Re: Mind's Eye Re: Life

Heh you are the master of the non answer, are you a politician?

I'm going to assume then that yes crows are conscious, and what you may call the level of intelligence, and the intensity of the sense also mean yes.  Which makes your previous words contradictory.

This phrase though, 'intensity of sense', makes no sense to me.  What does it mean then for consciousness for those beings who have more intense senses?

On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:26:41 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:

There is a matter of the intensity of the senses and the level of
intelligence , but , my friend , crows are beings and not machines -
ah , robots.

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahhhh RP!  You don't change at all sir do you.
>
> There are of course many, many people and soooo much literature that
> disagrees with your wishy washyness here.  So much of it in fact that I
> don't even feel the need to defend my stance at all.  So let me just finish
> by asking you two questions.
>
> Are crows conscious?
>
> Is a crows consciousness the same as a humans?
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:08:51 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>>
>> That which exist is Being , and consciousness does't have levels but
>> parameters -- sound , sight , etc.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The we disagree again RP.  Unless you and I have differing concepts on
>> > what
>> > consciousness is?  My cats are conscious, would they have an
>> > understanding
>> > of God as a human does?  I suspect not, but they are surely conscious
>> > creatures.  It may be that I infer I am currently in discourse with
>> > another
>> > conscious entity, but I'd rather say it is empirically correct that I am
>> > doing so rather than it is an inference that I can make.  After all are
>> > we
>> > not members of the same species?  Without being too general, I think
>> > such
>> > inferences that I can make about myself as a human must also hold true
>> > for
>> > other humans.  I must breathe to live, so can I infer that others of my
>> > species must also do the same, or can I claim knowledge that it is true?
>> >
>> > I get what you mean of course, I can ever only really say I think,
>> > therefore
>> > I am.  However when an inference takes place day in and day out, I think
>> > it
>> > better to regard such 'truth' as knowledge.  Thus I know you are
>> > conscious,
>> > as you are human, and I know I am conscious.  My cats show all the signs
>> > of
>> > being conscious  and indeed as you would expect of conscious beings. the
>> > both exhibit different attitudes and personalities.
>> >
>> > So once again we are back to the following two questions.  What do you
>> > mean
>> > by 'being', and at what level of 'consciousness' does this proof of
>> > yours
>> > need to be, to be proof?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 12:20:34 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As far as a person is concerned , there is only one consciousness ,
>> >> that is , his. Others are inferred, as also the existence of god.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Meh! I know plankton exist, is it conscious, or would you not call it
>> >> > a
>> >> > being?  Or perhaps we can discuss levels of consciousness?  Nope I
>> >> > can't
>> >> > get
>> >> > with this argument RP, far too many holes in it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sunday, 23 September 2012 15:20:45 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Conscious beings are a proof of God because otherwise an unconscious
>> >> >> Being
>> >> >> could not be said to exist. Existence is the seed which finds its
>> >> >> growth in
>> >> >> life.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> --
>
>
>

--