The Highest Form of Metaphor

So you allege that the first act of consciousness what the recognition of affinities in subatomic particles, huh? Are you on drugs?

...it certainly is true that the planet Earth in each moment of its present existence recognizes the gravity force Moon constantly exercises upon it and backwards...data upon Moon and Earth state of affairs concerning their gravity pull is being therefore informing both party´s...equally light beams frontal segment is known to carry information on their state of affairs while travelling through space...etc etc...

And what relevance, pray tell, does that have for subatomic particles and the first act of consciousness?

Consciousness at the most primeval very basic level is just measurement or transaction of information states...I usually admire your posts very cunning and all but on this one you are simply put plain wrong...of course this is just my opinion, you are entitled to have yours...whatever...cya !
(don´t confuse this opinion with any anthropocentric account of reality)

It's precisely because there is no relation to human reality that i've pointed out that the original post is bullshit. I know, of course, that you enjoy playing games with meaningless strings of words, so you should get along famously with this joker. I will, however, point out bullshit when i see it.

Oh, and by the way, you have no basis upon which to speak of consciousness as though you were an authority on the subject. That's the main problem with the philosophy forum refugees--a lot of jokers spouting nonsense as though they were authorities without providing a shred of evidence that that is the case.

Let me clarify it for you then, I define consciousness as a loop...the measurement of that which measures...and fairly said there´s no essential big difference in there, very much it all still is measuring...as for authoritative figures you must be joking right, have you look into your own yard Set ? This is a place of debate and ideas which can only be judge by the substance and content of what is presented at any given time...questioning the main stream knowledge is precisely what philosophy should be all about, pushing the boundaries...

...philosophy refugees are not all the same, not that you care to make the division anyway...how convenient...it figures that when you have nothing substantial to present on a rebuttal you bring up background noise and kicking which I find cute healthy and fun, nevertheless you ought to listen more time to time...you are getting old...maybe you just miss the old Tom Sawyer days of your youth, I certainly miss mine...

...oh and very frankly let me tell you some more...I piss on authoritative figures with high confidence...most of the time formal effort is like sitting on the toilet and pushing...won´t get you anywhere more productive if you don´t have the capacity...mediocrity loves formality !
I am very aware on my value, my creativity, and my own, self made, self build knowledge...I fairly know have it been otherwise I would n´t know ****...knowledge is necessarily a very personnel thing !

Take time for a big cup of tea and have a nice day Set...later !

I have absolutely no interest in how you define anything, nor upon whom it pleases you to piss. Although you probably don't realize it, language doesn't work when people define things as they please, it only works with consensus. Furthermore, you're the one making statements from authority, not i. Perhaps you should piss on yourself.

...yeah, but consensus imply´s debate first and debate in order to be productive imply´s a breach with previous authority...again background noise and an empty hand of smoke Set...as I said I am not keep debating whatever you think is right or wrong when your argument actually amounts to say nothing at all upon the matter...at least I come to conversations with some starting point settled...try not be to pissed this time around will ya...

You're doing the statement from authority bullshit again. I have no reason to assume that debate must break with previous authority in order to be productive. In fact, debate can easily take place between two individuals who are not authorities on any subject. You see that with the philosophy forum refugees all the time.

I'm not pissed either in the sense of being angry (you're nothing to me, and nothing at this site is worth investing in emotionally), nor in the sense of being drunk, as i don't take strong drink.

...either a debate ads something to what has been known in some subject or it does n´t..so I meant productive in the scope of the subject at hand and not personally productive in some other sense...I would like to see people investing some risk and trying to figure things further from where they stand presently, as I said philosophy in my opinion is about that...unfortunately most people could n´t care less prevented they look well on the picture...

It would be considerably easier to discuss this with you if you could write coherently in English.

...well maybe I should just give up trying and get back to my native language sites...probably you are right !

That might not be a bad idea. It probably helps your use of English to post here, but you seem to have a compulsion to express things which your grasp of the langauge does not allow. You should make your statements simpler, and you should write complete sentences. Short, complete sentences. Then you can work on making them actually say something in English.

You see Setanta I am fairly confident even as they are (my sentences) they tell allot more then most, and yes they are poorly written down, but I know what I write when I write it, I don´t need a tap in my back to evaluate my work...ad it occurred to you that you just probably dislike philosophy ? very probably you dislike the risk of putting something forward without solid ground...I in turn value the daring of advancing something new every time I write something. To each its own !

I've no idea what the beginning of that means. As for the rest, i don't dislike philosphy, i just am not enamored of pretension and people insisting that their seriously flawed premises and expositions deserve to be accorded respect just because they took the trouble to write them down. The rest of your diatribe is a passive-aggressive sneer suggesting that i'm some sort of frightened reactionary, simply because i've pointed out that you don't express yourself well in English. Trying to get your dig in, huh?

1 - ...again that amounts to bullshit...don´t play the card of pretension...every time you think on something and try to come up with an idea you are being pretentious...god bless pretension in that sense ! ...besides, being right on anything is not about being articulate although it can help...

2 - As for flawed premises, oh boy, you have no idea...some people tend to think that their reasoning limits are the reason limits of reality itself...you have a long way to go before you can even dare to say **** like that...

If you recall, Set, that was precisely your main premise on the Pet Peeves in English thread. You just kept moaning about the right to peeve.

You probably don't remember because hypocrisy is one of your more endearing qualities.