Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the following: Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we did, which isn't plausible. Quote
Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 jun, 14:50, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > did, which isn't plausible. Pardon? "Which means that wheter it did or didn't" did or didn't what? If a cameraman goes out with soldiers to make pictures of the war, the behaviour of the soldiers during intense combat can be explained without references to the camera. Thus - according to you it - would be a coincidence if the camera would have recorded what actually happened? Funny way of reasoning:) In "consciousness explained" Dennet actually describes conciousness as the narative our brain stores of what has happened. So comparing it whith the camera is not a silly thing to do. Of course unlike the camera our consiousness does not consist of raw data, but is also build up from conclusions our mind has been making during or after the facts that are described happened. This is very usefull for our actions during the events (supposing someone is aiming to kill you provedes a better guidline for soldiers) that merely concluding that certain sounds present themselves to our ears), but somewhat spoiling our memory as far as reliability is concerned. (someone might be playing a tape of bullets flying around instead of really shooting). If you have any real problems with materialism, you may present them to me, I know of no problems so far, and am willing the learn wether one is serious enough to ponder about. Peter van Velzen Atheist and materialist June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Peter van Velzen concious materialist June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > On 3 jun, 14:50, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > following: > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > did, which isn't plausible. > > Pardon? > "Which means that wheter it did or didn't" > did or didn't what? > > If a cameraman goes out with soldiers to make pictures of the war, > the behaviour of the soldiers during intense combat can be explained > without references to the camera. > Thus - according to you it - would be a coincidence if the camera > would have recorded what actually happened? > > Funny way of reasoning:) > > In "consciousness explained" Dennet actually describes conciousness as > the narative our brain stores of what has happened. So comparing it > whith the camera is not a silly thing to do. Of course unlike the > camera our consiousness does not consist of raw data, but is also > build up from conclusions our mind has been making during or after the > facts that are described happened. This is very usefull for our > actions during the events (supposing someone is aiming to kill you > provedes a better guidline for soldiers) that merely concluding that > certain sounds present themselves to our ears), but somewhat spoiling > our memory as far as reliability is concerned. (someone might be > playing a tape of bullets flying around instead of really shooting). > > If you have any real problems with materialism, > you may present them to me, > I know of no problems so far, > and am willing the learn wether one is serious enough to ponder about. > Your analogy was poor. The soldiers behaviour isn't affected by whether unknown to them the cameraman was filming. So if they were talking about the cameraman filming, it would only be a coincidence that there was a cameraman filming. You couldn't be talking about anything you experience, and about your subjective experiences, because you actually had subjective experiences was the point. It would only be a coincidence that you had the subjective experiences that you were discussing. It would also have to be a deception that your behaviour was influenced by anything you subjectively experienced, so on top of it being a coincidence, it wouldn't even fit with our actual experience. Quote
Guest Dubh Ghall Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote: >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >following: > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >did, which isn't plausible. Looks to me like the pro log for an argument along the lines, "If "A", and "B", then "Z", with a large dose of argument from incredulity, thrown in. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 15:06, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >following: > > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >did, which isn't plausible. > > Looks to me like the pro log for an argument along the lines, "If "A", > and "B", then "Z", with a large dose of argument from incredulity, > thrown in. If you can't understand it, I suggest that you spend some more time thinking about it. Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: Whether they do or don't is supposed to mean anything? Whether they do or don't is supposed to validate or invalidate the assertions? > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > did, which isn't plausible. You apparently don't know the difference between machines and humans. Scientists do, as do atheists, - even if they are at a loss to (scientifically) explain it. OK ... so now I understand that you can create a strawman, and erroneous, assertion. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 16:14, "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsW...@onehandclapping.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > following: > > Whether they do or don't is supposed to mean anything? > Whether they do or don't is supposed to validate or invalidate the > assertions? > > > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > did, which isn't plausible. > > You apparently don't know the difference between machines and humans. > Scientists do, as do atheists, - even if they are at a loss to > (scientifically) explain it. > > OK ... so now I understand that you can create a strawman, and erroneous, > assertion. What erroneous assertion was there? Is it just that you can't face up to the fact that you believed an implausible story, or that you still really don't comprehend what was said? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 someone2 wrote: > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > did, which isn't plausible. > I think I see the error in this. The flaw in it is that nature in itself is far from orderly. Any "mechanism" that complex (and it doesn't have to be as complex as living beings) has to account for chaos. We all use computers. And we all know that sometimes they "behave" rather erratic, if not to call it outright esoteric. Any sufficiently complex thing has chaos build in. It might be that "consciousness" is applied chaos among the huge number of brain cells. Also overlooked in the above statement is the benefit of consciousness. And that benefit actually NEEDS chaos to deal with unknown situations. Actually, this sounds rather like an "evolutionary way of thinking" that is build in. Tokay -- Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 16:25, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > someone2 wrote: > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > following: > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > did, which isn't plausible. > > I think I see the error in this. > > The flaw in it is that nature in itself is far from orderly. Any > "mechanism" that complex (and it doesn't have to be as complex as living > beings) has to account for chaos. > > We all use computers. And we all know that sometimes they "behave" > rather erratic, if not to call it outright esoteric. Any sufficiently > complex thing has chaos build in. > > It might be that "consciousness" is applied chaos among the huge number > of brain cells. > > Also overlooked in the above statement is the benefit of consciousness. > And that benefit actually NEEDS chaos to deal with unknown situations. > > Actually, this sounds rather like an "evolutionary way of thinking" that > is build in. > Chaos has only to do with a systems sensitivity to differences in initial starting conditions, though with no cause within the physical world (quantum randomness)a systems behaviour could be claimed to be unpredicable if sensitive to quantum effects. Though many systems such as cars etc, aren't really that sensitive to quantum effects. Either way, it doesn't affect the point made. If you had all knowledge regarding the way any mechanism worked, its behaviour could be explained (retrospectively if necessary) with the assumption that it had no subjective experiences. If we were to be regarded as biological mechanisms, you couldn't be talking about any subjective experiences you had because you actually had them. It would have to be a coincidence. Quote
Guest raven1 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote: >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >following: > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >did, which isn't plausible. I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. -- "O Sybilli, si ergo Fortibus es in ero O Nobili! Themis trux Sivat sinem? Causen Dux" Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 13:50, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > did, which isn't plausible. Anyway, need to pop out now, when I get back, I'll take a look at whether any of you have manage to understand, and accept despite your egos, that you had been deceived into believing an implausible account of what you were experiencing. Also by the way, it was prophesised that the 'intelligent' would be deceived, and turn reality upside down, and claim that we were simply physical mechanisms, and low and behold, that is exactly what the materialists did. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2029&version=31 vs 14-16 (building a world based around selfishness also wasn't a wise thing to do, on many levels, just look at the human inflicted death toll of the 20th centuary) Some might be tempted at this point to distract from what is being said. Though that would just be a pathetic attempt to live in denial avoiding reason. Best if you just faced up to reality, and reason, instead of running from it, while claiming you were in any way intelligent. Quote
Guest raven1 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:27:23 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote: >On 3 Jun, 15:06, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> >following: >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >> >did, which isn't plausible. >> >> Looks to me like the pro log for an argument along the lines, "If "A", >> and "B", then "Z", with a large dose of argument from incredulity, >> thrown in. > >If you can't understand it, I suggest that you spend some more time >thinking about it. I suggest you spend some time rephrasing it. As I stated elsewhere in the thread, the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the third sentence is word salad, and the fourth is an argument from personal incredulity. -- "O Sybilli, si ergo Fortibus es in ero O Nobili! Themis trux Sivat sinem? Causen Dux" Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >following: > > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >did, which isn't plausible. > > I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from > the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an > argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with > "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. > The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it doesn't, and what part of sentance three are you having problems in comprehending? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 16:53, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > >following: > > > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > >did, which isn't plausible. > > > I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from > > the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an > > argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with > > "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. > > The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it > doesn't, and what part of sentance three are you having problems in > comprehending? > Also sentance four is correct that it would have to be a coincidence, though if you wished to think of it as plausible that there was such a coincidence, and to stake your soul on it, then obviously that is your choice. You won't be experiencing the physical world forever though, and soon enough you'll regret your illogical choice. Quote
Guest raven1 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:53:43 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote: >On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> >following: >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >> >did, which isn't plausible. >> >> I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from >> the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an >> argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with >> "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. >> > >The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it >doesn't, It simply doesn't. How do you think that it does? Let's reduce it to an actual syllogism for illustration purposes: P1: "A mechanism can have its behavior explained without invoking consciousness" Okay so far? Am I fairly encapsulating your first premise? P2: (on which you're already de-railing, since it is a subset of P1as you phrased it, but doesn't logically follow from it) "Whether or not a mechanism is conscious has no effect on its behavior". This is unsupported, to say the least; you haven't demonstrated that consciousness has no effect on behavior, just assumed it. C: Sentence three is word salad, but the next sentence gives the idea that you're implying that because of P1 and P2, that there must be some kind of "Ghost In The Machine", which simply doesn't follow. >and what part of sentance three are you having problems in >comprehending? What the Hell you were trying to say in English. The words all mean something, but their combination is nonsensical. -- "O Sybilli, si ergo Fortibus es in ero O Nobili! Themis trux Sivat sinem? Causen Dux" Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 16:52, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:27:23 -0700, someone2 > > > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >On 3 Jun, 15:06, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >> >following: > > >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >> >did, which isn't plausible. > > >> Looks to me like the pro log for an argument along the lines, "If "A", > >> and "B", then "Z", with a large dose of argument from incredulity, > >> thrown in. > > >If you can't understand it, I suggest that you spend some more time > >thinking about it. > > I suggest you spend some time rephrasing it. As I stated elsewhere in > the thread, the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the > third sentence is word salad, and the fourth is an argument from > personal incredulity. > -- > I'm already talking to you on this same thread, why don't you just continue the conversation there, instead of avoiding it, and joining in converstations with others on this same thread. It seems to me you are running, while trying to make it look like you did give a response. Quote
Guest raven1 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:21:53 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote: >On 3 Jun, 16:52, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:27:23 -0700, someone2 >> >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >On 3 Jun, 15:06, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> >> >following: >> >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >> >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a >> >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >> >> >did, which isn't plausible. >> >> >> Looks to me like the pro log for an argument along the lines, "If "A", >> >> and "B", then "Z", with a large dose of argument from incredulity, >> >> thrown in. >> >> >If you can't understand it, I suggest that you spend some more time >> >thinking about it. >> >> I suggest you spend some time rephrasing it. As I stated elsewhere in >> the thread, the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the >> third sentence is word salad, and the fourth is an argument from >> personal incredulity. >> -- >> > >I'm already talking to you on this same thread, why don't you just >continue the conversation there, instead of avoiding it, and joining >in converstations with others on this same thread. Already done. > It seems to me you >are running, while trying to make it look like you did give a >response. It seems to me that you didn't respond to any of the above. It also seems bizarre to me that you're implying that my following you around in the thread constitutes "running", but then you seem to have your own private definition for just about everything. -- "O Sybilli, si ergo Fortibus es in ero O Nobili! Themis trux Sivat sinem? Causen Dux" Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 17:20, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:53:43 -0700, someone2 > > > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >> >following: > > >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >> >did, which isn't plausible. > > >> I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from > >> the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an > >> argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with > >> "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. > > >The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it > >doesn't, > > It simply doesn't. How do you think that it does? > > Let's reduce it to an actual syllogism for illustration purposes: > > P1: "A mechanism can have its behavior explained without invoking > consciousness" > > Okay so far? Am I fairly encapsulating your first premise? > > P2: (on which you're already de-railing, since it is a subset of P1as > you phrased it, but doesn't logically follow from it) "Whether or not > a mechanism is conscious has no effect on its behavior". This is > unsupported, to say the least; you haven't demonstrated that > consciousness has no effect on behavior, just assumed it. > > C: Sentence three is word salad, but the next sentence gives the idea > that you're implying that because of P1 and P2, that there must be > some kind of "Ghost In The Machine", which simply doesn't follow. > > >and what part of sentance three are you having problems in > >comprehending? > > What the Hell you were trying to say in English. The words all mean > something, but their combination is nonsensical. If having subjective experiences did affect behaviour (your objection to P2), then how could behaviour be explained without taking it into account (P1)? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 17:25, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:21:53 -0700, someone2 > > > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >On 3 Jun, 16:52, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:27:23 -0700, someone2 > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >On 3 Jun, 15:06, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote: > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >> >> >following: > > >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >> >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >> >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > >> >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > >> >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >> >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >> >> >did, which isn't plausible. > > >> >> Looks to me like the pro log for an argument along the lines, "If "A", > >> >> and "B", then "Z", with a large dose of argument from incredulity, > >> >> thrown in. > > >> >If you can't understand it, I suggest that you spend some more time > >> >thinking about it. > > >> I suggest you spend some time rephrasing it. As I stated elsewhere in > >> the thread, the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the > >> third sentence is word salad, and the fourth is an argument from > >> personal incredulity. > >> -- > > >I'm already talking to you on this same thread, why don't you just > >continue the conversation there, instead of avoiding it, and joining > >in converstations with others on this same thread. > > Already done. > > > It seems to me you > >are running, while trying to make it look like you did give a > >response. > > It seems to me that you didn't respond to any of the above. It also > seems bizarre to me that you're implying that my following you around > in the thread constitutes "running", but then you seem to have your > own private definition for just about everything. You were just repeating something you had already posted, when I had responded to the point. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >following: > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Could you give a reference to a current materialistic philosopher /scientist, or currently advocated philosophy of science that actually has this problem, or are you just beating a straw horse? ;-) >...Therefore if we were simply a >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >experiences because of their existance. Perhaps there are a few newbies to atheism who think materialism is the cat's meow, and your criticism will get them to look into it a little more deeply. Good for you. They should realize that no such metaphysical commitment is necessary. Letting go of theism also includes letting go of an unneeded commitment to any metaphysical ontology. We can pick and choose whichever ontology is convenient. Who needs to explain their appreciation of pizza or their love of their partner at the atomic level? We are what we are. If a concept of consciousness is useful in explanations, there is no more reason to exclude it than there is reason to exclude magnetism (which materialism excludes.) The only explanatory level the theist declines to use is the theistic level. > It would have to be a >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >did, which isn't plausible. One could in principle, seek to describe a vacation in Italy by describing the movements of the atoms involved, or by how we went about gaining 15 pounds, ;-), or by describing what we experienced in comparison with our (conscious) expectations. If there is an atheist so committed to materialism that he declines to look at his trip in any but the first of these ways, he's a pretty strange character, and deserves your questioning. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 17:36, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >following: > > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. > > Could you give a reference to a current materialistic philosopher > /scientist, or currently advocated philosophy of science that actually > has this problem, or are you just beating a straw horse? ;-) > > >...Therefore if we were simply a > >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >experiences because of their existance. > > Perhaps there are a few newbies to atheism who think materialism is > the cat's meow, and your criticism will get them to look into it a > little more deeply. Good for you. They should realize that no such > metaphysical commitment is necessary. Letting go of theism also > includes letting go of an unneeded commitment to any metaphysical > ontology. We can pick and choose whichever ontology is convenient. Who > needs to explain their appreciation of pizza or their love of their > partner at the atomic level? > > We are what we are. If a concept of consciousness is useful in > explanations, there is no more reason to exclude it than there is > reason to exclude magnetism (which materialism excludes.) The only > explanatory level the theist declines to use is the theistic level. > > > It would have to be a > >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >did, which isn't plausible. > > One could in principle, seek to describe a vacation in Italy by > describing the movements of the atoms involved, or by how we went > about gaining 15 pounds, ;-), or by describing what we experienced in > comparison with our (conscious) expectations. If there is an atheist > so committed to materialism that he declines to look at his trip in > any but the first of these ways, he's a pretty strange character, and > deserves your questioning. It applies to any conception where there is only the physical, and we follow the known laws of physics. Did you manage to understand it, if so, are you suggesting just abandoning reason, in favour of your bias? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 3 Jun, 17:36, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> >following: >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. >> >> Could you give a reference to a current materialistic philosopher >> /scientist, or currently advocated philosophy of science that actually >> has this problem, or are you just beating a straw horse? ;-) >> >> >...Therefore if we were simply a >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> >experiences because of their existance. >> >> Perhaps there are a few newbies to atheism who think materialism is >> the cat's meow, and your criticism will get them to look into it a >> little more deeply. Good for you. They should realize that no such >> metaphysical commitment is necessary. Letting go of theism also >> includes letting go of an unneeded commitment to any metaphysical >> ontology. We can pick and choose whichever ontology is convenient. Who >> needs to explain their appreciation of pizza or their love of their >> partner at the atomic level? >> >> We are what we are. If a concept of consciousness is useful in >> explanations, there is no more reason to exclude it than there is >> reason to exclude magnetism (which materialism excludes.) The only >> explanatory level the theist declines to use is the theistic level. >> >> > It would have to be a >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >> >did, which isn't plausible. >> >> One could in principle, seek to describe a vacation in Italy by >> describing the movements of the atoms involved, or by how we went >> about gaining 15 pounds, ;-), or by describing what we experienced in >> comparison with our (conscious) expectations. If there is an atheist >> so committed to materialism that he declines to look at his trip in >> any but the first of these ways, he's a pretty strange character, and >> deserves your questioning. > >It applies to any conception where there is only the physical, and we >follow the known laws of physics. Did you manage to understand it, if >so, are you suggesting just abandoning reason, in favour of your bias? I don't think you are interested in a serious discussion. Bye. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 17:52, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 3 Jun, 17:36, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >> >following: > > >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. > > >> Could you give a reference to a current materialistic philosopher > >> /scientist, or currently advocated philosophy of science that actually > >> has this problem, or are you just beating a straw horse? ;-) > > >> >...Therefore if we were simply a > >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> >experiences because of their existance. > > >> Perhaps there are a few newbies to atheism who think materialism is > >> the cat's meow, and your criticism will get them to look into it a > >> little more deeply. Good for you. They should realize that no such > >> metaphysical commitment is necessary. Letting go of theism also > >> includes letting go of an unneeded commitment to any metaphysical > >> ontology. We can pick and choose whichever ontology is convenient. Who > >> needs to explain their appreciation of pizza or their love of their > >> partner at the atomic level? > > >> We are what we are. If a concept of consciousness is useful in > >> explanations, there is no more reason to exclude it than there is > >> reason to exclude magnetism (which materialism excludes.) The only > >> explanatory level the theist declines to use is the theistic level. > > >> > It would have to be a > >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >> >did, which isn't plausible. > > >> One could in principle, seek to describe a vacation in Italy by > >> describing the movements of the atoms involved, or by how we went > >> about gaining 15 pounds, ;-), or by describing what we experienced in > >> comparison with our (conscious) expectations. If there is an atheist > >> so committed to materialism that he declines to look at his trip in > >> any but the first of these ways, he's a pretty strange character, and > >> deserves your questioning. > > >It applies to any conception where there is only the physical, and we > >follow the known laws of physics. Did you manage to understand it, if > >so, are you suggesting just abandoning reason, in favour of your bias? > > I don't think you are interested in a serious discussion. Bye. > You can run and live in denial if you like, but you won't be experiencing the physical forever, and you'll regret letting your ego stand in the way of you seeing the truth. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 17:31, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 3 Jun, 17:20, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:53:43 -0700, someone2 > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > >On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > >> >following: > > > >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > >> >did, which isn't plausible. > > > >> I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from > > >> the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an > > >> argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with > > >> "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. > > > >The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it > > >doesn't, > > > It simply doesn't. How do you think that it does? > > > Let's reduce it to an actual syllogism for illustration purposes: > > > P1: "A mechanism can have its behavior explained without invoking > > consciousness" > > > Okay so far? Am I fairly encapsulating your first premise? > > > P2: (on which you're already de-railing, since it is a subset of P1as > > you phrased it, but doesn't logically follow from it) "Whether or not > > a mechanism is conscious has no effect on its behavior". This is > > unsupported, to say the least; you haven't demonstrated that > > consciousness has no effect on behavior, just assumed it. > > > C: Sentence three is word salad, but the next sentence gives the idea > > that you're implying that because of P1 and P2, that there must be > > some kind of "Ghost In The Machine", which simply doesn't follow. > > > >and what part of sentance three are you having problems in > > >comprehending? > > > What the Hell you were trying to say in English. The words all mean > > something, but their combination is nonsensical. > > If having subjective experiences did affect behaviour (your objection > to P2), then how could behaviour be explained without taking it into > account (P1)? > Noticing you have gone a bit quite, has it dawned on you that it did follow, and that you were deceived in what you were led to believe, or do you think it is simply a question of you requiring more time before the answer will come to you? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: It depend on how well you explain it > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > conscious (had no subjective experiences). There's you first mistake, assuming that consciousness if outside the laws of physics. Secondly you assume that the laws of physics controlls reality .. that is not the cse .. the "laws" of physics attempt to model and explain reality. That something happens which is outside the scope of those model and explanations does not make that something impossible, nor does it invalidate the "laws" So the rest of your arguments and conclusions can be ignored, as they are based upon faulty premises. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.