definition of sentience

[Dale]

falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
sentience

non-sentient life seems bound by inductive, or deductive, inference

sentient life might have the addition of abstraction not bound by
inference, such as dreaming or imagining

awareness seems like a unity, sentience seems like a regression of
awareness, aware of being aware of aware of being aware, etc.

nothing new, seems to be well discussed in philosophical dualism of
the mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism

as a recent agnostic I seem to be searching and revisting things more
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[m***@.]

Post by Dale
falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
sentience
non-sentient life seems bound by inductive, or deductive, inference
sentient life might have the addition of abstraction not bound by
inference, such as dreaming or imagining
awareness seems like a unity, sentience seems like a regression of
awareness, aware of being aware of aware of being aware, etc.
nothing new, seems to be well discussed in philosophical dualism of
the mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
as a recent agnostic I seem to be searching and revisting things more

As as a strong or weak agnostic? Can you appreciate the distinction between
them? If so, can you explain why/how you appreciate it? Can you appreciate the
distinction between strong and weak atheism? If so, can you help anyone else in
these ngs learn to appreciate it?

[Dale]

Post by m***@.

Post by Dale
falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
sentience
non-sentient life seems bound by inductive, or deductive, inference
sentient life might have the addition of abstraction not bound by
inference, such as dreaming or imagining
awareness seems like a unity, sentience seems like a regression of
awareness, aware of being aware of aware of being aware, etc.
nothing new, seems to be well discussed in philosophical dualism of
the mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
as a recent agnostic I seem to be searching and revisting things more

As as a strong or weak agnostic? Can you appreciate the distinction between
them? If so, can you explain why/how you appreciate it? Can you appreciate the
distinction between strong and weak atheism? If so, can you help anyone else in
these ngs learn to appreciate it?

moderate, I am skeptical of both sides, I don't think either side has
the science monopoly, neither side satisfies my everyday life without
pieces of both
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[m***@.]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 22:45:56 -0400, Dale <***@dalekelly.org> wrote:
.

Post by Dale

Post by m***@.

Post by Dale
falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
sentience
non-sentient life seems bound by inductive, or deductive, inference
sentient life might have the addition of abstraction not bound by
inference, such as dreaming or imagining
awareness seems like a unity, sentience seems like a regression of
awareness, aware of being aware of aware of being aware, etc.
nothing new, seems to be well discussed in philosophical dualism of
the mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
as a recent agnostic I seem to be searching and revisting things more

As as a strong or weak agnostic? Can you appreciate the distinction between
them? If so, can you explain why/how you appreciate it? Can you appreciate the
distinction between strong and weak atheism? If so, can you help anyone else in
these ngs learn to appreciate it?

moderate, I am skeptical of both sides, I don't think either side has
the science monopoly, neither side satisfies my everyday life without
pieces of both

To get as "far" as the most basic starting line associated with this topic
you would need to eventually learn to understand the easy distinctions between
the positions I asked you about. As yet I've never known an atheist to get that
"far", and as yet you haven't been able to get that "far" either. Good luck to
you, if you ever attempt to get as "far" as that most basic of starting lines.

[Dale]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:49:38 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason

Post by Dale
falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
sentience

Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause everything
else to exist. If you're going to throw out random nonsense, everyone
else is allowed to as well... and with just as much reason to take it
seriously.
"Spiritual essence". Right...

I said "might" ...
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Post by Dale
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:49:38 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason

Post by Dale
falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
sentience

Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
everything else to exist. If you're going to throw out random nonsense,
everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as much reason to
take it seriously.
"Spiritual essence". Right...

I said "might" ...

So did I. I just did it in a vastly more meaningful fashion than you did.

[m***@.]

Post by Kelsey Bjarnason

Post by Dale
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:49:38 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason

Post by Dale
falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
sentience

Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
everything else to exist. If you're going to throw out random nonsense,
everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as much reason to
take it seriously.
"Spiritual essence". Right...

I said "might" ...

So did I. I just did it in a vastly more meaningful fashion than you did.

You did it like someone who can't consider the possibility that there could
possibly be any beings in the entire universe who could be considered gods, and
take it for granted that no one else "should" be able to consider the
possibility that there are either. From there you need to explain why everyone
should try to mentally restrict themselves in the same way that you're obviously
restricted. Your thing about jelly beans is below the level of a normal grade
school child. It's on the level of some sort of horribly retarded child. So you
need to try to explain why everyone should try to restrict themselves to your
level of some sort of horribly retarded child.. Try doing that now.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:57:51 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason

Post by Kelsey Bjarnason

Post by Dale
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:49:38 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason

Post by Dale
falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not
be able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of
anything"
and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience
of sentience

Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
everything else to exist. If you're going to throw out random nonsense,
everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as much reason to
take it seriously.
"Spiritual essence". Right...

I said "might" ...

So did I. I just did it in a vastly more meaningful fashion than you did.

You did it like someone who can't consider the possibility that there could
possibly be any beings in the entire universe who could be considered
gods,

No, I did it like someone who suggests that if you want to invoke magic,
at least have the balls and the intellectual integrity to do so
honestly, and if you want any if it regarded as anything beyond bullshit
spewed by credulous nutbags, trot out the supporting evidence for it.

As I said, with *no* reason offered to take it seriously, there's no
reason to take it seriously, or to treat any other crackpot claim as
equally valid.

Not my fault these boneheaded morons can't come up with a shred of
anything sane to support their delusional fantasies. If they don't like
being treated like idiots, they should either not say idiotic things, or
should demonstrate those things to not be idiotic - via evidence.

Instead, they whine.

Fuck 'em. Spoiled toddlers, the lot.

[m***@.]

Post by Kelsey Bjarnason

Post by m***@.

Post by Kelsey Bjarnason

Post by Dale
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:49:38 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason

Post by Dale
falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
sentience

Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
everything else to exist. If you're going to throw out random nonsense,
everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as much reason to
take it seriously.
"Spiritual essence". Right...

I said "might" ...

So did I. I just did it in a vastly more meaningful fashion than you did.

You did it like someone who can't consider the possibility that there could
possibly be any beings in the entire universe who could be considered gods, and
take it for granted that no one else "should" be able to consider the
possibility that there are either. From there you need to explain why everyone
should try to mentally restrict themselves in the same way that you're obviously
restricted. Your thing about jelly beans is below the level of a normal grade
school child. It's on the level of some sort of horribly retarded child. So you
need to try to explain why everyone should try to restrict themselves to your
level of some sort of horribly retarded child.. Try doing that now.

No,

You can't.

Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
I did it like someone who suggests that if you want to invoke magic,
at least have the balls and the intellectual integrity to do so
honestly,

3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.

[Dale]

On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 05:24:37 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
sentience

Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause everything
else to exist. If you're going to throw out random nonsense, everyone
else is allowed to as well... and with just as much reason to take it
seriously.
"Spiritual essence". Right...

They're at the very beginning of understanding how the brain works and
how the mind emerges from it. What will the silly fundies do when we
advanced our knowledge from say, pre-school levels to Ph.D. levels?

I don't think a mind is sentience, a mind just "minds", kind of like
an event loop in data flow programming

Their gaps just keep getting smaller and no matter how hard they rail
and fight against it, they just cannot stop progress from happening.

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org