[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[david buchanan]

FSoB-dmb said:
How do you figure? I mean, Micah can attribute consciousness to the human 
species simply because he is a human being with consciousness. He knows it 
from experience. He knows it from the "inside", if you will, whereas with 
animals....

Space Case replied:
We can infer that the more similar an organism is to ourselves the more 
similar to us their internal states must be. But it remains an "unprovable" 
inference since we can not confirm this through direct experience. We don't 
know each other "from the inside" any more than we know other organisms or 
objects "from the inside".

HPW-dmb says:
I disagree. Its seems to me that animals and objects can only be observed 
but this is not the case when it comes to other humans. If I want to find 
out what's going on "inside" Case's mind all I have to do is ask. And while 
its pretty clear to me that we do share something with animal, that we are 
animals too, we can't interrogate them in the same way. If they have a 
language and a culture, we haven't yet figured out a way to access them. And 
that's the big difference. I can talk to you and when you talk back its 
clear that there is a mind at work. Through speech or text, human minds 
interact. Happens every minute of every day.

Nut Case said:
All you have is observation and experimentation, whether you do it 
systematically or informally. Behavioral sciences share this with everyday 
life. If all you are concerned about is what is going on inside your own 
head, there really isn't much need to get up in the morning is there?

NSS-dmb says:
I'm not a suicidal solipsist. I'm just saying that the attribution of 
consciousness to animals is much different than "infering" that I have 
consciousness. You aren't stuck with the observational mode when it comes to 
the consciousness of others. The responsive quality of my sentences, written 
or spoken, are all the evidence you need.

FSoB-dmb said:
I'm just saying that B.F. Skinner won't help us to understand Protagoras. 
You need a mystic or some kind of postmodernist to get at it, I think.

Head Case replied:
I skipped the profound sounding stuff about notness defining being. It all 
boils down to: sometimes we generalize, sometimes we discriminate. Sometimes 
it makes sense to talk about what we are and sometimes to talk about what we 
are not. Real understanding requires both.

dmb says:
Well, that was kinda the point. Subject and object define each the way hot 
and cold do. Thus oppostion or "notness" is an important aspect of identity. 
But it deserved to be skipped. T'was a bunch of clumsy bullshit, even if I 
do say so myself.

Federal Case said:
Protagoras will not help me understand Skinner either and yet I can 
understand both. Most of the time, especially when I engage in social 
interactions Skinner provide more insight into what is going on around me.

dmb says:
I'm just saying that kind of science is useless in this debate, that it is 
pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of pre-Socratic humanism. Skinner 
may or may not help you score chicks, but that's not what we're talking 
about here. Although I'd encourage you to start a new thread. You could call 
it, "When nerds cruise" or something.

Thanks,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live 
Spaces   
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features