Except for the part of us which is aware, which you’ve definitively said comes from itself and not from dust.
:facepalm:
When your argument fails, resort to facepalm and hope nobody was following along (which luckily for you is probably the case).
Nah. The facepalm was given when you decided to go around the entire crux of the discussion and make a conclusion that I never made.
Anyway, I’m done with “what is awareness?”. At this point, it’s a philosophical debate, not an objective one. I want to get back to evolution versus creation for this thread. 
this pretty much sums up the last couple of posts
What would you say the “crux” of the discussion is, given that the beginning of this discussion was my question whether or not awareness was created by nuclear fusion like all matter, and your answer was yes, the creation of matter is synonymous with the creation of awareness? What are we talking about now, if not the fundamental separation between matter and awareness? Did you think we were actually talking about potatoes and cars?
I’d say your new position that awareness is a property of “perception” and exists seperately from matter is fairly relevant to the crux of the discussion, given that it invalidates your original premise.
Do you even know what “semantic” means? Pointing out logical flaws in your positions isn’t semantics, it’s called “debating.”
He meant that Magnetism is an abstract concept we use to understand the magnetic receptivity of particles.
There’s no such thing as Magnetism, only consistent interaction between particles that we call magnetic.
Because magnetism is a concept derived from these existing properties, it is a symptom instead of an actual thing of importance, a symptom instead of an agent.
Sometimes you just need to see the world in black and white and transparent.
I’m pretty sure he meant that the observed behavior of magnets is evidence of the magnetic property inherent in matter (which happens to be true). He was enquiring whether I was claiming “aware” behavior is evidence of some property inherent in matter, in the same way that “magnetic” behavior is. I ignored it because it would have lead back to a tangent that we had already been over - I had said it’s a possible test but not sufficient alone as evidence.
The crux of the argument, mattemuse, is that you’re saying that “awareness” is separate from matter – something added to the matter that doesn’t exist otherwise. That’s not true at all. “Awareness” comes from the interaction of these elements. As car parts put together creates a “car”, computer parts put together creates a “computer”, people parts put together creates awareness. It is inherent in the completed puzzle. It is not separate. The foundation of my argument has not changed one iota; but as I understood your position differently, my argument has changed in an attempt to answer your position.
Now that THAT’S out of the way, let’s get back to the topic.
Holy Fuck just google a frickin’ definition of awareness and move on! 
I agree with Danson.
Shadow - if you keep doing that they will think you’re a fake account I built to support myself. Also: Why do you seem to always post directly after me? That’s weird, man… are you following me?
Thanks anyway… but geez - sometimes you creep me out. Just sayin’! 
Didn’t notice that. Guess we’re in the same timezone. Oh shi- did it again
:fffuuu:
You have said awareness is “not a property of” matter, not “added” to matter when it’s created, and yet also also “not separate from” matter. You’re simultaneously holding two mutually exclusive viewpoints, and attributing one of them to me in order to get around the cognitive dissonance. These are your words being quoted, not mine.
No, there’s no cognitive dissonance if you’ve been listening to anything I’ve been saying.
You missed my point entirely. I’m saying that awareness can only be recognised by something that is aware, even if that something is the self. In that way awareness derives from being aware.
What was your point, again? Nothing can be “recognized” by anything except something that is aware, since recognition implies cognition. And yet things like atoms and molecules are commonly accepted to fundamentally exist apart from whether they are recognized as themselves or not. If awareness exists as an affirmative property of things, whether it’s recognized as itself or not, the question was, what is it an affirmative property of? Your answer was “itself” which is interesting if you meant what you said, and gibberish if you apply random qualifiers to it which deny your own words.
Definition of awareness on allwords.com
Definition of awareness on the Free Dictionary Website
You motherfuckers had it coming!
now define cognizance