, an assessment of consciousness (as in qualia) was not available to the language and methods of psychological science, this diagnosis would be meaningless. That it's not meaningless is proof that this suggestion is fallacious."

[Merryprankster]

I might also point out that in the computer example omar referred to, he is asking two separate questions:

1. What is the fundamental nature of consciousness?
2. Does the Computer System in question qualify?


These (again) are the not the same as answering the question "Does consciousness exist?"

I cannot answer the first 2 questions. Psychiatrists and psychologists have empirically demonstrated the later - they seek the understanding necessary to answer the former 2.

[fa_jing]

Fu-Pow, that is from the prologue to Jean-Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness."
His philosophy is closely associated with Phenomenology. The elimination of the knowner and the known and the reduction of objects to the series of their appearances. Let's take Electricity for example. According to Sarte, there is no underlying "Electricity." There are simply the appearances of electricty - heat in a resistor, the movement of the dial in a flux capacitor -- When you look at things from a phenomelogical point of view, consciousness in the first person becomes self-evident. You are conscious because you are conscious of phenomena, one of which is your own consciousness. The tough task is proving other peoples consciousness (which he attempts to do later, and it is complex). As well as proving or describing the nature of Being, existence, etc. In fact, he describes two types of Being: Being-In-Itself and Being-For-Itself.

"I think therefore I am" was the first step of Descartes' ontological proof of the existance of God. However, it is also constitutes a proof of the author's own consciousness. Sarte believes that the I that thinks is not quite the same as to imply the I that exists, or rather that "I think" is a necessary but not sufficent condition for "I am." Well he explains it better than I do.

To me, reading this philosophy - you don't have to agree with everything he says to enjoy it. The cool thing is the rethorical devices that he uses that get you thinking in a completely different mode than you might normally. To Sartre, there is no "underlying reality" that we see various manisfestions of. Rather, it is the manisfestations themselves that are Reality, because reality has no meaning except as it appears to consciousness.

Despite my love of Sartre for this and other works, that dang book has been sitting on my shelf for a couple years and I still haven't made it past 50 pages. One day, when I have loads and loads of time I will get back to it.

[red5angel]

You can take a "scientific" approach to conciousness (ie psychology) but you cannot prove that conciousness exists empirically because it exists in the realm of interior awareness.


Keeerist, either your obstinate refusal to admit you're wrong or your inability to understand what science is and how it works is just too much fu pow. Demonstrating the sky is blue is a part of empirically proving it is. :rolleyes: Weak.




Does conciousness exist. Absolutely. But you cannot prove it scientifically.

Yes, yeas you can, if yuo'd pay attention you'd see that, you're not, or you're not capable of understanding the evidence that's been thrown at you. Right now you're arguing in circles trying to make it seem like it can't be proven when a basic look at what's been said to you shows it can and has.




And the more I think about I think that "Chi" is simply the lower level psycho-sexual intent of your body. To gather "Chi" means to focus the bodies natural intent. Just as meditation is to gather the intent of the mind (ie "Yi" mind-intent.)

So more fufu magical mish mash to explain something that doesn't exist?

[Fu-Pow]

Yes, yeas you can, if yuo'd pay attention you'd see that, you're not, or you're not capable of understanding the evidence that's been thrown at you. Right now you're arguing in circles trying to make it seem like it can't be proven when a basic look at what's been said to you shows it can and has.


Red5, you and Merryprankster haven't shown jack. What evidence? You guys have changed the question that I originally stated. That was that you show me that your conciousness exists using scientific proof. Show me empirical data that consciousness exists.

Somehow you guys have changed the argument to "fu-pow doesn't believe that conciousness exists." Of course it does.....BUT you can't show it in any scientifically meaningful way.

You've yet to do it. Merryprankster has yet to do it. Science in general has yet to do it. And yet your refer to some kind of closed system of logic as scientific proof.

I didn't expect you to be able to do what people who are way smarter than you can't do.

In the Universe most everything has an exterior that you can see, touch, taste, smell or hear AND an interior awareness that you cannot and can only be felt. All the way up and all the way down.

You can't use the methods of the exterior to try to describe the interior. You can't use quantity to describe quality and vice versa.

In essence I set you up to fail....to demonstrate a point.

[Christopher M]

Show me empirical data that consciousness exists.

"There are psychiatric disorders where the only impairment is consciousness (as in qualia). If, as some suggest here, an assessment of consciousness (as in qualia) was not available to the language and methods of psychological science, this diagnosis would be meaningless. That it's not meaningless is proof that this suggestion is fallacious."

[Fu-Pow]

"There are psychiatric disorders where the only impairment is consciousness (as in qualia).

Everything that exists has an interior and an exterior.


If, as some suggest here, an assessment of consciousness (as in qualia) was not available to the language and methods of psychological science, this diagnosis would be meaningless. That it's not meaningless is proof that this suggestion is fallacious."

So its saying since you can assess a disorder of conciousness than this is proof that conciousness exists?

Ok...sure...I agree.

Consciousness does exist. But this isn't material scientific proof. Psychology is a soft science. You can call lots of things "a science" (ie Pschology) but I'm really talking about science as in natural science.

[Christopher M]

In what way do the methods of psychology not count as scientific?

[Fu-Pow]

In what way do the methods of psychology not count as scientific?

Psychology is science in a sense, where the scientific method is employed to study the human mind. But the "practice" of psychology is as much an art (ie getting into somebodies head) as it is a "science."

If we count psychology as a "science" then we might as well include Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism as "sciences" because they use methods to reveal interior awareness.

What I want red5 to do is to show me in the "hard science" way that his conciousness exists.

[red5angel]

Psychology is science in a sense, where the scientific method is employed to study the human mind. But the "practice" of psychology is as much an art (ie getting into somebodies head) as it is a "science."

If we count psychology as a "science" then we might as well include Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism as "sciences" because they use methods to reveal interior awareness.

What I want red5 to do is to show me in the "hard science" way that his conciousness exists.



So wait, in one post your backpedalling by admitting there is a conciousness, and it can be proven by psychology which is, but isn't a science? Which is it there buddy? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You've been slam dunked on this thread and you're having such a hard time dealing with it you're now trying to slide in to make it look like you have agreed all along, while still trying to maintain we don't know what we're talking about.

[Christopher M]

I'm not talking about psychology as the art of getting into someone's head. I'm talking about psychology as the scientific method employed to study the human mind. And one of the topics it has identifies is specific disorders of consciousness, such as blindsight. It studies the brain regions involved in such consciousness, the impacts upon cognition, and so on. Consciousness, as in qualia, can be and is investigated as a matter of hard science using these phenomenon.

[spiraler]

consciousness is a level of awareness, it is not a proper term to be used in defining the mind. to be unconscius is to be unaware, no sensory activity one can have no conciuosness but still be alive, hence those unfortunates in vegitative states.
yet to be unconscious does not inhibit the sympathetic nervous system or the para sympathetic n.s, the heart still beats and the body still functions, but can you control it, no, you cant, you cannot wiil youself to die nor did you will yourself into existence, you have no control over what your midbrain and hindbrain commands. does consciousness exist? physically yes it does, does the mind exist?physically it does.but can you track the mind once the brain is dead? no you cant. can you track the mind before the subject comes into existence? no you cant. therefore you cannot "prove it exists" you only have physical representations which mean nothing.
what you "believe" on the other hand is up to you. the essence of life is something no man has any control over, and no scientific method can ever locate or prove it. we can only prove to ourselves that we exist.no one else.

[red5angel]

and here you are getting the sheeeit beat out of you on the concisouness thing and you STILL CAN't provide anything empirical on Qi. :rolleyes:

[red5angel]

blindsight is a good one: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindsight.html


http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~jdvicto/plsc02.html

http://athena.english.vt.edu/cgi-bin/netforum/nic/a/1

http://www.psyplexus.com/fish/consciousness.htm

[Christopher M]

Online papers in science of consciousness (http://consc.net/online3.html), Offline papers in science of consciousness (http://consc.net/biblio/6.html), Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (http://assc.caltech.edu/index.htm), Center for Consciousness Studies (http://consciousness.arizona.edu/), Journal of Consciousness Studies (http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html), Psyche: an interdisciplinary journal of research on consciousness (http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/), Science and Consciousness Review (http://www.sci-con.org/).

[red5angel]

huh, I guess Fu Pow is officially p0wn3d!!!!!!!

[spiraler]

and here you are getting the sheeeit beat out of you on the concisouness thing and you STILL CAN't provide anything empirical on Qi. :rolleyes:


and if someone were to go as far as gift you with empirical data on qi, what would you do with it anyway? if you trained with a little heart and soul maybe you will find empirical proof of qi within yourself. then you could try explaining to ignorant people such as you. real teachers wouldnt waste their time.

[spiraler]

go ahead and ignore my posts. the only thing between you and victory over fu pow. you cannot grab an idea, you cannot kill a thought. you cannot prove that the mind/soul/spirit exists. you can only find it within yourself. there is more to this world than science you know.

[red5angel]

spiraler, wtf are you talking about?


and if someone were to go as far as gift you with empirical data on qi, what would you do with it anyway? if you trained with a little heart and soul maybe you will find empirical proof of qi within yourself. then you could try explaining to ignorant people such as you. real teachers wouldnt waste their time.

There are no real teachers of Qi because the REAL teachers no what's realisitc and whats' not. And thanks for making huge judgements on my character without getting to know me dumb@ss. Instead of accusing me of training with no heart and soul, cause you don't know me, why don't you have a little fore thought in your first week posting on this forum? You wanna be taken seriously or you want to be tossed into the same group as Fu Pow?



you can only find it within yourself. there is more to this world than science you know.

I'm going to update you a little so you can get on in this conversation without being a few months behind ok? As has been discussed before on these types of threads, SCIENCE is a way of finding answers, not the answers themselves.

[fa_jing]

Yep, Searle Et al. is the newest wave of the philosophy of consciousness. Here they simply say that the brain gives rise to consciousness without knowing how. They define away the mystery by saying that it is a mystery of cause, not a mystery of result. It is fashionable and I think reasonable.

Very different approach from the existentialists and phenomologists. Searle works from the outside in - starts with the assumption of an underlying reality residing in objects, says the brain gives rise to the mind. Sartre starts with the assumption of the underlying reality residing in phenomena and works out to prove the existence of Being, others, etc. The scientific approach is closer to the Searle guys. Unless, you are talking about quantum mechanics, where observation affects and even determines results. The inclusion of an observer here is closer to Phenomenology in my opinion.

[MasterKiller]

There are no real teachers of Qi because the REAL teachers no what's realisitc and whats' not.

Would you call Chan Tai San, LKFMDC's Sifu, real?

Because here is his own hand-drawn chart of Dim Mak points. Notice the time tables.

http://www.nykungfu.com/school/documents/DimMakPoints.pdf

[Fu-Pow]

So wait, in one post your backpedalling by admitting there is a conciousness, and it can be proven by psychology which is, but isn't a science?

What did I just say in my last post? You guys have changed the argument. I never said conciousness doesn't exist. I KNOW consciousness exists. Furthermore, I never said psychology has proved that conciousness exists.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG on all accounts.

I'm gonna start putting a big

WRONG

After all your posts because they are so fundamentally

WRONG

I asked you to prove that it exists using scientific evidence. You couldn't. You failed. Just admit failure and give up.




Which is it there buddy? You can't have your cake and eat it too.


You should go into politics red5 because it appears that you're fond of changing the subject. You should also buy a phrase dictionary so that you understand what "having your cake and eating it too" actually means. It really doesn't apply here.



You've been slam dunked on this thread and you're having such a hard time dealing with it you're now trying to slide in to make it look like you have agreed all along, while still trying to maintain we don't know what we're talking about.

The only person who thinks you slammed dunked anything is YOU. Get over yourself. Just admit your wrong. It takes a man to admit that he is wrong.

I asked you to do something that can't be done.....read this again......I SET YOU UP TO FAIL! I don't know how else I can put it? :confused:

[Fu-Pow]

Would you call Chan Tai San, LKFMDC's Sifu, real?

Because here is his own hand-drawn chart of Dim Mak points. Notice the time tables.

http://www.nykungfu.com/school/documents/DimMakPoints.pdf


The ownage is strong in this one.

[red5angel]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18524911.600


first part of that article.... ;)


anyone else find it as ironic as I that if you're just cruising through you see on Fu Pows post a big ole WRONG stamped and nothing else. Seriously, just wiglle your mopuse back and forth and dont' focus, all you see is his name and WRONG...huh, the universe is trying to tell us something I think.


Fu Pow, you been slammed dewd, now go sit by your dish you been dismissed ;)

[red5angel]

Would you call Chan Tai San, LKFMDC's Sifu, real?

Because here is his own hand-drawn chart of Dim Mak points. Notice the time tables.

http://www.nykungfu.com/school/documents/DimMakPoints.pdf


lol, ok so if I hit you in a tender spot, and it hurts, or kills you, it HAS to be proof of QI? LOL! Only Fu Pow would think that owns anything and that's only because he's too stupid to see the truth when it's laid out in front of him.

[Fu-Pow]

lol, ok so if I hit you in a tender spot, and it hurts, or kills you, it HAS to be proof of QI? LOL! Only Fu Pow would think that owns anything and that's only because he's too stupid to see the truth when it's laid out in front of him.

first part of that article....


anyone else find it as ironic as I that if you're just cruising through you see on Fu Pows post a big ole WRONG stamped and nothing else. Seriously, just wiglle your mopuse back and forth and dont' focus, all you see is his name and WRONG...huh, the universe is trying to tell us something I think.


Fu Pow, you been slammed dewd, now go sit by your dish you been dismissed


WRONG

AND G-H-E-Y!

[MasterKiller]

lol, ok so if I hit you in a tender spot, and it hurts, or kills you, it HAS to be proof of QI? LOL! Only Fu Pow would think that owns anything and that's only because he's too stupid to see the truth when it's laid out in front of him.

You said no real teachers taught qi. I simply provided evidence to the contrary. So, you are wrong but like always redirect the argument rather than admit it.

The time tables denote the path qi travel throughout your body on a daily cycle. While Chan Tai San did not believe qi could be used to add power to your strikes AKA chi blasts, he clearly believed there was a qi flow that could be measured.

LFKMDC has said on several occassion that he used qigong to help cure himself of cancer. I wonder where he learned his qigong? Probably from a real teacher.

[red5angel]

sigh, ok masterkiller you caught me. I got sarcastic and generalized here. Chan Tai san was obviously a good teacher, but he was still wrong about Qi ;)

[Christopher M]

They define away the mystery by saying that it is a mystery of cause, not a mystery of result.

I don't think the mystery is defined away. Chalmers has elaborated at length the difference between the 'hard problem' of consciousness you refer to and various easier problems. But the contention in this thread was simply whether or not scientific methods can positively address the presence of consciousness -- and they can, for example using the 'experimental variable' provided by psychiatric and neuropsychological conditions that impair it. It's certainly true that alot remains unanswered about consciousness, and moreover that the absence of some of these answers is problematic in principle, but we can still speak scientifically about its presence, and we can still provide some answers.


Very different approach from the existentialists and phenomologists.

At least in principle, the difference really is in approach rather than in truth claims being made -- the fundamentals of phenomenology simply indicate that it's investigating a different sense of consciousness than is natural science. The two are, at least in principle and potentially, complimentary in the same way an analysis of the smell and of the color of an apple is complimentary -- distinct but inherently associated phenomenon. Although there are some phenomenologists that are making ontological claims; but in this sense they are continuing the development of idealism with phenomenological methods rather merely phenomenology proper. Although we should note also that when people infer physicalism from natural science, they are similarly developing a metaphysical position which is similarly distinct from science proper.

[Gangsterfist]

/unsubscribe thread

[Christopher M]

I asked you to prove that it exists using scientific evidence. You couldn't. You failed.

Consciousness is proven to exist using scientific evidence. The scientific evidence revealed by the experimental variable provided by psychiatric and neuropsychological conditions which impair consciousness. It's unclear to me why you continue to deny this has been the case without offering any reason for your denial.

[fa_jing]

Sartre used the experience of jealousy and embarassment in his proof of the existence of the other. You all definitely believe in each other's consciousness, proof and scientific method aside!

:eek: :D :cool:

[red5angel]

Consciousness is proven to exist using scientific evidence. The scientific evidence revealed by the experimental variable provided by psychiatric and neuropsychological conditions which impair consciousness. It's unclear to me why you continue to deny this has been the case without offering any reason for your denial.


That's Fu Pows MO. He throws out a challenge then can't back it up one iota. He still has yet to directly address the Qi issue, but I imagine that's fear, yet again he'd fail. He keeps accusing everyone of changing the subject on this thread but it appears we might have to since he can't see the evidence being thrown at him in large portions.

[fa_jing]

Chris M - as usual, nice elaboration. The way that all these terms are defined can be slightly different between philosophers and philosophies. Good philosophical writers address the issue of how they are using a particular term. Even though it might not sink in immediately, if you read their work thoroughly you will catch on after a while.

That's the biggest reason why I like Sartre - I enjoy his rhetorical devices, and find them thought-provoking.

[omarthefish]

red5angel,

It's not semantics and the dictionary definition you offered is circular except for the points where my laptop qualifies as a concious entity. But mainly I'm bailing on this discussion for a couple reasons.

First, I was never that serious about it to begin with.
Second, it exploded another 4 pages since I last checked and I can't keep up the pace. Now that links to scientific papers are being posted it is SOOOO not worth the effort.
Third and really my best reason is this:


I might also point out that in the computer example omar referred to, he is asking two separate questions:

1. What is the fundamental nature of consciousness?
2. Does the Computer System in question qualify?


These (again) are the not the same as answering the question "Does consciousness exist?"

I cannot answer the first 2 questions. Psychiatrists and psychologists have empirically demonstrated the later - they seek the understanding necessary to answer the former 2.


It basically shows that someone got my point about a prioris and whatnot. IF you suggest a particular definition of conciousness then you can prove it according to those rules. I remain highly skeptical of any proofs and MAY browse the links posted because the topic interests me but going out and reading a bunch of scientific papers as fast as I can so I can respond to an online metaphysical debate is more much ****her down the idiot pole than I am willing to climb. . .especially to prove my point to a bunch of people who probably don't exist anyways. :p

I'm kind of curious how anyone goes about demonstrating "intention" or "desire" as those seem like vaguely relevant.

The oddest thing to me though is this. When I look at the offered definition:

1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness>
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

3,4 and 5 don't say anything at all. They are what my old English teacher used to call "using a word to define its self" and put a big red 'X' next to it on vocab tests.

Number 2 is sloppy for purposed of this discussion. I could make a strong case for sensation and volition and though for my computer. Emotion....that's hard even to show for a person unless you reduce it to mechanistic values like, "emotion = altered heart rate, skin conductivity etc."

Number 1. (I promised myself I wouldn't do this *groan*)

'b' is a grammatical definition that says nothing.
'a' means my laptop is concious.
'c' is the only part of the whole definition that is even vaguely interesting. 'Awareness' is easy but concern?

Meh. Time for work.

[Fu-Pow]

That's Fu Pows MO. He throws out a challenge then can't back it up one iota. He still has yet to directly address the Qi issue, but I imagine that's fear, yet again he'd fail. He keeps accusing everyone of changing the subject on this thread but it appears we might have to since he can't see the evidence being thrown at him in large portions.

What evidence?

You're so incredibly junior highschool.....you aren't up to the challenge but you try tell all your snickering friends that you "won" anyways cause you care so much what they think.

I threw down the gauntlet. Show me the hard scientific evidence that your conciousness exists. You couldn't do it. Your bud MP couldn't do it.

I'm with Omar the fish, this is a big waste of time. In order for you to get it we would have to completely rewire your brain.

[Fu-Pow]

Consciousness is proven to exist using scientific evidence. The scientific evidence revealed by the experimental variable provided by psychiatric and neuropsychological conditions which impair consciousness. It's unclear to me why you continue to deny this has been the case without offering any reason for your denial.

Aaahh....now I get your argument. Your trying to say that because injuries to the brain impair conciousness that the brain= human conciousness.

Its a reductionist argument.

Conciousness doesn't just exist in the human brain. Its just that the human brain is the exterior correlate of (what we know to be) the most developed (ie most significant) form of conciousness.

Everything in the universe has conciousness its just that human conciousness is the most significant and has the most depth. For that it requires the structure of the human brain.

But the brain does not= conciousness.

[Christopher M]

Aaahh....now I get your argument. Your trying to say that because injuries to the brain impair conciousness that the brain= human conciousness.

No, I'm not saying that. You said "I asked you to prove that [consciousness] exists using scientific evidence." That's what I've done -- these phenomena provide scientific evidence that it exists. That's my argument, nothing more.

[Christopher M]

That's the biggest reason why I like Sartre - I enjoy his rhetorical devices, and find them thought-provoking.

I'm more into Merleau-Ponty, but Sartre is definitely good. As you say, he definitely writes well even if you end up disagreeing with some of his positions.

[Merryprankster]

online metaphysical debate

Only part of this debate is metaphysical - which is not the part I am interested nor engaged in.



down the idiot pole than I am willing to climb

A tad insulting and undeserved, don't you think? Most of the people talking about this aren't stupid. I believe the argument is at an impasse, but it's not precisely idiotic.

[fa_jing]

I'm more into Merleau-Ponty, but Sartre is definitely good. As you say, he definitely writes well even if you end up disagreeing with some of his positions.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/merleau.htm

interesting.... :)

[FuXnDajenariht]

lol wow... this debate is nutz. ill just that if your here reading and responding to my posts then we're both conscious. thats all the proof i need. what is your definition of consciousness anyway fu pow?

[red5angel]

What evidence?

You're so incredibly junior highschool.....you aren't up to the challenge but you try tell all your snickering friends that you "won" anyways cause you care so much what they think.

I threw down the gauntlet. Show me the hard scientific evidence that your conciousness exists. You couldn't do it. Your bud MP couldn't do it.

I'm with Omar the fish, this is a big waste of time. In order for you to get it we would have to completely rewire your brain.


It's a big waste of time FP because you're a retard. You refuse to accept the evidence thrown out to you because your a blockhead. I was done with you yesterday because while you're ok with throwing out challenges you're not ok with meeting them.

[Fu-Pow]

lol wow... this debate is nutz. ill just that if your here reading and responding to my posts then we're both conscious. thats all the proof i need. what is your definition of consciousness anyway fu pow?

Interior awareness

[Fu-Pow]

It's a big waste of time FP because you're a retard. You refuse to accept the evidence thrown out to you because your a blockhead. I was done with you yesterday because while you're ok with throwing out challenges you're not ok with meeting them.

Boy everything you wrote is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. Astounding :eek:

[red5angel]

Boy everything you wrote is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. Astounding :eek:


Main Entry: iro·ny
Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eirOnia, from eirOn dissembler
1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony
synonym see WIT

[spiraler]

spiraler, wtf are you talking about?



There are no real teachers of Qi because the REAL teachers no what's realisitc and whats' not. And thanks for making huge judgements on my character without getting to know me dumb@ss. Instead of accusing me of training with no heart and soul, cause you don't know me, why don't you have a little fore thought in your first week posting on this forum? You wanna be taken seriously or you want to be tossed into the same group as Fu Pow?




I'm going to update you a little so you can get on in this conversation without being a few months behind ok? As has been discussed before on these types of threads, SCIENCE is a way of finding answers, not the answers themselves.


if you trained with heart and soul then you would have chi. fool.

[red5angel]

if you trained with heart and soul then you would have chi. fool.


Hey bob, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you an instructor? Is this anyway for someone who might be a role model to act?

[FuXnDajenariht]

lol again i gotta ask for the 3rd time. why does anyone bother arguing with red? lmao geeezus

its like the kid who doesn't learn that pulling on the family dogs tail ends up being really painful...

[FuXnDajenariht]

Interior awareness

which means what exactly?