Guest Jeckyl Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 "Richard Smol" <richard.smol@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1181160425.183160.81420@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 6, 5:48 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Richard Smol" <richard.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181108838.549657.138430@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 6, 4:23 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <t...@aint.me> wrote in >> >> messagenews:4666153e$0$16659$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> >> >> If I could, then it wouldn't be something i don't know >> >> >> > So if you don't know the number of cats in Glasgow >> >> > you can't say you don't know the number of >> >> > cats in Glasgow. >> >> >> So .. you claim that science knows everything .. >> >> > No, he doesn't. Learn how to read. >> >> I have learnt long ago .. haven't you? > > You obviously also learned how to be a prick. Just following your example Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 6 Jun, 20:57, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > Jeckyl wrote: > > OK .. lets take a step back. > > > How about some starting premises from which we can build your argument > > (whatever it is) > > > 1) there is a non-empty universe with 'objects' in it > > 2) those objects have behaviours and properties > > 3) those behaviours and properties have relationhsips > > 4) the laws of physics model / describe those behaviours and relationships > > that objects exhibit > > Sounds like a good model for a design/programming system to me > > > 5) those objects can be combined to form mechanisms > > 6) those mechanisms are also objects and so they have have behaviours and > > properties (by 2) > > 7) the behaviours and properties of a mechanism are determined by the > > behaviours and properties of the component objects and the relationships > > between them > > 8) the laws of physics model / describe those behaviours and relationships > > that objects exhibit (4 above) > > I can't fault your logic so far > > > 9) there are objects in the universe that have subjective experiences > > (humans) > > I'd have left out the stuff in the brackets > > > 10) these objects have behaviours an properties (by 2) > > 11) the subjective experiences of the objects can affect its behaviour > > (humans show this) > > Self learning systems? > > > 12) the laws of physics model / describe those behaviours and relationships > > the object exhibit (4 above) > > > 13) any effects of subjective experience upon the behaviour of the objects > > is explained by physics (11+12) > > > Is there any problem with any of the above. Can you build upon that to make > > whatever point it is you are trying to make? > > "Your logic was impeccable, Captain. We are in grave danger." I wasn't going to bother replying to his posts but since you seem to think that he had a point, I will. You make the assumption (9) that a subgroup of the objects which follow the laws of physics (4) have subjective experiences. This is an unfounded assertion, and is shown to be implausible by what you have left out. Which is that a there are objects which claim through their behaviour to have subjective experiences, yet the laws of physics (4) don't allow for any subjective experiences to influence behaviour. Therefore if the objects did indeed have the subjective experiences they claimed, either it was coincidental that their behaviour matched their subjective experiences (as the subjective experiences couldn't actually be influencing the way they behaved) which is implausible, or these objects unlike other objects aren't strictly following the laws of physics, and instead are being influenced in their behaviour by what the subjective experiences are like, possibly by an influential entity that is having the experiences, as some of the objects claim. Another objection could be that from assumption (1) reality was turned upside down, and that there is only the spiritual, and that the spiritual entities are communicated/presented with the physical world, and that there are rules which govern the physical world, and that there is a purpose for the presentation, in that it allows people to understand the difference between love and hate, selflessness and selfishness, and that it is through their will that is read and acts as a communication that they are able to influence the behaviour of the physical objects that they experience being, and thus express their subjective experiences. Their subjective experiences are based on the neural state of the physical being they experience being, and what that neural state represents is known to that communicating the subjective experiences, which is why they experience what they do, and not fluctuations in the colour green, the brightness dependent on the amount of neurons firing for example. Also it was written that the so called 'intelligent' would turn reality upside down, and claim that there only was the physical world, and that at some point their so called 'intelligence' would be shown not to be the case, along with the wisdom (of selfishness) that they adopted. Everything object they experienced and the space that they experienced could be shown to be virtual by considering their brains placed in vats and given same inputs as would have expected if the the physical being they experienced being were sitting in a room in front of a computer. They would conceptually have to admit that in that scenario, the keyboard and computer would have no physical counterpart, and thus were virtual no matter how realistic the experience seemed. Anyway I could go on, but I think its probably better if you just managed to follow some foundational basic reasoning, in that any mechanism that followed the known laws of physics, would be behaving as it would be expected to if it had no subjective experiences, and could be explained without reference to them.Therefore whether it did or it didn't have any subjective experiences there would be no scope for them to influence the behaviour. If we were considered to be such a mechanism, what we subjectively experienced couldn't be influencing the mechanisms behaviour, and therefore any mention of subjective experiences, qualia, emotional feelings, sensations etc, would have to be independent of their existance. Which is implausible. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Richard Smol" <richard.smol@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1181160425.183160.81420@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 6, 5:48 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Richard Smol" <richard.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181108838.549657.138430@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 6, 4:23 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <t...@aint.me> wrote in >> >> messagenews:4666153e$0$16659$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> >> >> If I could, then it wouldn't be something i don't know >> >> >> > So if you don't know the number of cats in Glasgow >> >> > you can't say you don't know the number of >> >> > cats in Glasgow. >> >> >> So .. you claim that science knows everything .. >> >> > No, he doesn't. Learn how to read. He said "The known laws of physics are complete enough to cover everything that happens on Earth." .. so obviously physicist should now stop work on anything other than cosmology, as our knowledge is complete wrt everything that happens on earth. Do you agree? Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 6 Jun, 22:53, "min...@media.mit.edu" <min...@media.mit.edu> wrote: > On Jun 5, 11:30 pm, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:> On Jun 6, 12:34 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 6 Jun, 03:29, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 5, 1:18 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > Evidently some people maintain that "subjective experience" can never > be explained > in terms of physical processes. They offer reasons for this opinion, > but none of those > make much sense to me. In the last chapter of "The Emotion Machine," > I suggest some > possible reasons why people find feelings so hard to describe, and > suggest a few > explanations of this, some of which might turn out to be wrong. > > However, it might be a good lesson to consider the way that "life" or > "living" was once > considered to be so inexplicable that perople felt they had to assume > that there must > exist a (nonphysical) "vital force" or "spirit," etc. But today, now > that we know how > complex a living cell is, no serious scientist see any basic mystery. > Insted, now that we understand how complex a cell is, we know that we > "simply" need to answer a few thousand > hand -- but not unsolvable -- questions. > > It is exactly the same situation, it seems to me, with the subject of > subjective experience. > Too many philosophers have started with assumptions like "The > sensation of Redness is > basic, simple, and irreducible -- and therefore it is inexplicable." > However, we can assume, > instead, that when a brain sees something Red, this initiates an > extremely complicated > set of processes, and that these eventually cause certain parts of > that brain to make > very simplistic descriptions of what they observe in the rest of that > brain. > > Then, because those descriptions don't lead anywhere, yet other parts > of the brain > construct those useless dualistic descriptions, because they don't > have adequate ways > to explain why they can't understand what is happening. You've written a book on the subject? I assume you consider yourself to be somewhat of an authority on the matter of reality, which you no doubt believe you arrived at through reason. Do you mind if I test your ability to follow reason? Do you agree that it is a fact that the known laws of physics don't reference subjective experiences? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "Martin" <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message news:466711a5$0$30336$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk... > Jeckyl wrote: >> OK .. lets take a step back. >> >> How about some starting premises from which we can build your argument >> (whatever it is) >> >> 1) there is a non-empty universe with 'objects' in it >> 2) those objects have behaviours and properties >> 3) those behaviours and properties have relationhsips >> 4) the laws of physics model / describe those behaviours and >> relationships that objects exhibit > > Sounds like a good model for a design/programming system to me > >> 5) those objects can be combined to form mechanisms >> 6) those mechanisms are also objects and so they have have behaviours and >> properties (by 2) >> 7) the behaviours and properties of a mechanism are determined by the >> behaviours and properties of the component objects and the relationships >> between them >> 8) the laws of physics model / describe those behaviours and >> relationships that objects exhibit (4 above) > > I can't fault your logic so far > >> 9) there are objects in the universe that have subjective experiences >> (humans) > > I'd have left out the stuff in the brackets > >> 10) these objects have behaviours an properties (by 2) >> 11) the subjective experiences of the objects can affect its behaviour >> (humans show this) > > Self learning systems? > >> 12) the laws of physics model / describe those behaviours and >> relationships the object exhibit (4 above) >> >> 13) any effects of subjective experience upon the behaviour of the >> objects is explained by physics (11+12) >> >> Is there any problem with any of the above. Can you build upon that to >> make whatever point it is you are trying to make? > > "Your logic was impeccable, Captain. We are in grave danger." Indeed .. wonder if someone will actually respond to this .. he has tended to (deliberately?) ignore posts that may have legitimate points raised regarding what he says. Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 6 Jun, 23:06, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > On 5 jun, 21:42, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > On 5 Jun, 17:01, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > wrote: > > > > On 4 jun, 19:39, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > On 4 Jun, 18:08, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 3 jun, 23:52, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 22:46, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 22:23, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 21:11, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 21:09, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 20:03, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 16:01, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > > > > > > > > > > > > You evidently seem to think that soldiers bother to talk to the > > > > > > > > > > > cameraman when bullets are flying. I do not think that is the case. > > > > > > > > > > > But any analogy is poor. > > > > > > > > > > > Let's suppose there is no cameramen but only a hidden camera inside a > > > > > > > > > > > helmet, of which even the soldier wearing the helmet is oblivious. > > > > > > > > > > > The effect of the camera would be minimal, > > > > > > > > > > > yet the story it's picture would tell would not be false. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why could I not be talking about my experiences > > > > > > > > > > > Why can't a camera work? > > > > > > > > > > > You give me no serious reason for this impromptu statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again if ourt consience (as Dennett suggest) is only a narrative > > > > > > > > > > > that doesn't mean it is totally coincidental if the narrative is > > > > > > > > > > > somewhat correct. > > > > > > > > > > > Experiences lead to actions - even by robots - > > > > > > > > > > > if these actions are that monitored > > > > > > > > > > > than the narrative made by the monitor too is a result of those > > > > > > > > > > > experiences. > > > > > > > > > > > > Futrhermore materialsm doesn't mean consious experciences do not > > > > > > > > > > > influence our decissions. In my example the camera would not influence > > > > > > > > > > > the decissions of the soldiers, but if the rewind and look at the > > > > > > > > > > > pictures, they may find some information about the position of the > > > > > > > > > > > enemy and plan their future actions accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Likewise a robot may learn from it's experciences by using a > > > > > > > > > > > background program that is modifying the foreground program to work > > > > > > > > > > > more efficiently, by analizing the data collected by a monitoring > > > > > > > > > > > unit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course at present it may be more efficient to have the analyzing > > > > > > > > > > > done by a human, as humans are already equipped with the hardware and > > > > > > > > > > > software to do that job. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my viwed You haven't said anything that makes "materialism" > > > > > > > > > > > implausible. > > > > > > > > > > > (actually I am wondering what you are saying if anything at all) > > > > > > > > > > > There is a lot though that makes dualism implausible. > > > > > > > > > > > especially Ockham's razor knife. > > > > > > > > > > > The camera in the helmet is analogous to having subjective experiences > > > > > > > > > > right? Do you understand that if the soldiers were talking about > > > > > > > > > > having a camera in their helmet (which doesn't affect their > > > > > > > > > > behaviour), then it would only be a coincidence that there was a > > > > > > > > > > camera in their helmet? > > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > > > > > > > > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > > > > > > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > > > > > > > > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > > > > > > > > > The first paragraph I understand > > > > > > > > > what I do not understand what connection that would have towards > > > > > > > > > the plausibility of materialism. > > > > > > > > > > However the second paragraph is known to be untrue. > > > > > > > > > People do not only have subjective experiences but they act on them. > > > > > > > > > There are people who think they have been abcucted by aliens and act > > > > > > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > > > > There are people who think they have heard the voice of God and act > > > > > > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > > > > There is ample evidence to suggest that some of these subjective > > > > > > > > > experiences are objectively false.(as some maintain that god declares > > > > > > > > > Islam to be the only true religion while others declare God says it is > > > > > > > > > not) > > > > > > > > > > The fact that spirits do not exist does not mean people do not act > > > > > > > > > upon their delusions. > > > > > > > > > If we disagree on this then apperantly one of us is delusional and > > > > > > > > > acts accordingly. > > > > > > > > > That doesn't mean there is anything else than brains that acting > > > > > > > > > differently. > > > > > > > > > (I can't say better or worse, for if one of us is wrong about this > > > > > > > > > particular subject, it may well be that the other is decidingly > > > > > > > > > thinking better about all other subjects) > > > > > > > > > > Think about it > > > > > > > > > and let me know > > > > > > > > > What you say is known, is simply your belief. What you are glossing > > > > > > > > over is that your belief is implausible. > > > > > > > > > You state that you believe the following to be untrue: > > > > > > > > ------------ > > > > > > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > > > > > > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > > > > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > > > > > > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > > > > > > > ------------ > > > > > > > > > Could you explain why a mechanism following the known laws of physics > > > > > > > > couldn't be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the > > > > > > > > known laws of physics? > > > > > > > > > Or is it that you think there is a reason that you would be unable to > > > > > > > > do so with the assumption that the mechanism had no subjective > > > > > > > > experiences? If so, please explain why I couldn't explain its > > > > > > > > behaviour in in terms of the physical mechanism following the known > > > > > > > > laws of physics (which don't reference any subjective experiences the > > > > > > > > physical might or might not be having), with the assumption that it > > > > > > > > didn't have any subjective experiences. > > > > > > > > I am not sure that human actions can be easily explained without the > > > > > > > assumption of subjective experiences. Of course one can refer to what > > > > > > > happens in our brains synapsis and disregard anything in the real or > > > > > > > imagined world that this synaps event deals with but that is certainly > > > > > > > not easy and actually evading the question whether the subjective > > > > > > > experience has any importance. > > > > > > > > Fact is that subjective experiences do influence our behavior even if > > > > > > > both the experience and the behaviour contain nothing more than > > > > > > > someone saying "I experience X". > > > > > > > > That does not mean that someone who says to have been abducted by > > > > > > > aliens was abducted by aliens, but it does mean that this person acts > > > > > > > differently than some who does not claim so. > > > > > > > > Fact is also that these subjecive experiences as such have little > > > > > > > influence during the experience they are describing. > > > > > > > The clue to Dennetts vision towards consciousness is that he does not > > > > > > > imply that the subjective experience is anything more than that: > > > > > > > Saying what we think has happened.. > > > > > > > > Of course someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens may also > > > > > > > react differently towards a plain flying over in the nightsky. > > > > > > > > If consiousness/subjective experience is narrative and contained in > > > > > > > our memory it always is about the past, while as everything it can > > > > > > > only influence the future. > > > > > > > It does however (totally!) determine the way we view the past. > > > > > > > > Still puzzled as how this has any reference towards materialism. > > > > > > > > In case anyone misunderstands: > > > > > > > Mine are the following views: > > > > > > > > 1. Subjective experience has no influence on the real experience it it > > > > > > > desrcibing > > > > > > > (unless the experience takes enough time for nr.2 to have effect) > > > > > > > 2. Subjective experience has a lot of influence on future behaviour. > > > > > > > 3. Subjective experience is practically the only source for the way we > > > > > > > view our past. > > > > > > > 3. Subjective experience need not always to be conscious even though > > > > > > > consciousness is little more than the subjective experience we > > > > > > > momentarily > > > > > > > remember. (I do not want to get flamed by psychologists) > > > > > > > You just avoided answering the questions as to why > > > > > > ------------ > > > > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > > > > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > > > > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > > > > > ------------ > > > > > > > As I asked: > > > > > > ---------------- > > > > > > Could you explain why a mechanism following the known laws of physics > > > > > > couldn't be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the > > > > > > known laws of physics? > > > > > > > Or is it that you think there is a reason that you would be unable to > > > > > > do so with the assumption that the mechanism had no subjective > > > > > > experiences? If so, please explain why I couldn't explain its > > > > > > behaviour in in terms of the physical mechanism following the known > > > > > > laws of physics (which don't reference any subjective experiences the > > > > > > physical might or might not be having), with the assumption that it > > > > > > didn't have any subjective experiences. > > > > > > ---------------- > > > > > > > You could avoid being taken through the reasoning of why materialism > > > > > > is implausible, and then state that you see no reason why it should be > > > > > > regarded as such, but why would you? > > > > > > > (I'm off for tonight, I'll check the board tommorrow for your response) > > > > > > If I didn't make clear why I think it might not be easy to explain > > > > > human action without the assumption of a subjective experience, I can > > > > > tell you that it is a lot easier to explain something if you do not go > > > > > into details. Instead of a mechanical explanation involving hundreds > > > > > or thousands of synapses we may just say, "he had an earlier > > > > > experience that made him feel suspicious even though he couldn't tell > > > > > why" or "She knew unprotected sex may give you aids". Of course far > > > > > too many people neglect their knowledge about aids, but some actually > > > > > do. Some guys even remember that they are married! > > > > > > Memory and conscious knowledge however are all part of PREVIOUS > > > > > subjective experiences. So using that, might make the actions easier > > > > > to explain. > > > > > > Is this what you meant with "you just avoided the questions as to why? > > > > > Or do you want to ask more? > > > > > > The answer to your question "can any mechanism following the known > > > > > laws of physics be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > > without the assumption of a subjective experience" Is Yes. > > > > > But as far as human behaviour is concerned, assuming some of the > > > > > actions are due to subjective experiences can make them a lot easier > > > > > to explain (as to why: See above) > > > > > > If you need my why's in order to explain why materialism would not be > > > > > plausible, the plausibility of your explanation becomes a bit dubious, > > > > > but I will try and tell you anyway, as I do not enjoy frustrating my > > > > > partners in a serious discussion. I know a bit about the frustration > > > > > as several intelligent (I assume) posters have succeeded in > > > > > frustrating me. I know discussions get tangled up even when we do our > > > > > best to avoid it, but at least we should try > > > > > > Do not forget my views on these subjective experiences. As I stated > > > > > them previously for if you are going to reason while ignoring them, > > > > > the discussion might get long and difficult. If you have any objection > > > > > to them state these objections as soon as possible, for they may come > > > > > haunt us later. > > > > > > 1. Subjective experience has no influence on the real experience it is > > > > > describing > > > > > (unless the experience takes enough time for nr.2 to have effect) > > > > > 2. Subjective experience has a lot of influence on future behaviour. > > > > > 3. Subjective experience is practically the only source for the way we > > > > > view our past. > > > > > 4. Subjective experience need not always to be conscious even though > > > > > consciousness > > > > > is little more than the subjective experience we momentarily > > > > > remember. > > > > > Hmm, you avoided the questions yet again. > > > > > Or maybe you could point out where you answered either of the > > > > questions: > > > > > ------------ > > > > Could you explain why a mechanism following the known laws of physics > > > > couldn't be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the > > > > known laws of physics? > > > > > Or is it that you think there is a reason that you would be unable to > > > > do so with the assumption that the mechanism had no subjective > > > > experiences? If so, please explain why I couldn't explain its > > > > behaviour in in terms of the physical mechanism following the known > > > > laws of physics (which don't reference any subjective experiences the > > > > physical might or might not be having), with the assumption that it > > > > didn't have any subjective experiences. > > > > ------------ > > > > > Why don't you just answer them, if you are so sure of your > > > > perspective? It is though you are worried that if you did, your whole > > > > world perspective would be shown to be implausible, and so you'd > > > > rather talk around the subject than face some home truths about what > > > > you believe. > > > > I cannot explain why a mechanism following the known laws of physics > > > couldn't be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the > > > known laws of physics, I can only explain why it is sometimes easier > > > to use intermediate terms even if those terms are ill defined. > > > > The reason is, I do not think it can't always be done without the > > > assumption of subjective experiences, even if I assume that using that > > > concept can make it more easy. > > > > As my knowledge of synapses is lacking - in the case of the human > > > brain - I indeed could not do it, but then again the assumption of > > > subjective experiences would not be enough to compensate for my > > > Inadequacy. > > > > I hope you are not to unhappy that I cannot explain something that I > > > consider not to be true? > > > Which bit don't you consider to be true, that a mechanism following > > the known laws of physics > > can be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the > > known laws of physics, or that the laws of physics don't mention > > whether anything is subjectively experienced or not? > > > You said before that on finding an objection to materialism, you'd > > consider it, is that still the case, or will you just blank it out and > > go on as if there wasn't a gapping flaw in the materialist suggestion? > > I think it is theoretically possible to fully explain evenhuman > behaviour in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of > physics, I just think it is practically impossible because there are > to many neurons involved in even the simplest brainfunction. > The problem is has nothing to do with materialsm but only with the > enormous amount of data that would be nescessairy. > Explaining it using terms as knowledge and experience is a lot easier. > (thought less exact). > I do not see what gapping flaw that would cause in materialstic > philosophy, > but I am still waiting for you to point that out. > > for the time being you have only be misunderstanding my point of view. > I hope that's over. > Your belief that we are simply a biologial mechanism is noted. The objection is simple, in that if I made a robot that acted as though it has subjective experiences, and you thought it did, but actually after you had made your decision, I explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then on what basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective experiences? Can you see that whether it did or it didn't, it couldn't make any difference to the way it was behaving if it was simply a mechanism following the known laws of physics. So its behaviour, if you still chose to consider it to be having conscious experiences, couldn't be said to be influenced by them, as it would be expected to act the same even without your added assumption that it really did have subjective experiences. Can you also see that if we were simply biological mechanism following the laws of physics, like the robot, we couldn't be behaving the way we do because of any subjective experiences we were having. They in themselves couldn't be influencing our behaviour, which would mean it would have to be coincidental that we actually have the subjective experiences we talk about (as they couldn't have influenced the behaviour). The coincidence makes the perspective implausible. Can you follow this, or do you require clarification on some matters? Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181170991.844972.128670@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On 6 Jun, 18:52, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181119352.279318.274890@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 6 Jun, 09:10, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> > > [snipped older correspondance] > >> >> >> >> > It seems you can't read. There were initially two universes, and a >> >> > robot in each, and it remained so. >> >> >> Now you're just lying. Anyone can see that you first brought up the >> >> universe >> >> argument on the 4th at 11:25 AM. Robots weren't mentioned until 3 >> >> exchanges >> >> later with your 5:47 AM post on the 5th. And you didn't mention a >> >> second >> >> robot until 2 exchanges later on the 5th at 7:05 PM. >> >> >> Go on, read your posts. I'll wait. >> >> >> Can I expect an apology, or at least an admission that you made a >> >> mistake? >> >> >> > It also seems you are unable to follow the points being made, and >> >> > avoided the questions. For example where I said: >> >> >> > ------- >> >> > To which I pointed out (though tidied up a bit here for clarity), >> >> > that >> >> > I made a robot that acted as though it has subjective experiences, >> >> > and >> >> > you thought it did, but actually after you had made your decision, I >> >> > explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because of >> >> > the >> >> > physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then on what >> >> > basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way it did >> >> > because it had subjective experiences? >> >> > ------- >> >> >> > To which you replied: >> >> > ------- >> >> > I would have to be assured that the physical operation of the robot, >> >> > following known laws of physics, didn't actually constitute >> >> > consciousness. >> >> >> Yes? And? >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to think >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective >> >> > experiences? >> >> >> Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative sentence? >> >> >> I would continue to think it was acting in response to subjective >> >> experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's doing. >> >> And >> >> your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have to show me >> >> that >> >> it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious manner. >> >> >> > You also were seemingly unable to comprehend that even if you were >> >> > to >> >> > regard it as having subjective experiences, it would still be >> >> > behaving >> >> > as it would be expected to without the assumption that it was. >> >> >> Only if the non-conscious version was designed to mimic the conscious >> >> version. Note that the conscious version wouldn't need that bit of >> >> programming. >> >> > Regarding the post on the 4th (and I don't know why you couldn't have >> > cut and pasted these instead of me having to do it) it stated: >> >> Hey, they're YOUR posts. >> >> > ---------- >> > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that it >> > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an alternative >> > universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there >> > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the >> > same. The objection that if it followed the same known laws of >> > physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if >> > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of >> > physics don't reference subjective experiences, thus it is >> > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the >> > same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective >> > experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known laws >> > of physics to be altered. >> > ---------- >> >> > Here mechanisms are mentioned being in each universe, but you are >> > correct, in that I didn't specifically mention robots. >> >> Thank you. >> >> So, are you willing to admit that I CAN read? >> >> > Though for each >> > mechanism, it would be existing twice, once in each universe (thus >> > "...both following the same laws of physics as known to us, but with >> > one having subjective experiences and one not"). >> >> > On the post on the 5th: >> > ---------- >> > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it >> > reasonably. It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example if a >> > robot behaved as though it might have subjective experiences, i.e. it >> > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either (a) it >> > did have, or (b) it didn't have. In one universe you could conceive of >> > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. In >> > either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it would >> > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. The >> > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be simply >> > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even if >> > you >> > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded bias. >> > ---------- >> >> > There are two universe, and a robot is in each, obviously the same >> > robot isn't existing in both simultaneously. >> >> That's not obvious at all. The entire quote can be interpreted as >> referencing one robot being compared in two different universes. >> >> Perhaps a command of the language is more important than you seem to >> think >> it is. >> >> > I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to (as the time stamps >> > I see are different) >> >> Yes, that's exactly the post I'm referencing. >> >> > ---------- >> > Regarding the thought experiment, the robots would both be following >> > the same known laws of physics. So perhaps you could explain why >> > you >> > suggest they would act differently. >> > ---------- >> >> > Again, there are two robots. >> >> No, that's the FIRST time you unambiguously refer to two robots. >> >> > If it was different bits you were referring to, then I suggest that >> > you cut and paste them yourself, so there can be no confusion. >> >> No, you're using the correct quotes. >> >> > Anyway, back to the real issue, regarding where I said: >> >> Well, I suppose an admission of a slight mistake as opposed to an apology >> for unjustly slandering my reading ability is all I can expect from one >> as >> dishonest as you. >> >> > ---------- >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to think >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective >> > experiences? >> > ---------- >> >> > You replied >> > ---------- >> > Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative sentence? >> >> > I would continue to think it was acting in response to subjective >> > experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's doing. >> > And your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have to >> > show me that it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious >> > manner. >> > ---------- >> >> > So you would base your belief that it was acting in response to >> > subjective experiences, even though it was behaving exactly as it >> > would be expected to, without the added assumption that it was >> > subjectively experiencing? >> >> No. In your scenario you've already got me agreeing that it's conscious. >> The >> basis for that conclusion is that it's behaving in a way that I take to >> be >> congruent with subjective experience. It's responding in context to my >> questions and such, for example. Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's >> not conscious. The reason I do not immediately agree with you is that the >> robot is, I presume, still acting like it's conscious. Until you can show >> me >> that it's not conscious, I'll continue to act under the assumption that >> my >> conclusion that it is conscious is correct and disbelieve you. >> >> That's what I meant by: "I would continue to think it was acting in >> response >> to subjective experiences because apparently that's what it looks like >> it's >> doing." I can't imagine how you misinterpreted that. >> >> > If so, what influence would you consider the subjective experiences to >> > be having, given that it is behaving as it would be expected to >> > without the assumption that it had any subjective experiences? >> >> Given that your interpretation of my response was incorrect, this >> question >> is meaningless. >> >> If you had two robots, one with a brain capable of subjective experience, >> and one with a sophisticated tape-recorder that played back responses >> designed to fool me into thinking it's conscious, they would supposedly >> behave the same, and I would mistakenly grant that both were conscious. >> Both >> would be acting according to physical law to get the same effect, but the >> workings would be very different. For the tape recorder robot to succeed, >> it >> has to have the right phrases recorded to fool me, just like the >> conscious >> robot has to have subjective experiences or I won't think it's conscious. >> > > I've snipped the older correspondence, though not sure I've made such > a good job of it, it would be easier if we responded at the end of > what each other post, but I guess you'd object, so there are a few > imbedded pieces of text still remaining from the older stuff. That's fine. > Assuming you aren't trying to be disingenious, you seem to have got > lost on the scenario. No. Did I say that was your scenario? No? Then there's no reason to think it is. I've presented my own scenario since yours doesn't seem to be going anywhere. This one-sided interrogation gets a little tiresome, so I thought I'd try to provide my own illustrative scenario. Figures you would ignore it. > No where are you told it isn't conscious. > Whether it is or isn't is unknown. You know that it follows the > known laws of physics, and you know that it behaved as something you > might have thought as conscious, if for example you had been > communicating with it over the internet. Yes I have just added that > clarification, but you appeared to be confused claiming incorrectly > that you were told it wasn't conscious. That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. > As it follows the known laws of physics, its behaviour can be > explained without the added assumption that it has any subjective > experiences, The subjective experience is part of the physical behavior. It's ALL physical. What is your damn problem? > as any mechanism following the laws of physics require no > such claims to explain behaviour Except the mechanisms that do. > (restating to help you follow, this > doesn't mean that it couldn't have subjective experiences). Irrelevant. > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence > would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that > it had any subjective experiences? The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical activity that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get any fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following the fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other fucking physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to fucking respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before you fucking get it? > (Is the question clear enough for you, or is there any clarification > you require about what is being asked?) I think I understand you perfectly, but you simply refuse to listen to my replies. Here's another vain analogy to try to get through to you: You have two identical computers that run a program. But one program has a subroutine called Subjective Experience that drastically affects the output, and the other doesn't. Both act according to the laws of physics. Would you expect them to behave the same given that one program has a subroutine that the other doesn't? I wouldn't. Why do you? -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 00:07, Deathbringer <Deathbringer.2rs...@wpyo.bbs.local> wrote: > pba...@worldonline.nl;1495600 Wrote: > > > > > > > On 5 jun, 21:42, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > I think it is theoretically possible to fully explain evenhuman > > behaviour in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of > > physics, I just think it is practically impossible because there are > > to many neurons involved in even the simplest brainfunction. > > The problem is has nothing to do with materialsm but only with the > > enormous amount of data that would be nescessairy. > > Explaining it using terms as knowledge and experience is a lot easier. > > (thought less exact). > > I do not see what gapping flaw that would cause in materialstic > > philosophy, > > but I am still waiting for you to point that out. > > > for the time being you have only be misunderstanding my point of view. > > I hope that's over. > > > Peter van Velzen > > June 2007 > > Amstelveen > > The Netherlands > > Fortunately, difficulty does not stop people from trying. They are > currently working on an emulation of an entire rodent brain, neuron by > neuron, running on one of the fastest supercomputers ever built. It has > a sort of twilight zone/Matrix feel to it, but this is no joke. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm > > The partial rodent model will not mean much, but with a slightly faster > computer it would be possible to take somebody who had died, freeze > them, and build an emulation of a person in place of the mouse. This > would answer all sorts of questions about life after death and allow a > more detailed exploration of consciousness. It would also have the > evangelicals shitting themselves because it has the potential to > invalidate their worldview; just the creation of a computer emulation > that acts like a real person alone would make the concept of soul harder > to define. It may not happen soon because you need a volunteer who is > willing to become basically a digital ghost and then wait for them to > die of old age, but I'm sure somebody crazy enough will come along... > Sounds interesting, but it currently all it sounds as though they are doing is building a artificial neural network (or simulating one) with the same amount of nodes and connections as a mouse is thought to have. As it says in conclusion: ------ For future tests the team aims to speed up the simulation, make it more neurobiologically faithful, add structures seen in real mouse brains and make the responses of neurons and synapses more detailed. ------ In other words currently the configuration of the nodes aren't the same as in a mouse. It sounds like just a big neural network, with a media spin put on it. As an Englishman, if this is the case, I am slightly embarrassed by the hyped up misleading information by the BBC. I believe there was a time where it was considered to have maintained a high level of reporting. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181174407.908660.96010@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 6 Jun, 20:57, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >> Jeckyl wrote: >> > OK .. lets take a step back. >> >> > How about some starting premises from which we can build your argument >> > (whatever it is) >> >> > 1) there is a non-empty universe with 'objects' in it >> > 2) those objects have behaviours and properties >> > 3) those behaviours and properties have relationhsips >> > 4) the laws of physics model / describe those behaviours and >> > relationships >> > that objects exhibit >> >> Sounds like a good model for a design/programming system to me >> >> > 5) those objects can be combined to form mechanisms >> > 6) those mechanisms are also objects and so they have have behaviours >> > and >> > properties (by 2) >> > 7) the behaviours and properties of a mechanism are determined by the >> > behaviours and properties of the component objects and the >> > relationships >> > between them >> > 8) the laws of physics model / describe those behaviours and >> > relationships >> > that objects exhibit (4 above) >> >> I can't fault your logic so far >> >> > 9) there are objects in the universe that have subjective experiences >> > (humans) >> >> I'd have left out the stuff in the brackets >> >> > 10) these objects have behaviours an properties (by 2) >> > 11) the subjective experiences of the objects can affect its behaviour >> > (humans show this) >> >> Self learning systems? >> >> > 12) the laws of physics model / describe those behaviours and >> > relationships >> > the object exhibit (4 above) >> >> > 13) any effects of subjective experience upon the behaviour of the >> > objects >> > is explained by physics (11+12) >> >> > Is there any problem with any of the above. Can you build upon that to >> > make >> > whatever point it is you are trying to make? >> >> "Your logic was impeccable, Captain. We are in grave danger." > > I wasn't going to bother replying to his posts Yes .. you do seem reluctant to reply to those who can see the problems with your logic. > but since you seem to > think that he had a point, I will. Oh, how condescending of you > You make the assumption (9) that a subgroup of the objects which > follow the laws of physics (4) have subjective experiences. This is an > unfounded assertion, No .. it is not .. I provided as an example: humans. we have subjective experiences and everything we do follows the laws of physics. Do you do things that do not follwo the laws of physics? Please list them > and is shown to be implausible by what you have > left out. > Which is that a there are objects which claim through their behaviour > to have subjective experiences, Humans you mean > yet the laws of physics (4) don't > allow for any subjective experiences to influence behaviour. Yes .. they do .. you are making unsupported assertions again. > Therefore > if the objects did indeed have the subjective experiences they > claimed, either it was coincidental that their behaviour matched their > subjective experiences (as the subjective experiences couldn't > actually be influencing the way they behaved) which is implausible, or > these objects unlike other objects aren't strictly following the laws > of physics, and instead are being influenced in their behaviour by > what the subjective experiences are like, possibly by an influential > entity that is having the experiences, as some of the objects claim. All from your unfounded assertion > Another objection could be that from assumption (1) reality was turned > upside down, Now you're getting silly > and that there is only the spiritual, and that the > spiritual entities are communicated/presented with the physical world, That is not inconsistent with statements 1 > and that there are rules which govern the physical world, That would be statemetn 2 > and that > there is a purpose for the presentation, purpose is irrelevant > in that it allows people to > understand the difference between love and hate, selflessness and > selfishness, and that it is through their will that is read and acts > as a communication that they are able to influence the behaviour of > the physical objects that they experience being, and thus express > their subjective experiences. So .. you've given up on logic and are now just spouting religion. Sad. > Their subjective experiences are based > on the neural state of the physical being they experience being, Yes .. and that follows the laws of physics > and > what that neural state represents is known to that communicating the > subjective experiences, which is why they experience what they do, Yes .. it seems you are fully saupporting what i was showing now. > and > not fluctuations in the colour green, the brightness dependent on the > amount of neurons firing for example. eh? > Also it was written that the so > called 'intelligent' would turn reality upside down, and claim that > there only was the physical world, and that at some point their so > called 'intelligence' would be shown not to be the case, along with > the wisdom (of selfishness) that they adopted. Everything object they > experienced and the space that they experienced could be shown to be > virtual by considering their brains placed in vats and given same > inputs as would have expected if the the physical being they > experienced being were sitting in a room in front of a computer. They > would conceptually have to admit that in that scenario, the keyboard > and computer would have no physical counterpart, and thus were virtual > no matter how realistic the experience seemed. Sounds like more word salad > Anyway I could go on, You do > but I think its probably better if you just > managed to follow some foundational basic reasoning, I did .. you don't > in that any > mechanism that followed the known laws of physics, would be behaving > as it would be expected to if it had no subjective experiences, There is no valid argument that supports that .. it is ONLY your baseles assertion. > and > could be explained without reference to them.Therefore whether it did > or it didn't have any subjective experiences there would be no scope > for them to influence the behaviour. A totally incorrect assertion .. as is disproven by the example of human beings whose subjective experiences influence their behaviour, and whose behaviour follows the laws of physics. Are you even living in the same world as the rest of us? > If we were considered to be such > a mechanism, what we subjectively experienced couldn't be influencing > the mechanisms behaviour, and therefore any mention of subjective > experiences, qualia, emotional feelings, sensations etc, would have to > be independent of their existance. Which is implausible. Your whole argument is implausible as it contradicts reality. Unless you are talking about some hypothetical worlds that doesn't actually exists where there is no such things as subjective experience. Is that what you're doing? In which case, what is the point, as it doesn't apply to this world. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181174711.668925.122680@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > Do you agree that it is a fact that the known laws of physics don't > reference subjective experiences? An irrelevant fact. It is immaterial whether the rules of physics actually reference subjective experiences .. what matters is whether those experiences and the influence they have on behaviour is consistent with the laws of physics. And we know that it is. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181175055.307378.129110@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> for the time being you have only be misunderstanding my point of view. >> I hope that's over. > > Your belief that we are simply a biologial mechanism is noted. [snip same old copy and paste .. you're as bad as the troll sipp .. try saying something new and something that doesn't depend on convoluted logic and unsupported assertions and assumptions] Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181170991.844972.128670@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > On 6 Jun, 18:52, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181119352.279318.274890@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 6 Jun, 09:10, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > > [snipped older correspondance] > > >> >> > It seems you can't read. There were initially two universes, and a > >> >> > robot in each, and it remained so. > > >> >> Now you're just lying. Anyone can see that you first brought up the > >> >> universe > >> >> argument on the 4th at 11:25 AM. Robots weren't mentioned until 3 > >> >> exchanges > >> >> later with your 5:47 AM post on the 5th. And you didn't mention a > >> >> second > >> >> robot until 2 exchanges later on the 5th at 7:05 PM. > > >> >> Go on, read your posts. I'll wait. > > >> >> Can I expect an apology, or at least an admission that you made a > >> >> mistake? > > >> >> > It also seems you are unable to follow the points being made, and > >> >> > avoided the questions. For example where I said: > > >> >> > ------- > >> >> > To which I pointed out (though tidied up a bit here for clarity), > >> >> > that > >> >> > I made a robot that acted as though it has subjective experiences, > >> >> > and > >> >> > you thought it did, but actually after you had made your decision, I > >> >> > explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because of > >> >> > the > >> >> > physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then on what > >> >> > basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way it did > >> >> > because it had subjective experiences? > >> >> > ------- > > >> >> > To which you replied: > >> >> > ------- > >> >> > I would have to be assured that the physical operation of the robot, > >> >> > following known laws of physics, didn't actually constitute > >> >> > consciousness. > > >> >> Yes? And? > > >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to think > >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective > >> >> > experiences? > > >> >> Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative sentence? > > >> >> I would continue to think it was acting in response to subjective > >> >> experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's doing. > >> >> And > >> >> your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have to show me > >> >> that > >> >> it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious manner. > > >> >> > You also were seemingly unable to comprehend that even if you were > >> >> > to > >> >> > regard it as having subjective experiences, it would still be > >> >> > behaving > >> >> > as it would be expected to without the assumption that it was. > > >> >> Only if the non-conscious version was designed to mimic the conscious > >> >> version. Note that the conscious version wouldn't need that bit of > >> >> programming. > > >> > Regarding the post on the 4th (and I don't know why you couldn't have > >> > cut and pasted these instead of me having to do it) it stated: > > >> Hey, they're YOUR posts. > > >> > ---------- > >> > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that it > >> > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an alternative > >> > universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there > >> > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the > >> > same. The objection that if it followed the same known laws of > >> > physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if > >> > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of > >> > physics don't reference subjective experiences, thus it is > >> > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the > >> > same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective > >> > experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known laws > >> > of physics to be altered. > >> > ---------- > > >> > Here mechanisms are mentioned being in each universe, but you are > >> > correct, in that I didn't specifically mention robots. > > >> Thank you. > > >> So, are you willing to admit that I CAN read? > > >> > Though for each > >> > mechanism, it would be existing twice, once in each universe (thus > >> > "...both following the same laws of physics as known to us, but with > >> > one having subjective experiences and one not"). > > >> > On the post on the 5th: > >> > ---------- > >> > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it > >> > reasonably. It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example if a > >> > robot behaved as though it might have subjective experiences, i.e. it > >> > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either (a) it > >> > did have, or (b) it didn't have. In one universe you could conceive of > >> > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. In > >> > either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it would > >> > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. The > >> > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be simply > >> > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even if > >> > you > >> > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded bias. > >> > ---------- > > >> > There are two universe, and a robot is in each, obviously the same > >> > robot isn't existing in both simultaneously. > > >> That's not obvious at all. The entire quote can be interpreted as > >> referencing one robot being compared in two different universes. > > >> Perhaps a command of the language is more important than you seem to > >> think > >> it is. > > >> > I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to (as the time stamps > >> > I see are different) > > >> Yes, that's exactly the post I'm referencing. > > >> > ---------- > >> > Regarding the thought experiment, the robots would both be following > >> > the same known laws of physics. So perhaps you could explain why > >> > you > >> > suggest they would act differently. > >> > ---------- > > >> > Again, there are two robots. > > >> No, that's the FIRST time you unambiguously refer to two robots. > > >> > If it was different bits you were referring to, then I suggest that > >> > you cut and paste them yourself, so there can be no confusion. > > >> No, you're using the correct quotes. > > >> > Anyway, back to the real issue, regarding where I said: > > >> Well, I suppose an admission of a slight mistake as opposed to an apology > >> for unjustly slandering my reading ability is all I can expect from one > >> as > >> dishonest as you. > > >> > ---------- > >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to think > >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective > >> > experiences? > >> > ---------- > > >> > You replied > >> > ---------- > >> > Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative sentence? > > >> > I would continue to think it was acting in response to subjective > >> > experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's doing. > >> > And your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have to > >> > show me that it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious > >> > manner. > >> > ---------- > > >> > So you would base your belief that it was acting in response to > >> > subjective experiences, even though it was behaving exactly as it > >> > would be expected to, without the added assumption that it was > >> > subjectively experiencing? > > >> No. In your scenario you've already got me agreeing that it's conscious. > >> The > >> basis for that conclusion is that it's behaving in a way that I take to > >> be > >> congruent with subjective experience. It's responding in context to my > >> questions and such, for example. Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's > >> not conscious. The reason I do not immediately agree with you is that the > >> robot is, I presume, still acting like it's conscious. Until you can show > >> me > >> that it's not conscious, I'll continue to act under the assumption that > >> my > >> conclusion that it is conscious is correct and disbelieve you. > > >> That's what I meant by: "I would continue to think it was acting in > >> response > >> to subjective experiences because apparently that's what it looks like > >> it's > >> doing." I can't imagine how you misinterpreted that. > > >> > If so, what influence would you consider the subjective experiences to > >> > be having, given that it is behaving as it would be expected to > >> > without the assumption that it had any subjective experiences? > > >> Given that your interpretation of my response was incorrect, this > >> question > >> is meaningless. > > >> If you had two robots, one with a brain capable of subjective experience, > >> and one with a sophisticated tape-recorder that played back responses > >> designed to fool me into thinking it's conscious, they would supposedly > >> behave the same, and I would mistakenly grant that both were conscious. > >> Both > >> would be acting according to physical law to get the same effect, but the > >> workings would be very different. For the tape recorder robot to succeed, > >> it > >> has to have the right phrases recorded to fool me, just like the > >> conscious > >> robot has to have subjective experiences or I won't think it's conscious. > > > I've snipped the older correspondence, though not sure I've made such > > a good job of it, it would be easier if we responded at the end of > > what each other post, but I guess you'd object, so there are a few > > imbedded pieces of text still remaining from the older stuff. > > That's fine. > > > Assuming you aren't trying to be disingenious, you seem to have got > > lost on the scenario. > > No. Did I say that was your scenario? No? Then there's no reason to think it > is. > > I've presented my own scenario since yours doesn't seem to be going > anywhere. > > This one-sided interrogation gets a little tiresome, so I thought I'd try to > provide my own illustrative scenario. > > Figures you would ignore it. > > > No where are you told it isn't conscious. > > Whether it is or isn't is unknown. You know that it follows the > > known laws of physics, and you know that it behaved as something you > > might have thought as conscious, if for example you had been > > communicating with it over the internet. Yes I have just added that > > clarification, but you appeared to be confused claiming incorrectly > > that you were told it wasn't conscious. > > That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. > > > As it follows the known laws of physics, its behaviour can be > > explained without the added assumption that it has any subjective > > experiences, > > The subjective experience is part of the physical behavior. It's ALL > physical. What is your damn problem? > > > as any mechanism following the laws of physics require no > > such claims to explain behaviour > > Except the mechanisms that do. > > > (restating to help you follow, this > > doesn't mean that it couldn't have subjective experiences). > > Irrelevant. > > > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known > > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence > > would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that > > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that > > it had any subjective experiences? > > The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical activity > that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get any > fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following the > fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other fucking > physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. > > Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to fucking > respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before you > fucking get it? > > > (Is the question clear enough for you, or is there any clarification > > you require about what is being asked?) > > I think I understand you perfectly, but you simply refuse to listen to my > replies. > > Here's another vain analogy to try to get through to you: You have two > identical computers that run a program. But one program has a subroutine > called Subjective Experience that drastically affects the output, and the > other doesn't. Both act according to the laws of physics. Would you expect > them to behave the same given that one program has a subroutine that the > other doesn't? > > I wouldn't. Why do you? > I had stated trying to help you as you seemed lost by stating (emphasis for clarity): ------------ NO WHERE ARE YOU TOLD IT ISN'T CONSCIOUS. WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T IS UNKNOWN. You know that it follows the known laws of physics, and you know that it behaved as something you might have thought as conscious, if for example you had been communicating with it over the internet. Yes I have just added that clarification, but you appeared to be confused claiming incorrectly that you were told it wasn't conscious. ------------ To which you replied ------------ That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. ------------ You did falsely claim though that in my scenario that you were told it wasn't conscious, the text is still above, you state: ------------ Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not conscious. ------------ Even if you made a simple mistake and thought I was referencing a scenario put forward by you, the claim you made was still blantantly false. Also with regards to the question: ----------- So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had any subjective experiences? ----------- You replied: ----------- The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical activity that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get any fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following the fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other fucking physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to fucking respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before you fucking get it? ------------ Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the laws of physics, and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your self-proclaimed infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences or not? Can you see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one thing you know, the mechanism, but whether it has subjective experiences or not isn't known to you, so there is a natural seperation in your knowledge, you can deny it if you like, but its a fact. Given that, perhaps you'd care to try again, and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of your world perspective through reason that you know will come if you do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your dummy out of your pram): If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had any subjective experiences? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181176912.356609.204180@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical >> activity >> that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get any >> fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following >> the >> fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other fucking >> physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. >> >> Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to >> fucking >> respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before you >> fucking get it? > > Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the laws of physics, > and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your self-proclaimed > infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences or not? How did you ? > Can you > see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one thing you know, > the mechanism, but whether it has subjective experiences or not isn't > known to you, so there is a natural seperation in your knowledge, you > can deny it if you like, but its a fact. Irrelevant word salad again > Given that, perhaps you'd > care to try again, and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of > your world perspective through reason that you know will come if you > do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your dummy out of your > pram): All the above applies much more accurately to yourself > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is > behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had > any subjective experiences? That depends on the subjective experience it was having .. dummy Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 02:05, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181176912.356609.204180@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical > >> activity > >> that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get any > >> fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following > >> the > >> fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other fucking > >> physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. > > >> Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to > >> fucking > >> respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before you > >> fucking get it? > > > Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the laws of physics, > > and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your self-proclaimed > > infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences or not? > > How did you ? > > > Can you > > see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one thing you know, > > the mechanism, but whether it has subjective experiences or not isn't > > known to you, so there is a natural seperation in your knowledge, you > > can deny it if you like, but its a fact. > > Irrelevant word salad again > > > Given that, perhaps you'd > > care to try again, and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of > > your world perspective through reason that you know will come if you > > do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your dummy out of your > > pram): > > All the above applies much more accurately to yourself > > > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws > > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would > > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is > > behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had > > any subjective experiences? > > That depends on the subjective experience it was having .. dummy > The point was that you don't know whether it is having subjective experiences or not. Didn't you get that? There was a clue: -------- Can you see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one thing you know, the mechanism, but whether it has subjective experiences or not isn't known to you, so there is a natural seperation in your knowledge, you can deny it if you like, but its a fact. -------- Quote
Deathbringer Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 6 Jun, 23:06, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: Your belief that we are simply a biologial mechanism is noted. The objection is simple, in that if I made a robot that acted as though it has subjective experiences, and you thought it did, but actually after you had made your decision, I explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then on what basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective experiences? Can you see that whether it did or it didn't, it couldn't make any difference to the way it was behaving if it was simply a mechanism following the known laws of physics. So its behaviour, if you still chose to consider it to be having conscious experiences, couldn't be said to be influenced by them, as it would be expected to act the same even without your added assumption that it really did have subjective experiences. Can you also see that if we were simply biological mechanism following the laws of physics, like the robot, we couldn't be behaving the way we do because of any subjective experiences we were having. They in themselves couldn't be influencing our behaviour, which would mean it would have to be coincidental that we actually have the subjective experiences we talk about (as they couldn't have influenced the behaviour). The coincidence makes the perspective implausible. Can you follow this, or do you require clarification on some matters? I understand. You believe that nothing governed by the ordinary laws of physics is capable of having subjective experiences that influence its behavior. Deathbringer bangs head against adjacent wall repeatedly Tell me, do you think this place is a magnet for naturally stupid people, or does talking with stupid people kill brain cells over time thereby gradually spreading the condition? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181178834.789376.211720@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Jun, 02:05, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181176912.356609.204180@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical >> >> activity >> >> that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get >> >> any >> >> fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following >> >> the >> >> fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other >> >> fucking >> >> physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. >> >> >> Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to >> >> fucking >> >> respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before >> >> you >> >> fucking get it? >> >> > Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the laws of physics, >> > and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your self-proclaimed >> > infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences or not? >> >> How did you ? >> >> > Can you >> > see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one thing you know, >> > the mechanism, but whether it has subjective experiences or not isn't >> > known to you, so there is a natural seperation in your knowledge, you >> > can deny it if you like, but its a fact. >> >> Irrelevant word salad again >> >> > Given that, perhaps you'd >> > care to try again, and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of >> > your world perspective through reason that you know will come if you >> > do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your dummy out of your >> > pram): >> >> All the above applies much more accurately to yourself >> >> > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws >> > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would >> > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is >> > behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had >> > any subjective experiences? >> >> That depends on the subjective experience it was having .. dummy >> > > The point was that you don't know whether it is having subjective > experiences or not. You can only guess based on observation of its behaviour (or if you know its mecahnism well enough, you could pin theory determine what experiences are encoded in it) > Didn't you get that? It has no relevance or point. Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 04:45, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181178834.789376.211720@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 7 Jun, 02:05, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181176912.356609.204180@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical > >> >> activity > >> >> that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get > >> >> any > >> >> fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following > >> >> the > >> >> fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other > >> >> fucking > >> >> physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. > > >> >> Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to > >> >> fucking > >> >> respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before > >> >> you > >> >> fucking get it? > > >> > Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the laws of physics, > >> > and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your self-proclaimed > >> > infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences or not? > > >> How did you ? > > >> > Can you > >> > see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one thing you know, > >> > the mechanism, but whether it has subjective experiences or not isn't > >> > known to you, so there is a natural seperation in your knowledge, you > >> > can deny it if you like, but its a fact. > > >> Irrelevant word salad again > > >> > Given that, perhaps you'd > >> > care to try again, and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of > >> > your world perspective through reason that you know will come if you > >> > do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your dummy out of your > >> > pram): > > >> All the above applies much more accurately to yourself > > >> > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws > >> > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would > >> > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is > >> > behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had > >> > any subjective experiences? > > >> That depends on the subjective experience it was having .. dummy > > > The point was that you don't know whether it is having subjective > > experiences or not. > > You can only guess based on observation of its behaviour (or if you know its > mecahnism well enough, you could pin theory determine what experiences are > encoded in it) > > > Didn't you get that? > > It has no relevance or point. > Yes it does have a relevance and a point. If you would answer the questions, or ask for clarification if you were unsure of what things meant, instead of acting like a school child with a new catch phrase "word salad" thinking it impresses your classmates, then I can show you very quickly and simply. Given the amount you have been writing, why don't you give reasoned converstation a go, for example answering a simple question. If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had any subjective experiences? (If you don't understand the question, just ask for clarification. If you can't understand the point, then just answer it honestly, and after a few short posts you'll be facing the implausibility of your world perspective (which is the point)) Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181176912.356609.204180@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181170991.844972.128670@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 6 Jun, 18:52, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1181119352.279318.274890@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 09:10, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> > [snipped older correspondance] >> >> >> >> > It seems you can't read. There were initially two universes, and >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > robot in each, and it remained so. >> >> >> >> Now you're just lying. Anyone can see that you first brought up the >> >> >> universe >> >> >> argument on the 4th at 11:25 AM. Robots weren't mentioned until 3 >> >> >> exchanges >> >> >> later with your 5:47 AM post on the 5th. And you didn't mention a >> >> >> second >> >> >> robot until 2 exchanges later on the 5th at 7:05 PM. >> >> >> >> Go on, read your posts. I'll wait. >> >> >> >> Can I expect an apology, or at least an admission that you made a >> >> >> mistake? >> >> >> >> > It also seems you are unable to follow the points being made, and >> >> >> > avoided the questions. For example where I said: >> >> >> >> > ------- >> >> >> > To which I pointed out (though tidied up a bit here for clarity), >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > I made a robot that acted as though it has subjective >> >> >> > experiences, >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > you thought it did, but actually after you had made your >> >> >> > decision, I >> >> >> > explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because of >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then on >> >> >> > what >> >> >> > basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way it >> >> >> > did >> >> >> > because it had subjective experiences? >> >> >> > ------- >> >> >> >> > To which you replied: >> >> >> > ------- >> >> >> > I would have to be assured that the physical operation of the >> >> >> > robot, >> >> >> > following known laws of physics, didn't actually constitute >> >> >> > consciousness. >> >> >> >> Yes? And? >> >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to >> >> >> > think >> >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective >> >> >> > experiences? >> >> >> >> Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative >> >> >> sentence? >> >> >> >> I would continue to think it was acting in response to subjective >> >> >> experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's >> >> >> doing. >> >> >> And >> >> >> your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have to show >> >> >> me >> >> >> that >> >> >> it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious manner. >> >> >> >> > You also were seemingly unable to comprehend that even if you >> >> >> > were >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > regard it as having subjective experiences, it would still be >> >> >> > behaving >> >> >> > as it would be expected to without the assumption that it was. >> >> >> >> Only if the non-conscious version was designed to mimic the >> >> >> conscious >> >> >> version. Note that the conscious version wouldn't need that bit of >> >> >> programming. >> >> >> > Regarding the post on the 4th (and I don't know why you couldn't >> >> > have >> >> > cut and pasted these instead of me having to do it) it stated: >> >> >> Hey, they're YOUR posts. >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that >> >> > it >> >> > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an >> >> > alternative >> >> > universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there >> >> > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the >> >> > same. The objection that if it followed the same known laws of >> >> > physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if >> >> > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of >> >> > physics don't reference subjective experiences, thus it is >> >> > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the >> >> > same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective >> >> > experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known >> >> > laws >> >> > of physics to be altered. >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> > Here mechanisms are mentioned being in each universe, but you are >> >> > correct, in that I didn't specifically mention robots. >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> So, are you willing to admit that I CAN read? >> >> >> > Though for each >> >> > mechanism, it would be existing twice, once in each universe (thus >> >> > "...both following the same laws of physics as known to us, but with >> >> > one having subjective experiences and one not"). >> >> >> > On the post on the 5th: >> >> > ---------- >> >> > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it >> >> > reasonably. It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example if a >> >> > robot behaved as though it might have subjective experiences, i.e. >> >> > it >> >> > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either (a) >> >> > it >> >> > did have, or (b) it didn't have. In one universe you could conceive >> >> > of >> >> > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. In >> >> > either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it would >> >> > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. The >> >> > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be simply >> >> > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even if >> >> > you >> >> > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded bias. >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> > There are two universe, and a robot is in each, obviously the same >> >> > robot isn't existing in both simultaneously. >> >> >> That's not obvious at all. The entire quote can be interpreted as >> >> referencing one robot being compared in two different universes. >> >> >> Perhaps a command of the language is more important than you seem to >> >> think >> >> it is. >> >> >> > I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to (as the time >> >> > stamps >> >> > I see are different) >> >> >> Yes, that's exactly the post I'm referencing. >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> > Regarding the thought experiment, the robots would both be following >> >> > the same known laws of physics. So perhaps you could explain why >> >> > you >> >> > suggest they would act differently. >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> > Again, there are two robots. >> >> >> No, that's the FIRST time you unambiguously refer to two robots. >> >> >> > If it was different bits you were referring to, then I suggest that >> >> > you cut and paste them yourself, so there can be no confusion. >> >> >> No, you're using the correct quotes. >> >> >> > Anyway, back to the real issue, regarding where I said: >> >> >> Well, I suppose an admission of a slight mistake as opposed to an >> >> apology >> >> for unjustly slandering my reading ability is all I can expect from >> >> one >> >> as >> >> dishonest as you. >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to think >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective >> >> > experiences? >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> > You replied >> >> > ---------- >> >> > Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative >> >> > sentence? >> >> >> > I would continue to think it was acting in response to subjective >> >> > experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's doing. >> >> > And your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have to >> >> > show me that it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious >> >> > manner. >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> > So you would base your belief that it was acting in response to >> >> > subjective experiences, even though it was behaving exactly as it >> >> > would be expected to, without the added assumption that it was >> >> > subjectively experiencing? >> >> >> No. In your scenario you've already got me agreeing that it's >> >> conscious. >> >> The >> >> basis for that conclusion is that it's behaving in a way that I take >> >> to >> >> be >> >> congruent with subjective experience. It's responding in context to my >> >> questions and such, for example. Then, in your scenario, you tell me >> >> it's >> >> not conscious. The reason I do not immediately agree with you is that >> >> the >> >> robot is, I presume, still acting like it's conscious. Until you can >> >> show >> >> me >> >> that it's not conscious, I'll continue to act under the assumption >> >> that >> >> my >> >> conclusion that it is conscious is correct and disbelieve you. >> >> >> That's what I meant by: "I would continue to think it was acting in >> >> response >> >> to subjective experiences because apparently that's what it looks like >> >> it's >> >> doing." I can't imagine how you misinterpreted that. >> >> >> > If so, what influence would you consider the subjective experiences >> >> > to >> >> > be having, given that it is behaving as it would be expected to >> >> > without the assumption that it had any subjective experiences? >> >> >> Given that your interpretation of my response was incorrect, this >> >> question >> >> is meaningless. >> >> >> If you had two robots, one with a brain capable of subjective >> >> experience, >> >> and one with a sophisticated tape-recorder that played back responses >> >> designed to fool me into thinking it's conscious, they would >> >> supposedly >> >> behave the same, and I would mistakenly grant that both were >> >> conscious. >> >> Both >> >> would be acting according to physical law to get the same effect, but >> >> the >> >> workings would be very different. For the tape recorder robot to >> >> succeed, >> >> it >> >> has to have the right phrases recorded to fool me, just like the >> >> conscious >> >> robot has to have subjective experiences or I won't think it's >> >> conscious. >> >> > I've snipped the older correspondence, though not sure I've made such >> > a good job of it, it would be easier if we responded at the end of >> > what each other post, but I guess you'd object, so there are a few >> > imbedded pieces of text still remaining from the older stuff. >> >> That's fine. >> >> > Assuming you aren't trying to be disingenious, you seem to have got >> > lost on the scenario. >> >> No. Did I say that was your scenario? No? Then there's no reason to think >> it >> is. >> >> I've presented my own scenario since yours doesn't seem to be going >> anywhere. >> >> This one-sided interrogation gets a little tiresome, so I thought I'd try >> to >> provide my own illustrative scenario. >> >> Figures you would ignore it. >> >> > No where are you told it isn't conscious. >> > Whether it is or isn't is unknown. You know that it follows the >> > known laws of physics, and you know that it behaved as something you >> > might have thought as conscious, if for example you had been >> > communicating with it over the internet. Yes I have just added that >> > clarification, but you appeared to be confused claiming incorrectly >> > that you were told it wasn't conscious. >> >> That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. >> >> > As it follows the known laws of physics, its behaviour can be >> > explained without the added assumption that it has any subjective >> > experiences, >> >> The subjective experience is part of the physical behavior. It's ALL >> physical. What is your damn problem? >> >> > as any mechanism following the laws of physics require no >> > such claims to explain behaviour >> >> Except the mechanisms that do. >> >> > (restating to help you follow, this >> > doesn't mean that it couldn't have subjective experiences). >> >> Irrelevant. >> >> > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known >> > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence >> > would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that >> > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that >> > it had any subjective experiences? >> >> The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical >> activity >> that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get any >> fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following >> the >> fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other fucking >> physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. >> >> Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to >> fucking >> respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before you >> fucking get it? >> >> > (Is the question clear enough for you, or is there any clarification >> > you require about what is being asked?) >> >> I think I understand you perfectly, but you simply refuse to listen to my >> replies. >> >> Here's another vain analogy to try to get through to you: You have two >> identical computers that run a program. But one program has a subroutine >> called Subjective Experience that drastically affects the output, and the >> other doesn't. Both act according to the laws of physics. Would you >> expect >> them to behave the same given that one program has a subroutine that the >> other doesn't? >> >> I wouldn't. Why do you? >> > > I had stated trying to help you as you seemed lost by stating > (emphasis for clarity): > ------------ > NO WHERE ARE YOU TOLD IT ISN'T CONSCIOUS. WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T IS > UNKNOWN. You know that it follows the known laws of physics, and you > know that it behaved as something you might have thought as conscious, > if for example you had been communicating with it over the internet. > Yes I have just added that clarification, but you appeared to be > confused claiming incorrectly > that you were told it wasn't conscious. > ------------ > > To which you replied > ------------ > That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. Yes...?And...? > ------------ > > You did falsely claim though that in my scenario that you were told it > wasn't conscious, the text is still above, you state: > ------------ > Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not conscious. > ------------ > > Even if you made a simple mistake and thought I was referencing a > scenario put forward by you, the claim you made was still blantantly > false. Did you, or did you not, say: "To which I pointed out (though tidied up a bit here for clarity), that I made a robot that acted as though it has subjective experiences, and you thought it did, but actually after you had made your decision, I explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then on what basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective experiences?" Blatantly false my ass. > Also with regards to the question: > ----------- > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence > would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that > it had any subjective experiences? > ----------- > > You replied: > ----------- > The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical > activity that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't > fucking get any fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE > matter following the fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking > separate it from other fucking physical activity, no matter how much > you fucking want to. > > Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to > fucking respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer > before you fucking get it? > ------------ > > Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the laws of physics, Everything follows the fucking laws of physics! > and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your self-proclaimed > infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences or not? I'm not fucking saying it's conscious, I'm saying if it was, its consciousness is matter obeying physical law. The status of the fucking robot in the scenario is irrelevant to my reply. > Can you > see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one thing you know, > the mechanism, but whether it has subjective experiences or not isn't > known to you, so there is a natural seperation in your knowledge, you > can deny it if you like, but its a fact. I fucking understand that you twit. > Given that, perhaps you'd > care to try again, > and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of > your world perspective through reason that you know will come if you > do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your dummy out of your > pram): I'm throwing the dummy out of the pram as a deliberate experiment to see if you respond differently. Any variation would be welcome. Sadly it didn't work. > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is > behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had > any subjective experiences? Since any subjective experience would be physical matter following the laws of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had subjective experiences, then those experiences would be the mechanism following the known laws of physics. Since gravity can affect it's behavior, then subjective experience, as just another example of physical matter following the laws of physics, could affect its behavior too. I note you did not respond to my computer example. Are you afraid of the resultant crumbling of your world perspective through reason that you know will come if you do? Good grief. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 06:19, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181176912.356609.204180@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181170991.844972.128670@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 6 Jun, 18:52, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1181119352.279318.274890@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 6 Jun, 09:10, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> > [snipped older correspondance] > > >> >> >> > It seems you can't read. There were initially two universes, and > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > robot in each, and it remained so. > > >> >> >> Now you're just lying. Anyone can see that you first brought up the > >> >> >> universe > >> >> >> argument on the 4th at 11:25 AM. Robots weren't mentioned until 3 > >> >> >> exchanges > >> >> >> later with your 5:47 AM post on the 5th. And you didn't mention a > >> >> >> second > >> >> >> robot until 2 exchanges later on the 5th at 7:05 PM. > > >> >> >> Go on, read your posts. I'll wait. > > >> >> >> Can I expect an apology, or at least an admission that you made a > >> >> >> mistake? > > >> >> >> > It also seems you are unable to follow the points being made, and > >> >> >> > avoided the questions. For example where I said: > > >> >> >> > ------- > >> >> >> > To which I pointed out (though tidied up a bit here for clarity), > >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> > I made a robot that acted as though it has subjective > >> >> >> > experiences, > >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> > you thought it did, but actually after you had made your > >> >> >> > decision, I > >> >> >> > explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because of > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then on > >> >> >> > what > >> >> >> > basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way it > >> >> >> > did > >> >> >> > because it had subjective experiences? > >> >> >> > ------- > > >> >> >> > To which you replied: > >> >> >> > ------- > >> >> >> > I would have to be assured that the physical operation of the > >> >> >> > robot, > >> >> >> > following known laws of physics, didn't actually constitute > >> >> >> > consciousness. > > >> >> >> Yes? And? > > >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to > >> >> >> > think > >> >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective > >> >> >> > experiences? > > >> >> >> Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative > >> >> >> sentence? > > >> >> >> I would continue to think it was acting in response to subjective > >> >> >> experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's > >> >> >> doing. > >> >> >> And > >> >> >> your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have to show > >> >> >> me > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious manner. > > >> >> >> > You also were seemingly unable to comprehend that even if you > >> >> >> > were > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> > regard it as having subjective experiences, it would still be > >> >> >> > behaving > >> >> >> > as it would be expected to without the assumption that it was. > > >> >> >> Only if the non-conscious version was designed to mimic the > >> >> >> conscious > >> >> >> version. Note that the conscious version wouldn't need that bit of > >> >> >> programming. > > >> >> > Regarding the post on the 4th (and I don't know why you couldn't > >> >> > have > >> >> > cut and pasted these instead of me having to do it) it stated: > > >> >> Hey, they're YOUR posts. > > >> >> > ---------- > >> >> > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that > >> >> > it > >> >> > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an > >> >> > alternative > >> >> > universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there > >> >> > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the > >> >> > same. The objection that if it followed the same known laws of > >> >> > physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if > >> >> > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of > >> >> > physics don't reference subjective experiences, thus it is > >> >> > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the > >> >> > same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective > >> >> > experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known > >> >> > laws > >> >> > of physics to be altered. > >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> > Here mechanisms are mentioned being in each universe, but you are > >> >> > correct, in that I didn't specifically mention robots. > > >> >> Thank you. > > >> >> So, are you willing to admit that I CAN read? > > >> >> > Though for each > >> >> > mechanism, it would be existing twice, once in each universe (thus > >> >> > "...both following the same laws of physics as known to us, but with > >> >> > one having subjective experiences and one not"). > > >> >> > On the post on the 5th: > >> >> > ---------- > >> >> > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it > >> >> > reasonably. It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example if a > >> >> > robot behaved as though it might have subjective experiences, i.e. > >> >> > it > >> >> > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either (a) > >> >> > it > >> >> > did have, or (b) it didn't have. In one universe you could conceive > >> >> > of > >> >> > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. In > >> >> > either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it would > >> >> > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. The > >> >> > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be simply > >> >> > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even if > >> >> > you > >> >> > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded bias. > >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> > There are two universe, and a robot is in each, obviously the same > >> >> > robot isn't existing in both simultaneously. > > >> >> That's not obvious at all. The entire quote can be interpreted as > >> >> referencing one robot being compared in two different universes. > > >> >> Perhaps a command of the language is more important than you seem to > >> >> think > >> >> it is. > > >> >> > I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to (as the time > >> >> > stamps > >> >> > I see are different) > > >> >> Yes, that's exactly the post I'm referencing. > > >> >> > ---------- > >> >> > Regarding the thought experiment, the robots would both be following > >> >> > the same known laws of physics. So perhaps you could explain why > >> >> > you > >> >> > suggest they would act differently. > >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> > Again, there are two robots. > > >> >> No, that's the FIRST time you unambiguously refer to two robots. > > >> >> > If it was different bits you were referring to, then I suggest that > >> >> > you cut and paste them yourself, so there can be no confusion. > > >> >> No, you're using the correct quotes. > > >> >> > Anyway, back to the real issue, regarding where I said: > > >> >> Well, I suppose an admission of a slight mistake as opposed to an > >> >> apology > >> >> for unjustly slandering my reading ability is all I can expect from > >> >> one > >> >> as > >> >> dishonest as you. > > >> >> > ---------- > >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to think > >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective > >> >> > experiences? > >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> > You replied > >> >> > ---------- > >> >> > Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative > >> >> > sentence? > > >> >> > I would continue to think it was acting in response to subjective > >> >> > experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's doing. > >> >> > And your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have to > >> >> > show me that it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious > >> >> > manner. > >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> > So you would base your belief that it was acting in response to > >> >> > subjective experiences, even though it was behaving exactly as it > >> >> > would be expected to, without the added assumption that it was > >> >> > subjectively experiencing? > > >> >> No. In your scenario you've already got me agreeing that it's > >> >> conscious. > >> >> The > >> >> basis for that conclusion is that it's behaving in a way that I take > >> >> to > >> >> be > >> >> congruent with subjective experience. It's responding in context to my > >> >> questions and such, for example. Then, in your scenario, you tell me > >> >> it's > >> >> not conscious. The reason I do not immediately agree with you is that > >> >> the > >> >> robot is, I presume, still acting like it's conscious. Until you can > >> >> show > >> >> me > >> >> that it's not conscious, I'll continue to act under the assumption > >> >> that > >> >> my > >> >> conclusion that it is conscious is correct and disbelieve you. > > >> >> That's what I meant by: "I would continue to think it was acting in > >> >> response > >> >> to subjective experiences because apparently that's what it looks like > >> >> it's > >> >> doing." I can't imagine how you misinterpreted that. > > >> >> > If so, what influence would you consider the subjective experiences > >> >> > to > >> >> > be having, given that it is behaving as it would be expected to > >> >> > without the assumption that it had any subjective experiences? > > >> >> Given that your interpretation of my response was incorrect, this > >> >> question > >> >> is meaningless. > > >> >> If you had two robots, one with a brain capable of subjective > >> >> experience, > >> >> and one with a sophisticated tape-recorder that played back responses > >> >> designed to fool me into thinking it's conscious, they would > >> >> supposedly > >> >> behave the same, and I would mistakenly grant that both were > >> >> conscious. > >> >> Both > >> >> would be acting according to physical law to get the same effect, but > >> >> the > >> >> workings would be very different. For the tape recorder robot to > >> >> succeed, > >> >> it > >> >> has to have the right phrases recorded to fool me, just like the > >> >> conscious > >> >> robot has to have subjective experiences or I won't think it's > >> >> conscious. > > >> > I've snipped the older correspondence, though not sure I've made such > >> > a good job of it, it would be easier if we responded at the end of > >> > what each other post, but I guess you'd object, so there are a few > >> > imbedded pieces of text still remaining from the older stuff. > > >> That's fine. > > >> > Assuming you aren't trying to be disingenious, you seem to have got > >> > lost on the scenario. > > >> No. Did I say that was your scenario? No? Then there's no reason to think > >> it > >> is. > > >> I've presented my own scenario since yours doesn't seem to be going > >> anywhere. > > >> This one-sided interrogation gets a little tiresome, so I thought I'd try > >> to > >> provide my own illustrative scenario. > > >> Figures you would ignore it. > > >> > No where are you told it isn't conscious. > >> > Whether it is or isn't is unknown. You know that it follows the > >> > known laws of physics, and you know that it behaved as something you > >> > might have thought as conscious, if for example you had been > >> > communicating with it over the internet. Yes I have just added that > >> > clarification, but you appeared to be confused claiming incorrectly > >> > that you were told it wasn't conscious. > > >> That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. > > >> > As it follows the known laws of physics, its behaviour can be > >> > explained without the added assumption that it has any subjective > >> > experiences, > > >> The subjective experience is part of the physical behavior. It's ALL > >> physical. What is your damn problem? > > >> > as any mechanism following the laws of physics require no > >> > such claims to explain behaviour > > >> Except the mechanisms that do. > > >> > (restating to help you follow, this > >> > doesn't mean that it couldn't have subjective experiences). > > >> Irrelevant. > > >> > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known > >> > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence > >> > would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that > >> > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that > >> > it had any subjective experiences? > > >> The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical > >> activity > >> that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get any > >> fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following > >> the > >> fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other fucking > >> physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. > > >> Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to > >> fucking > >> respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before you > >> fucking get it? > > >> > (Is the question clear enough for you, or is there any clarification > >> > you require about what is being asked?) > > >> I think I understand you perfectly, but you simply refuse to listen to my > >> replies. > > >> Here's another vain analogy to try to get through to you: You have two > >> identical computers that run a program. But one program has a subroutine > >> called Subjective Experience that drastically affects the output, and the > >> other doesn't. Both act according to the laws of physics. Would you > >> expect > >> them to behave the same given that one program has a subroutine that the > >> other doesn't? > > >> I wouldn't. Why do you? > > > I had stated trying to help you as you seemed lost by stating > > (emphasis for clarity): > > ------------ > > NO WHERE ARE YOU TOLD IT ISN'T CONSCIOUS. WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T IS > > UNKNOWN. You know that it follows the known laws of physics, and you > > know that it behaved as something you might have thought as conscious, > > if for example you had been communicating with it over the internet. > > Yes I have just added that clarification, but you appeared to be > > confused claiming incorrectly > > that you were told it wasn't conscious. > > ------------ > > > To which you replied > > ------------ > > That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. > > Yes...?And...? > > > ------------ > > > You did falsely claim though that in my scenario that you were told it > > wasn't conscious, the text is still above, you state: > > ------------ > > Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not conscious. > > ------------ > > > Even if you made a simple mistake and thought I was referencing a > > scenario put forward by you, the claim you made was still blantantly > > false. > > Did you, or did you not, say: "To which I pointed out (though tidied up a > bit here for clarity), that I made a robot that acted as though it has > subjective experiences, and you thought it did, but actually after you had > made your decision, I explained to you that it behaved the way it did > simply because of the > physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then on what > basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way it did because > it had subjective experiences?" > > Blatantly false my ass. > > > Also with regards to the question: > > ----------- > > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known > > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence > > would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that > > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that > > it had any subjective experiences? > > ----------- > > > You replied: > > ----------- > > The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical > > activity that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't > > fucking get any fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE > > matter following the fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking > > separate it from other fucking physical activity, no matter how much > > you fucking want to. > > > Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to > > fucking respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer > > before you fucking get it? > > ------------ > > > Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the laws of physics, > > Everything follows the fucking laws of physics! > > > and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your self-proclaimed > > infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences or not? > > I'm not fucking saying it's conscious, I'm saying if it was, its > consciousness is matter obeying physical law. The status of the fucking > robot in the scenario is irrelevant to my reply. > > > Can you > > see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one thing you know, > > the mechanism, but whether it has subjective experiences or not isn't > > known to you, so there is a natural seperation in your knowledge, you > > can deny it if you like, but its a fact. > > I fucking understand that you twit. > > > Given that, perhaps you'd > > care to try again, > > and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of > > your world perspective through reason that you know will come if you > > do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your dummy out of your > > pram): > > I'm throwing the dummy out of the pram as a deliberate experiment to see if > you respond differently. Any variation would be welcome. > > Sadly it didn't work. > > > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws > > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would > > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is > > behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had > > any subjective experiences? > > Since any subjective experience would be physical matter following the laws > of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had subjective experiences, > then those experiences would be the mechanism following the known laws of > physics. Since gravity can affect it's behavior, then subjective experience, > as just another example of physical matter following the laws of physics, > could affect its behavior too. > > I note you did not respond to my computer example. Are you afraid of the > resultant crumbling of your world perspective through reason that you know > will come if you do? > > Good grief. > With regards to where I referenced your blantantly false accusation that I claimed the mechanism wasn't conscious: --------- Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not conscious. --------- You highlighted a piece where I had said: --------- ...., I explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, ... --------- Are you suggesting that because the behaviour was explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, that this suggested to you that it couldn't be conscious? How so, considering you think "Everything follows the fucking laws of physics", and can therefore be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, which presumably includes things that are conscious. In response to the question: --------- If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had any subjective experiences? --------- You replied: --------- Since any subjective experience would be physical matter following the laws of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had subjective experiences, then those experiences would be the mechanism following the known laws of physics. Since gravity can affect it's behavior, then subjective experience, as just another example of physical matter following the laws of physics, could affect its behavior too. ---------- The question isn't meaningless, though I'll put it another way for you, as a series of statements, and you can state whether you agree with the statements, and where if you disagree, the statements are false. A) The mechanism might or might not be subjectively experienced, you don't know (you agreed this above). B) The mechanisms behaviour is explainable in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics, without requiring knowledge of whether it is subjectively experienced. C) Whether the mechanism were being subjectively experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour, else the explanation for the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181195570.815424.258260@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Jun, 06:19, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181176912.356609.204180@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1181170991.844972.128670@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 18:52, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:1181119352.279318.274890@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 09:10, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > [snipped older correspondance] >> >> >> >> >> > It seems you can't read. There were initially two universes, >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> >> > robot in each, and it remained so. >> >> >> >> >> Now you're just lying. Anyone can see that you first brought up >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> universe >> >> >> >> argument on the 4th at 11:25 AM. Robots weren't mentioned until >> >> >> >> 3 >> >> >> >> exchanges >> >> >> >> later with your 5:47 AM post on the 5th. And you didn't mention >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> second >> >> >> >> robot until 2 exchanges later on the 5th at 7:05 PM. >> >> >> >> >> Go on, read your posts. I'll wait. >> >> >> >> >> Can I expect an apology, or at least an admission that you made >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> mistake? >> >> >> >> >> > It also seems you are unable to follow the points being made, >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> > avoided the questions. For example where I said: >> >> >> >> >> > ------- >> >> >> >> > To which I pointed out (though tidied up a bit here for >> >> >> >> > clarity), >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> > I made a robot that acted as though it has subjective >> >> >> >> > experiences, >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> > you thought it did, but actually after you had made your >> >> >> >> > decision, I >> >> >> >> > explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then >> >> >> >> > on >> >> >> >> > what >> >> >> >> > basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> > did >> >> >> >> > because it had subjective experiences? >> >> >> >> > ------- >> >> >> >> >> > To which you replied: >> >> >> >> > ------- >> >> >> >> > I would have to be assured that the physical operation of the >> >> >> >> > robot, >> >> >> >> > following known laws of physics, didn't actually constitute >> >> >> >> > consciousness. >> >> >> >> >> Yes? And? >> >> >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to >> >> >> >> > think >> >> >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective >> >> >> >> > experiences? >> >> >> >> >> Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative >> >> >> >> sentence? >> >> >> >> >> I would continue to think it was acting in response to >> >> >> >> subjective >> >> >> >> experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's >> >> >> >> doing. >> >> >> >> And >> >> >> >> your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have to >> >> >> >> show >> >> >> >> me >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious manner. >> >> >> >> >> > You also were seemingly unable to comprehend that even if you >> >> >> >> > were >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> > regard it as having subjective experiences, it would still be >> >> >> >> > behaving >> >> >> >> > as it would be expected to without the assumption that it was. >> >> >> >> >> Only if the non-conscious version was designed to mimic the >> >> >> >> conscious >> >> >> >> version. Note that the conscious version wouldn't need that bit >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> programming. >> >> >> >> > Regarding the post on the 4th (and I don't know why you couldn't >> >> >> > have >> >> >> > cut and pasted these instead of me having to do it) it stated: >> >> >> >> Hey, they're YOUR posts. >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > it >> >> >> > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an >> >> >> > alternative >> >> >> > universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but >> >> >> > there >> >> >> > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > same. The objection that if it followed the same known laws of >> >> >> > physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, >> >> >> > if >> >> >> > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > physics don't reference subjective experiences, thus it is >> >> >> > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> > experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known >> >> >> > laws >> >> >> > of physics to be altered. >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> > Here mechanisms are mentioned being in each universe, but you are >> >> >> > correct, in that I didn't specifically mention robots. >> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> So, are you willing to admit that I CAN read? >> >> >> >> > Though for each >> >> >> > mechanism, it would be existing twice, once in each universe >> >> >> > (thus >> >> >> > "...both following the same laws of physics as known to us, but >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > one having subjective experiences and one not"). >> >> >> >> > On the post on the 5th: >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it >> >> >> > reasonably. It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example >> >> >> > if a >> >> >> > robot behaved as though it might have subjective experiences, >> >> >> > i.e. >> >> >> > it >> >> >> > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either >> >> >> > (a) >> >> >> > it >> >> >> > did have, or (b) it didn't have. In one universe you could >> >> >> > conceive >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. In >> >> >> > either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it >> >> >> > would >> >> >> > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. >> >> >> > The >> >> >> > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be >> >> >> > simply >> >> >> > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even >> >> >> > if >> >> >> > you >> >> >> > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded >> >> >> > bias. >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> > There are two universe, and a robot is in each, obviously the >> >> >> > same >> >> >> > robot isn't existing in both simultaneously. >> >> >> >> That's not obvious at all. The entire quote can be interpreted as >> >> >> referencing one robot being compared in two different universes. >> >> >> >> Perhaps a command of the language is more important than you seem >> >> >> to >> >> >> think >> >> >> it is. >> >> >> >> > I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to (as the time >> >> >> > stamps >> >> >> > I see are different) >> >> >> >> Yes, that's exactly the post I'm referencing. >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> > Regarding the thought experiment, the robots would both be >> >> >> > following >> >> >> > the same known laws of physics. So perhaps you could explain >> >> >> > why >> >> >> > you >> >> >> > suggest they would act differently. >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> > Again, there are two robots. >> >> >> >> No, that's the FIRST time you unambiguously refer to two robots. >> >> >> >> > If it was different bits you were referring to, then I suggest >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > you cut and paste them yourself, so there can be no confusion. >> >> >> >> No, you're using the correct quotes. >> >> >> >> > Anyway, back to the real issue, regarding where I said: >> >> >> >> Well, I suppose an admission of a slight mistake as opposed to an >> >> >> apology >> >> >> for unjustly slandering my reading ability is all I can expect from >> >> >> one >> >> >> as >> >> >> dishonest as you. >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to >> >> >> > think >> >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective >> >> >> > experiences? >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> > You replied >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> > Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative >> >> >> > sentence? >> >> >> >> > I would continue to think it was acting in response to subjective >> >> >> > experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's >> >> >> > doing. >> >> >> > And your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > show me that it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious >> >> >> > manner. >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> > So you would base your belief that it was acting in response to >> >> >> > subjective experiences, even though it was behaving exactly as it >> >> >> > would be expected to, without the added assumption that it was >> >> >> > subjectively experiencing? >> >> >> >> No. In your scenario you've already got me agreeing that it's >> >> >> conscious. >> >> >> The >> >> >> basis for that conclusion is that it's behaving in a way that I >> >> >> take >> >> >> to >> >> >> be >> >> >> congruent with subjective experience. It's responding in context to >> >> >> my >> >> >> questions and such, for example. Then, in your scenario, you tell >> >> >> me >> >> >> it's >> >> >> not conscious. The reason I do not immediately agree with you is >> >> >> that >> >> >> the >> >> >> robot is, I presume, still acting like it's conscious. Until you >> >> >> can >> >> >> show >> >> >> me >> >> >> that it's not conscious, I'll continue to act under the assumption >> >> >> that >> >> >> my >> >> >> conclusion that it is conscious is correct and disbelieve you. >> >> >> >> That's what I meant by: "I would continue to think it was acting in >> >> >> response >> >> >> to subjective experiences because apparently that's what it looks >> >> >> like >> >> >> it's >> >> >> doing." I can't imagine how you misinterpreted that. >> >> >> >> > If so, what influence would you consider the subjective >> >> >> > experiences >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > be having, given that it is behaving as it would be expected to >> >> >> > without the assumption that it had any subjective experiences? >> >> >> >> Given that your interpretation of my response was incorrect, this >> >> >> question >> >> >> is meaningless. >> >> >> >> If you had two robots, one with a brain capable of subjective >> >> >> experience, >> >> >> and one with a sophisticated tape-recorder that played back >> >> >> responses >> >> >> designed to fool me into thinking it's conscious, they would >> >> >> supposedly >> >> >> behave the same, and I would mistakenly grant that both were >> >> >> conscious. >> >> >> Both >> >> >> would be acting according to physical law to get the same effect, >> >> >> but >> >> >> the >> >> >> workings would be very different. For the tape recorder robot to >> >> >> succeed, >> >> >> it >> >> >> has to have the right phrases recorded to fool me, just like the >> >> >> conscious >> >> >> robot has to have subjective experiences or I won't think it's >> >> >> conscious. >> >> >> > I've snipped the older correspondence, though not sure I've made >> >> > such >> >> > a good job of it, it would be easier if we responded at the end of >> >> > what each other post, but I guess you'd object, so there are a few >> >> > imbedded pieces of text still remaining from the older stuff. >> >> >> That's fine. >> >> >> > Assuming you aren't trying to be disingenious, you seem to have got >> >> > lost on the scenario. >> >> >> No. Did I say that was your scenario? No? Then there's no reason to >> >> think >> >> it >> >> is. >> >> >> I've presented my own scenario since yours doesn't seem to be going >> >> anywhere. >> >> >> This one-sided interrogation gets a little tiresome, so I thought I'd >> >> try >> >> to >> >> provide my own illustrative scenario. >> >> >> Figures you would ignore it. >> >> >> > No where are you told it isn't conscious. >> >> > Whether it is or isn't is unknown. You know that it follows the >> >> > known laws of physics, and you know that it behaved as something >> >> > you >> >> > might have thought as conscious, if for example you had been >> >> > communicating with it over the internet. Yes I have just added that >> >> > clarification, but you appeared to be confused claiming incorrectly >> >> > that you were told it wasn't conscious. >> >> >> That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. >> >> >> > As it follows the known laws of physics, its behaviour can be >> >> > explained without the added assumption that it has any subjective >> >> > experiences, >> >> >> The subjective experience is part of the physical behavior. It's ALL >> >> physical. What is your damn problem? >> >> >> > as any mechanism following the laws of physics require no >> >> > such claims to explain behaviour >> >> >> Except the mechanisms that do. >> >> >> > (restating to help you follow, this >> >> > doesn't mean that it couldn't have subjective experiences). >> >> >> Irrelevant. >> >> >> > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known >> >> > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence >> >> > would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given >> >> > that >> >> > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption >> >> > that >> >> > it had any subjective experiences? >> >> >> The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical >> >> activity >> >> that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get >> >> any >> >> fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following >> >> the >> >> fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other >> >> fucking >> >> physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. >> >> >> Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to >> >> fucking >> >> respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before >> >> you >> >> fucking get it? >> >> >> > (Is the question clear enough for you, or is there any clarification >> >> > you require about what is being asked?) >> >> >> I think I understand you perfectly, but you simply refuse to listen to >> >> my >> >> replies. >> >> >> Here's another vain analogy to try to get through to you: You have two >> >> identical computers that run a program. But one program has a >> >> subroutine >> >> called Subjective Experience that drastically affects the output, and >> >> the >> >> other doesn't. Both act according to the laws of physics. Would you >> >> expect >> >> them to behave the same given that one program has a subroutine that >> >> the >> >> other doesn't? >> >> >> I wouldn't. Why do you? >> >> > I had stated trying to help you as you seemed lost by stating >> > (emphasis for clarity): >> > ------------ >> > NO WHERE ARE YOU TOLD IT ISN'T CONSCIOUS. WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T IS >> > UNKNOWN. You know that it follows the known laws of physics, and you >> > know that it behaved as something you might have thought as conscious, >> > if for example you had been communicating with it over the internet. >> > Yes I have just added that clarification, but you appeared to be >> > confused claiming incorrectly >> > that you were told it wasn't conscious. >> > ------------ >> >> > To which you replied >> > ------------ >> > That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. >> >> Yes...?And...? >> >> > ------------ >> >> > You did falsely claim though that in my scenario that you were told it >> > wasn't conscious, the text is still above, you state: >> > ------------ >> > Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not conscious. >> > ------------ >> >> > Even if you made a simple mistake and thought I was referencing a >> > scenario put forward by you, the claim you made was still blantantly >> > false. >> >> Did you, or did you not, say: "To which I pointed out (though tidied up a >> bit here for clarity), that I made a robot that acted as though it has >> subjective experiences, and you thought it did, but actually after you >> had >> made your decision, I explained to you that it behaved the way it did >> simply because of the >> physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then on what >> basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way it did >> because >> it had subjective experiences?" >> >> Blatantly false my ass. >> >> > Also with regards to the question: >> > ----------- >> > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known >> > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence >> > would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that >> > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that >> > it had any subjective experiences? >> > ----------- >> >> > You replied: >> > ----------- >> > The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical >> > activity that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't >> > fucking get any fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE >> > matter following the fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking >> > separate it from other fucking physical activity, no matter how much >> > you fucking want to. >> >> > Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to >> > fucking respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer >> > before you fucking get it? >> > ------------ >> >> > Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the laws of physics, >> >> Everything follows the fucking laws of physics! >> >> > and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your self-proclaimed >> > infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences or not? >> >> I'm not fucking saying it's conscious, I'm saying if it was, its >> consciousness is matter obeying physical law. The status of the fucking >> robot in the scenario is irrelevant to my reply. >> >> > Can you >> > see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one thing you know, >> > the mechanism, but whether it has subjective experiences or not isn't >> > known to you, so there is a natural seperation in your knowledge, you >> > can deny it if you like, but its a fact. >> >> I fucking understand that you twit. >> >> > Given that, perhaps you'd >> > care to try again, >> > and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of >> > your world perspective through reason that you know will come if you >> > do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your dummy out of your >> > pram): >> >> I'm throwing the dummy out of the pram as a deliberate experiment to see >> if >> you respond differently. Any variation would be welcome. >> >> Sadly it didn't work. >> >> > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws >> > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would >> > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is >> > behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had >> > any subjective experiences? >> >> Since any subjective experience would be physical matter following the >> laws >> of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had subjective >> experiences, >> then those experiences would be the mechanism following the known laws of >> physics. Since gravity can affect it's behavior, then subjective >> experience, >> as just another example of physical matter following the laws of physics, >> could affect its behavior too. >> >> I note you did not respond to my computer example. Are you afraid of the >> resultant crumbling of your world perspective through reason that you >> know >> will come if you do? >> >> Good grief. >> > > > With regards to where I referenced your blantantly false accusation > that I claimed the mechanism wasn't conscious: > --------- > Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not conscious. > --------- > > You highlighted a piece where I had said: > --------- > ..., I explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, ... > --------- > > Are you suggesting that because the behaviour was explained in terms > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, that > this suggested to you that it couldn't be conscious? How so, > considering you think "Everything follows the fucking laws of > physics", and can therefore be explained in terms of the physical > mechanism following the laws of physics, which presumably includes > things that are conscious. Ah. I misread your quote and I apologise. I somehow inserted the idea that the explanation in the scenario asserted that the robot wasn't conscious, in those exact words. See? I can admit mistakes, and apologise. You, on the other hand... > In response to the question: > --------- > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is > behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had > any subjective experiences? > --------- > > You replied: > --------- > Since any subjective experience would be physical matter following the > laws of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had subjective > experiences, then those experiences would be the mechanism following > the known laws of physics. Since gravity can affect it's behavior, > then subjective experience, as just another example of physical matter > following the laws of physics, > could affect its behavior too. > ---------- > > The question isn't meaningless, though I'll put it another way for > you, as a series of statements, and you can state whether you agree > with the statements, and where if you disagree, the statements are > false. At least this is different! > A) The mechanism might or might not be subjectively experienced, you > don't know (you agreed this above). You meant to say the mechanism might or might not subjectively experience things, not be subjectively experienced. Agreed. > B) The mechanisms behaviour is explainable in terms of the mechanism > following the laws of physics, without requiring knowledge of whether > it is subjectively experienced. Agreed. > C) Whether the mechanism were being subjectively experienced or not, > doesn't influence the behaviour, Yes it does. Of course it does. Subjective experience is a physical process that affects behavior. A mechanism that has it should act differently from one that doesn't. Just like a mechanism that has wheels will move differently from one with legs. > else the explanation for the > behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. It isn't the same in either case. If the mechanism subjectively experiences things, it's built one way, if it doesn't subjectively experience things, it's built another way. Explaining how mechanisms that are different might behave differently in no way contradicts the fact that both are operating according to physical law. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181192266.264216.148390@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Yes it does have a relevance and a point. You've yet to actually demonstrate one. It appeasrs you are trying to show subjective experience does not exists .. or if it does exist, that it is ireelevant as it does not influence behaviours. That humans have subjective experiences and those experiences influence human behaviour disproves both those points. There doesn't seem to be anything else one can logical draw from your assertsion and tautologies. > If you would answer the questions, What questions? > or ask for clarification if you were unsure of what things meant, I asked what you meant by "subjhective experiences" and you refused to answer. > instead of acting like a school child with a new catch phrase > "word salad" thinking it impresses your classmates, then I can show > you very quickly and simply. Fine go ahead .. you've had ample opportunity to make a point and all you seem to do is copy and paste the same ansewrs > Given the amount you have been writing, > why don't you give reasoned converstation a go, I did .. I provided a set of premises an darguments that showed what you appear to be clamining is incorrect. You've not so far not refuted them. > for example answering a simple question. I have answered all the questions you have put .. it would be nice if you'd return the favour instead of spouting your word sald nonsense > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws > of physics to be having subjective experiences, This hypotheical robot you keep harping on about. Why would I regard it has having subjective experiences? Does it have subjectieve experiences? What do you define as subjective experiences? > what influence would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, What subjective experiences does the robot have? In what way is the robot constructed so that such experiences do or do not affect ceratin behaviours? > given that it is behaving as it would be expected to without the > assumption that it had > any subjective experiences? But that is simply your assertion .. untill you answer the questions above, you have not provided enogh information to give an answer. But ceratinly .. if a mechanism under some particular circumstanses behaves the same with and without subjective experiences, then it would be impossible to determine from that behaviour whether it had subjective epxerience (that's pretty much self-eveident). However, you have not demonstrated that that is the case. I can eually say that the robot does behave differently than I would expect without subjetive experiences, in which case that difference in behaviour would support the assumption that it had subjective experiences. Regardless of your robot though-experiment .. we have real mechaism here .. human beings. We know they have subjective experiences .. and we know those experiences affect their behaviour. So your little thought experiement seem to be completely pointless. > (If you don't understand the question, just ask for clarification. See above .. there is a great deal you have left assumed or unanswered > If > you can't understand the point, then just answer it honestly, I always do > and > after a few short posts you'll be facing the implausibility of your > world perspective (which is the point)) I doubt that .. you've shown no sign of being able to present logical arguments so far .. only unsupported assertions, tautologies, and copy paste responses. Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 someone3 <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181171978.572783.234870@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > On 6 Jun, 18:52, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181140233.468267.124680@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: >> >> > On 6 Jun, 14:13, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> innews:1181096859.045313.216360@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: >> <...> >> >> >> No, Glenn, the contradiction is still there. Your point is >> >> invalid. The internal state of the mechanism is not the same, >> >> therefore the machine is not the same, therefore your two >> >> scenarios are not the same. >> >> > Well I'm obviously not going to respond to your points regarding >> > the 'Philosphy Talk' program Jim07D7 was talking about, as my point >> > was what they were saying was poorly reasoned. >> >> Then why did you bring it up? Are you trying to confuse things again? >> >> > Though regarding your response about regarding the robot to be >> > having subjective experiences because of the way it behaved, do you >> > accept that it would be behaving as it would be expected to behave >> > without the added assumption that it was having subjective >> > experiences? >> >> No, I do not accept that. Nor do I accept your fallacious reasoning >> about how "the laws of physics do not reference subjective >> experiences". Whether they do or do not is irrelevant to the >> discussion of whether a physical object can have subjective >> experiences while obeying physical laws. >> >> You just got done telling me that the robot is behaving as if it is >> having subjective experiences. If it was not having such experiences, >> it would behave differently. You can't have it both ways, Glenn. >> >> > If so, what influence on behaviour would you be considering the >> > subjective experiences to have, given that it was behaving the same >> > as it would be expected to if it didn't have subjective >> > experiences? >> >> I do not accept your contradictory premises, so I'm not obliged to >> explain your contradictions. >> > > I'm slightly confused about your position Fred, I just asked you: > You're slightly confused about your own position, Glenn. You trying to equivocate the difference between a machine that is behaving as if it is having subjective experiences and one that is behaving as if it is not having subjective experiences. > ------- > Though regarding your response about regarding the robot to be having > subjective experiences because of the way it behaved, do you accept > that it would be behaving as it would be expected to behave without > the added assumption that it was having subjective experiences? > ------- > > To which you replied: > ------- > No, I do not accept that. Nor do I accept your fallacious reasoning > about how "the laws of physics do not reference subjective > experiences". Whether they do or do not is irrelevant to the > discussion of whether a physical object can have subjective > experiences while obeying physical laws. > ------- > > Yet in your initial response to my post, still above in the text you > stated: > ------- > Whether or not the mechanism did in fact have subjective experiences, > knowledge of that fact by an external observer would not be necessary > to explain the operation of the mechanism in terms of the physical > structure of the mechanism. > ------- > > Now you can't have it both ways Fred, you can't claim that the > external observer could explain the behaviour without knowing whether > it had subjective experiences, and that it couldn't be explained > without the added assumption that it didn't (presuming of course you > aren't going to try to claim that the assumption that it did would > always have to be made, even if it didn't). > No, Glenn you're taking my second statement out of context. I went on to explain that although the external observer might not know whether the machine is having subjective experiences (in that case, which is NOT the same as the case in which the machine is "behaving as if it is having subjective experiences") those subjective experiences are entailed in the physical properties of the structure and operation of the machine itself. So it's still you trying to have it both ways. > As for your assertion (based it seems on nothing more than your self > proclaimed infallibility on the matter) You're projecting, Glenn, and you don't qualify for infallibility, trust me on this. > that anything following the > known laws of physics that behaved as though it might be subjectively > experiencing must be subjectively experiencing, well whether it was > or it wasn't what difference would it make to the explanation of how > it behaved. The explanation would simply be in terms of the physical > mechanism following the laws of physics, the same as would be if there > were no subjective experiences. "Behaving as if it had subjective experiences" is not the same as "behaving as if it doesn't have subjective experiences", Glenn. You're going to have to do better than that. > Some might even suggest using Occam's > Razor, and wonder why you added the assumption that it had subjective > experiences, given that the assumption wouldn't be required. > Where are you getting that the assumption of subjective experiences wouldn't be required, given that you made it in the first place, Glenn, when YOU said that the mechanism is behaving as if it was having subjective experiences. Some might even suggest that you're just not smart enough to construct a decent philosophical paradox, Glenn. But don't keep trying, it's not worth your effort. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 someone3 <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181228927.521596.127780@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On 7 Jun, 14:45, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181171978.572783.234870@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com: >> >> > On 6 Jun, 18:52, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> innews:1181140233.468267.124680@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 14:13, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> >> innews:1181096859.045313.216360@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: >> >> <...> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, Glenn, the contradiction is still there. Your point is >> >> >> invalid. The internal state of the mechanism is not the same, >> >> >> therefore the machine is not the same, therefore your two >> >> >> scenarios are not the same. >> >> >> > Well I'm obviously not going to respond to your points regarding >> >> > the 'Philosphy Talk' program Jim07D7 was talking about, as my >> >> > point was what they were saying was poorly reasoned. >> >> >> Then why did you bring it up? Are you trying to confuse things >> >> again? >> >> >> > Though regarding your response about regarding the robot to be >> >> > having subjective experiences because of the way it behaved, do >> >> > you accept that it would be behaving as it would be expected to >> >> > behave without the added assumption that it was having >> >> > subjective experiences? >> >> >> No, I do not accept that. Nor do I accept your fallacious >> >> reasoning about how "the laws of physics do not reference >> >> subjective experiences". Whether they do or do not is irrelevant >> >> to the discussion of whether a physical object can have subjective >> >> experiences while obeying physical laws. >> >> >> You just got done telling me that the robot is behaving as if it >> >> is having subjective experiences. If it was not having such >> >> experiences, it would behave differently. You can't have it both >> >> ways, Glenn. >> >> >> > If so, what influence on behaviour would you be considering the >> >> > subjective experiences to have, given that it was behaving the >> >> > same as it would be expected to if it didn't have subjective >> >> > experiences? >> >> >> I do not accept your contradictory premises, so I'm not obliged to >> >> explain your contradictions. >> >> > I'm slightly confused about your position Fred, I just asked you: >> >> You're slightly confused about your own position, Glenn. You trying >> to equivocate the difference between a machine that is behaving as if >> it is having subjective experiences and one that is behaving as if it >> is not having subjective experiences. >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------- >> > Though regarding your response about regarding the robot to be >> > having subjective experiences because of the way it behaved, do you >> > accept that it would be behaving as it would be expected to behave >> > without the added assumption that it was having subjective >> > experiences? ------- >> >> > To which you replied: >> > ------- >> > No, I do not accept that. Nor do I accept your fallacious reasoning >> > about how "the laws of physics do not reference subjective >> > experiences". Whether they do or do not is irrelevant to the >> > discussion of whether a physical object can have subjective >> > experiences while obeying physical laws. >> > ------- >> >> > Yet in your initial response to my post, still above in the text >> > you stated: >> > ------- >> > Whether or not the mechanism did in fact have subjective >> > experiences, knowledge of that fact by an external observer would >> > not be necessary to explain the operation of the mechanism in terms >> > of the physical structure of the mechanism. >> > ------- >> >> > Now you can't have it both ways Fred, you can't claim that the >> > external observer could explain the behaviour without knowing >> > whether it had subjective experiences, and that it couldn't be >> > explained without the added assumption that it didn't (presuming of >> > course you aren't going to try to claim that the assumption that it >> > did would always have to be made, even if it didn't). >> >> No, Glenn you're taking my second statement out of context. I went on >> to explain that although the external observer might not know whether >> the machine is having subjective experiences (in that case, which is >> NOT the same as the case in which the machine is "behaving as if it >> is having subjective experiences") those subjective experiences are >> entailed in the physical properties of the structure and operation of >> the machine itself. >> >> So it's still you trying to have it both ways. >> >> > As for your assertion (based it seems on nothing more than your >> > self proclaimed infallibility on the matter) >> >> You're projecting, Glenn, and you don't qualify for infallibility, >> trust me on this. >> >> > that anything following the >> > known laws of physics that behaved as though it might be >> > subjectively experiencing must be subjectively experiencing, well >> > whether it was or it wasn't what difference would it make to the >> > explanation of how it behaved. The explanation would simply be in >> > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, the >> > same as would be if there were no subjective experiences. >> >> "Behaving as if it had subjective experiences" is not the same as >> "behaving as if it doesn't have subjective experiences", Glenn. >> >> You're going to have to do better than that. >> >> > Some might even suggest using Occam's >> > Razor, and wonder why you added the assumption that it had >> > subjective experiences, given that the assumption wouldn't be >> > required. >> >> Where are you getting that the assumption of subjective experiences >> wouldn't be required, given that you made it in the first place, >> Glenn, when YOU said that the mechanism is behaving as if it was >> having subjective experiences. >> >> Some might even suggest that you're just not smart enough to >> construct a decent philosophical paradox, Glenn. But don't keep >> trying, it's not worth your effort. >> > > Is the following logical to you: > > A) The ball might be black or white, you don't know. > B) The way the ball bounces is explained by the laws of physics > without requiring knowledge of whether it is black or white. > C) Whether the ball were black or white doesn't affect behaviour, else > the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. > Stop trying to confuse the issue, Glenn. Colored balls are not machines that are behaving as if they are having subjective experiences. The difference between a machine that is behaving as if it is having subjective experiences and a machine that is behaving as if it is NOT having subjective experiences IS THE BEHAVIOR OF THE MACHINE . -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 someone3 <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181230617.379668.6040@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > On 7 Jun, 15:35, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181228927.521596.127780@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 14:45, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> innews:1181171978.572783.234870@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 18:52, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> >> someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> >> innews:1181140233.468267.124680@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 14:13, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> >> >> innews:1181096859.045313.216360 @p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> <...> >> >> >> >> >> No, Glenn, the contradiction is still there. Your point is >> >> >> >> invalid. The internal state of the mechanism is not the >> >> >> >> same, therefore the machine is not the same, therefore your >> >> >> >> two scenarios are not the same. >> >> >> >> > Well I'm obviously not going to respond to your points >> >> >> > regarding the 'Philosphy Talk' program Jim07D7 was talking >> >> >> > about, as my point was what they were saying was poorly >> >> >> > reasoned. >> >> >> >> Then why did you bring it up? Are you trying to confuse things >> >> >> again? >> >> >> >> > Though regarding your response about regarding the robot to >> >> >> > be having subjective experiences because of the way it >> >> >> > behaved, do you accept that it would be behaving as it would >> >> >> > be expected to behave without the added assumption that it >> >> >> > was having subjective experiences? >> >> >> >> No, I do not accept that. Nor do I accept your fallacious >> >> >> reasoning about how "the laws of physics do not reference >> >> >> subjective experiences". Whether they do or do not is >> >> >> irrelevant to the discussion of whether a physical object can >> >> >> have subjective experiences while obeying physical laws. >> >> >> >> You just got done telling me that the robot is behaving as if >> >> >> it is having subjective experiences. If it was not having such >> >> >> experiences, it would behave differently. You can't have it >> >> >> both ways, Glenn. >> >> >> >> > If so, what influence on behaviour would you be considering >> >> >> > the subjective experiences to have, given that it was >> >> >> > behaving the same as it would be expected to if it didn't >> >> >> > have subjective experiences? >> >> >> >> I do not accept your contradictory premises, so I'm not obliged >> >> >> to explain your contradictions. >> >> >> > I'm slightly confused about your position Fred, I just asked >> >> > you: >> >> >> You're slightly confused about your own position, Glenn. You >> >> trying to equivocate the difference between a machine that is >> >> behaving as if it is having subjective experiences and one that is >> >> behaving as if it is not having subjective experiences. >> >> >> > ------- >> >> > Though regarding your response about regarding the robot to be >> >> > having subjective experiences because of the way it behaved, do >> >> > you accept that it would be behaving as it would be expected to >> >> > behave without the added assumption that it was having >> >> > subjective experiences? ------- >> >> >> > To which you replied: >> >> > ------- >> >> > No, I do not accept that. Nor do I accept your fallacious >> >> > reasoning about how "the laws of physics do not reference >> >> > subjective experiences". Whether they do or do not is irrelevant >> >> > to the discussion of whether a physical object can have >> >> > subjective experiences while obeying physical laws. >> >> > ------- >> >> >> > Yet in your initial response to my post, still above in the text >> >> > you stated: >> >> > ------- >> >> > Whether or not the mechanism did in fact have subjective >> >> > experiences, knowledge of that fact by an external observer >> >> > would not be necessary to explain the operation of the mechanism >> >> > in terms of the physical structure of the mechanism. >> >> > ------- >> >> >> > Now you can't have it both ways Fred, you can't claim that the >> >> > external observer could explain the behaviour without knowing >> >> > whether it had subjective experiences, and that it couldn't be >> >> > explained without the added assumption that it didn't (presuming >> >> > of course you aren't going to try to claim that the assumption >> >> > that it did would always have to be made, even if it didn't). >> >> >> No, Glenn you're taking my second statement out of context. I went >> >> on to explain that although the external observer might not know >> >> whether the machine is having subjective experiences (in that >> >> case, which is NOT the same as the case in which the machine is >> >> "behaving as if it is having subjective experiences") those >> >> subjective experiences are entailed in the physical properties of >> >> the structure and operation of the machine itself. >> >> >> So it's still you trying to have it both ways. >> >> >> > As for your assertion (based it seems on nothing more than your >> >> > self proclaimed infallibility on the matter) >> >> >> You're projecting, Glenn, and you don't qualify for infallibility, >> >> trust me on this. >> >> >> > that anything following the >> >> > known laws of physics that behaved as though it might be >> >> > subjectively experiencing must be subjectively experiencing, >> >> > well whether it was or it wasn't what difference would it make >> >> > to the explanation of how it behaved. The explanation would >> >> > simply be in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws >> >> > of physics, the same as would be if there were no subjective >> >> > experiences. >> >> >> "Behaving as if it had subjective experiences" is not the same as >> >> "behaving as if it doesn't have subjective experiences", Glenn. >> >> >> You're going to have to do better than that. >> >> >> > Some might even suggest using Occam's >> >> > Razor, and wonder why you added the assumption that it had >> >> > subjective experiences, given that the assumption wouldn't be >> >> > required. >> >> >> Where are you getting that the assumption of subjective >> >> experiences wouldn't be required, given that you made it in the >> >> first place, Glenn, when YOU said that the mechanism is behaving >> >> as if it was having subjective experiences. >> >> >> Some might even suggest that you're just not smart enough to >> >> construct a decent philosophical paradox, Glenn. But don't keep >> >> trying, it's not worth your effort. >> >> > Is the following logical to you: >> >> > A) The ball might be black or white, you don't know. >> > B) The way the ball bounces is explained by the laws of physics >> > without requiring knowledge of whether it is black or white. >> > C) Whether the ball were black or white doesn't affect behaviour, >> > else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. >> >> Stop trying to confuse the issue, Glenn. Colored balls are not >> machines that are behaving as if they are having subjective >> experiences. The difference between a machine that is behaving as if >> it is having subjective experiences and a machine that is behaving as >> if it is NOT having subjective experiences IS THE BEHAVIOR OF THE >> MACHINE . >> > > I'm trying to clarify the issue Fred, the question is simply about > whether © is logically reasoned or not. No mention of subjective > experiences. Would you mind answering it? > Yes, I would mind. You're playing around, Glenn, you're not clarifying. You're going to try to pull in that unsupported assertion of yours about how the laws of physics don't reference subjective experiences again. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 07:55, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181195570.815424.258260@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > On 7 Jun, 06:19, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181176912.356609.204180@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1181170991.844972.128670@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 6 Jun, 18:52, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:1181119352.279318.274890@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 09:10, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> > [snipped older correspondance] > > >> >> >> >> > It seems you can't read. There were initially two universes, > >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> >> > robot in each, and it remained so. > > >> >> >> >> Now you're just lying. Anyone can see that you first brought up > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> universe > >> >> >> >> argument on the 4th at 11:25 AM. Robots weren't mentioned until > >> >> >> >> 3 > >> >> >> >> exchanges > >> >> >> >> later with your 5:47 AM post on the 5th. And you didn't mention > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> second > >> >> >> >> robot until 2 exchanges later on the 5th at 7:05 PM. > > >> >> >> >> Go on, read your posts. I'll wait. > > >> >> >> >> Can I expect an apology, or at least an admission that you made > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> mistake? > > >> >> >> >> > It also seems you are unable to follow the points being made, > >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> > avoided the questions. For example where I said: > > >> >> >> >> > ------- > >> >> >> >> > To which I pointed out (though tidied up a bit here for > >> >> >> >> > clarity), > >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> > I made a robot that acted as though it has subjective > >> >> >> >> > experiences, > >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> > you thought it did, but actually after you had made your > >> >> >> >> > decision, I > >> >> >> >> > explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because > >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then > >> >> >> >> > on > >> >> >> >> > what > >> >> >> >> > basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way > >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> > did > >> >> >> >> > because it had subjective experiences? > >> >> >> >> > ------- > > >> >> >> >> > To which you replied: > >> >> >> >> > ------- > >> >> >> >> > I would have to be assured that the physical operation of the > >> >> >> >> > robot, > >> >> >> >> > following known laws of physics, didn't actually constitute > >> >> >> >> > consciousness. > > >> >> >> >> Yes? And? > > >> >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to > >> >> >> >> > think > >> >> >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective > >> >> >> >> > experiences? > > >> >> >> >> Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative > >> >> >> >> sentence? > > >> >> >> >> I would continue to think it was acting in response to > >> >> >> >> subjective > >> >> >> >> experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's > >> >> >> >> doing. > >> >> >> >> And > >> >> >> >> your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have to > >> >> >> >> show > >> >> >> >> me > >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious manner. > > >> >> >> >> > You also were seemingly unable to comprehend that even if you > >> >> >> >> > were > >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> > regard it as having subjective experiences, it would still be > >> >> >> >> > behaving > >> >> >> >> > as it would be expected to without the assumption that it was. > > >> >> >> >> Only if the non-conscious version was designed to mimic the > >> >> >> >> conscious > >> >> >> >> version. Note that the conscious version wouldn't need that bit > >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> programming. > > >> >> >> > Regarding the post on the 4th (and I don't know why you couldn't > >> >> >> > have > >> >> >> > cut and pasted these instead of me having to do it) it stated: > > >> >> >> Hey, they're YOUR posts. > > >> >> >> > ---------- > >> >> >> > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object > >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an > >> >> >> > alternative > >> >> >> > universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but > >> >> >> > there > >> >> >> > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > same. The objection that if it followed the same known laws of > >> >> >> > physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, > >> >> >> > if > >> >> >> > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws > >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> > physics don't reference subjective experiences, thus it is > >> >> >> > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having > >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> > experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known > >> >> >> > laws > >> >> >> > of physics to be altered. > >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> > Here mechanisms are mentioned being in each universe, but you are > >> >> >> > correct, in that I didn't specifically mention robots. > > >> >> >> Thank you. > > >> >> >> So, are you willing to admit that I CAN read? > > >> >> >> > Though for each > >> >> >> > mechanism, it would be existing twice, once in each universe > >> >> >> > (thus > >> >> >> > "...both following the same laws of physics as known to us, but > >> >> >> > with > >> >> >> > one having subjective experiences and one not"). > > >> >> >> > On the post on the 5th: > >> >> >> > ---------- > >> >> >> > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it > >> >> >> > reasonably. It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example > >> >> >> > if a > >> >> >> > robot behaved as though it might have subjective experiences, > >> >> >> > i.e. > >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either > >> >> >> > (a) > >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> > did have, or (b) it didn't have. In one universe you could > >> >> >> > conceive > >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. In > >> >> >> > either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it > >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. > >> >> >> > The > >> >> >> > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be > >> >> >> > simply > >> >> >> > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even > >> >> >> > if > >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded > >> >> >> > bias. > >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> > There are two universe, and a robot is in each, obviously the > >> >> >> > same > >> >> >> > robot isn't existing in both simultaneously. > > >> >> >> That's not obvious at all. The entire quote can be interpreted as > >> >> >> referencing one robot being compared in two different universes. > > >> >> >> Perhaps a command of the language is more important than you seem > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> think > >> >> >> it is. > > >> >> >> > I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to (as the time > >> >> >> > stamps > >> >> >> > I see are different) > > >> >> >> Yes, that's exactly the post I'm referencing. > > >> >> >> > ---------- > >> >> >> > Regarding the thought experiment, the robots would both be > >> >> >> > following > >> >> >> > the same known laws of physics. So perhaps you could explain > >> >> >> > why > >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> > suggest they would act differently. > >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> > Again, there are two robots. > > >> >> >> No, that's the FIRST time you unambiguously refer to two robots. > > >> >> >> > If it was different bits you were referring to, then I suggest > >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> > you cut and paste them yourself, so there can be no confusion. > > >> >> >> No, you're using the correct quotes. > > >> >> >> > Anyway, back to the real issue, regarding where I said: > > >> >> >> Well, I suppose an admission of a slight mistake as opposed to an > >> >> >> apology > >> >> >> for unjustly slandering my reading ability is all I can expect from > >> >> >> one > >> >> >> as > >> >> >> dishonest as you. > > >> >> >> > ---------- > >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would you continue to > >> >> >> > think > >> >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it had subjective > >> >> >> > experiences? > >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> > You replied > >> >> >> > ---------- > >> >> >> > Why do you have a question mark at the end of a declarative > >> >> >> > sentence? > > >> >> >> > I would continue to think it was acting in response to subjective > >> >> >> > experiences because apparently that's what it looks like it's > >> >> >> > doing. > >> >> >> > And your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. You would have > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> > show me that it's acting in what I would consider a non-conscious > >> >> >> > manner. > >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> > So you would base your belief that it was acting in response to > >> >> >> > subjective experiences, even though it was behaving exactly as it > >> >> >> > would be expected to, without the added assumption that it was > >> >> >> > subjectively experiencing? > > >> >> >> No. In your scenario you've already got me agreeing that it's > >> >> >> conscious. > >> >> >> The > >> >> >> basis for that conclusion is that it's behaving in a way that I > >> >> >> take > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> be > >> >> >> congruent with subjective experience. It's responding in context to > >> >> >> my > >> >> >> questions and such, for example. Then, in your scenario, you tell > >> >> >> me > >> >> >> it's > >> >> >> not conscious. The reason I do not immediately agree with you is > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> robot is, I presume, still acting like it's conscious. Until you > >> >> >> can > >> >> >> show > >> >> >> me > >> >> >> that it's not conscious, I'll continue to act under the assumption > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> my > >> >> >> conclusion that it is conscious is correct and disbelieve you. > > >> >> >> That's what I meant by: "I would continue to think it was acting in > >> >> >> response > >> >> >> to subjective experiences because apparently that's what it looks > >> >> >> like > >> >> >> it's > >> >> >> doing." I can't imagine how you misinterpreted that. > > >> >> >> > If so, what influence would you consider the subjective > >> >> >> > experiences > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> > be having, given that it is behaving as it would be expected to > >> >> >> > without the assumption that it had any subjective experiences? > > >> >> >> Given that your interpretation of my response was incorrect, this > >> >> >> question > >> >> >> is meaningless. > > >> >> >> If you had two robots, one with a brain capable of subjective > >> >> >> experience, > >> >> >> and one with a sophisticated tape-recorder that played back > >> >> >> responses > >> >> >> designed to fool me into thinking it's conscious, they would > >> >> >> supposedly > >> >> >> behave the same, and I would mistakenly grant that both were > >> >> >> conscious. > >> >> >> Both > >> >> >> would be acting according to physical law to get the same effect, > >> >> >> but > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> workings would be very different. For the tape recorder robot to > >> >> >> succeed, > >> >> >> it > >> >> >> has to have the right phrases recorded to fool me, just like the > >> >> >> conscious > >> >> >> robot has to have subjective experiences or I won't think it's > >> >> >> conscious. > > >> >> > I've snipped the older correspondence, though not sure I've made > >> >> > such > >> >> > a good job of it, it would be easier if we responded at the end of > >> >> > what each other post, but I guess you'd object, so there are a few > >> >> > imbedded pieces of text still remaining from the older stuff. > > >> >> That's fine. > > >> >> > Assuming you aren't trying to be disingenious, you seem to have got > >> >> > lost on the scenario. > > >> >> No. Did I say that was your scenario? No? Then there's no reason to > >> >> think > >> >> it > >> >> is. > > >> >> I've presented my own scenario since yours doesn't seem to be going > >> >> anywhere. > > >> >> This one-sided interrogation gets a little tiresome, so I thought I'd > >> >> try > >> >> to > >> >> provide my own illustrative scenario. > > >> >> Figures you would ignore it. > > >> >> > No where are you told it isn't conscious. > >> >> > Whether it is or isn't is unknown. You know that it follows the > >> >> > known laws of physics, and you know that it behaved as something > >> >> > you > >> >> > might have thought as conscious, if for example you had been > >> >> > communicating with it over the internet. Yes I have just added that > >> >> > clarification, but you appeared to be confused claiming incorrectly > >> >> > that you were told it wasn't conscious. > > >> >> That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. > > >> >> > As it follows the known laws of physics, its behaviour can be > >> >> > explained without the added assumption that it has any subjective > >> >> > experiences, > > >> >> The subjective experience is part of the physical behavior. It's ALL > >> >> physical. What is your damn problem? > > >> >> > as any mechanism following the laws of physics require no > >> >> > such claims to explain behaviour > > >> >> Except the mechanisms that do. > > >> >> > (restating to help you follow, this > >> >> > doesn't mean that it couldn't have subjective experiences). > > >> >> Irrelevant. > > >> >> > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known > >> >> > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence > >> >> > would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given > >> >> > that > >> >> > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption > >> >> > that > >> >> > it had any subjective experiences? > > >> >> The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical > >> >> activity > >> >> that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't fucking get > >> >> any > >> >> fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE matter following > >> >> the > >> >> fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate it from other > >> >> fucking > >> >> physical activity, no matter how much you fucking want to. > > >> >> Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to > >> >> fucking > >> >> respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer before > >> >> you > >> >> fucking get it? > > >> >> > (Is the question clear enough for you, or is there any clarification > >> >> > you require about what is being asked?) > > >> >> I think I understand you perfectly, but you simply refuse to listen to > >> >> my > >> >> replies. > > >> >> Here's another vain analogy to try to get through to you: You have two > >> >> identical computers that run a program. But one program has a > >> >> subroutine > >> >> called Subjective Experience that drastically affects the output, and > >> >> the > >> >> other doesn't. Both act according to the laws of physics. Would you > >> >> expect > >> >> them to behave the same given that one program has a subroutine that > >> >> the > >> >> other doesn't? > > >> >> I wouldn't. Why do you? > > >> > I had stated trying to help you as you seemed lost by stating > >> > (emphasis for clarity): > >> > ------------ > >> > NO WHERE ARE YOU TOLD IT ISN'T CONSCIOUS. WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T IS > >> > UNKNOWN. You know that it follows the known laws of physics, and you > >> > know that it behaved as something you might have thought as conscious, > >> > if for example you had been communicating with it over the internet. > >> > Yes I have just added that clarification, but you appeared to be > >> > confused claiming incorrectly > >> > that you were told it wasn't conscious. > >> > ------------ > > >> > To which you replied > >> > ------------ > >> > That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. > > >> Yes...?And...? > > >> > ------------ > > >> > You did falsely claim though that in my scenario that you were told it > >> > wasn't conscious, the text is still above, you state: > >> > ------------ > >> > Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not conscious. > >> > ------------ > > >> > Even if you made a simple mistake and thought I was referencing a > >> > scenario put forward by you, the claim you made was still blantantly > >> > false. > > >> Did you, or did you not, say: "To which I pointed out (though tidied up a > >> bit here for clarity), that I made a robot that acted as though it has > >> subjective experiences, and you thought it did, but actually after you > >> had > >> made your decision, I explained to you that it behaved the way it did > >> simply because of the > >> physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, then on what > >> basis would you continue to think that it was acting the way it did > >> because > >> it had subjective experiences?" > > >> Blatantly false my ass. > > >> > Also with regards to the question: > >> > ----------- > >> > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known > >> > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence > >> > would you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that > >> > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that > >> > it had any subjective experiences? > >> > ----------- > > >> > You replied: > >> > ----------- > >> > The fucking subjective experiences are part of the fucking physical > >> > activity that's following the fucking laws of physics. It doesn't > >> > fucking get any fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences ARE > >> > matter following the fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking > >> > separate it from other fucking physical activity, no matter how much > >> > you fucking want to. > > >> > Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times do I have to > >> > fucking respond the same fucking question with the same fucking answer > >> > before you fucking get it? > >> > ------------ > > >> > Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the laws of physics, > > >> Everything follows the fucking laws of physics! > > >> > and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your self-proclaimed > >> > infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences or not? > > >> I'm not fucking saying it's conscious, I'm saying if it was, its > >> consciousness is matter obeying physical law. The status of the fucking > >> robot in the scenario is irrelevant to my reply. > > >> > Can you > >> > see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one thing you know, > >> > the mechanism, but whether it has subjective experiences or not isn't > >> > known to you, so there is a natural seperation in your knowledge, you > >> > can deny it if you like, but its a fact. > > >> I fucking understand that you twit. > > >> > Given that, perhaps you'd > >> > care to try again, > >> > and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of > >> > your world perspective through reason that you know will come if you > >> > do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your dummy out of your > >> > pram): > > >> I'm throwing the dummy out of the pram as a deliberate experiment to see > >> if > >> you respond differently. Any variation would be welcome. > > >> Sadly it didn't work. > > >> > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws > >> > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would > >> > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is > >> > behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had > >> > any subjective experiences? > > >> Since any subjective experience would be physical matter following the > >> laws > >> of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had subjective > >> experiences, > >> then those experiences would be the mechanism following the known laws of > >> physics. Since gravity can affect it's behavior, then subjective > >> experience, > >> as just another example of physical matter following the laws of physics, > >> could affect its behavior too. > > >> I note you did not respond to my computer example. Are you afraid of the > >> resultant crumbling of your world perspective through reason that you > >> know > >> will come if you do? > > >> Good grief. > > > With regards to where I referenced your blantantly false accusation > > that I claimed the mechanism wasn't conscious: > > --------- > > Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not conscious. > > --------- > > > You highlighted a piece where I had said: > > --------- > > ..., I explained to you that it behaved the way it did simply because > > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, ... > > --------- > > > Are you suggesting that because the behaviour was explained in terms > > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, that > > this suggested to you that it couldn't be conscious? How so, > > considering you think "Everything follows the fucking laws of > > physics", and can therefore be explained in terms of the physical > > mechanism following the laws of physics, which presumably includes > > things that are conscious. > > Ah. I misread your quote and I apologise. I somehow inserted the idea that > the explanation in the scenario asserted that the robot wasn't conscious, in > those exact words. > > See? I can admit mistakes, and apologise. > > You, on the other hand... > > > In response to the question: > > --------- > > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following the known laws > > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what influence would > > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, given that it is > > behaving as it would be expected to without the assumption that it had > > any subjective experiences? > > --------- > > > You replied: > > --------- > > Since any subjective experience would be physical matter following the > > laws of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had subjective > > experiences, then those experiences would be the mechanism following > > the known laws of physics. Since gravity can affect it's behavior, > > then subjective experience, as just another example of physical matter > > following the laws of physics, > > could affect its behavior too. > > ---------- > > > The question isn't meaningless, though I'll put it another way for > > you, as a series of statements, and you can state whether you agree > > with the statements, and where if you disagree, the statements are > > false. > > At least this is different! > > > A) The mechanism might or might not be subjectively experienced, you > > don't know (you agreed this above). > > You meant to say the mechanism might or might not subjectively experience > things, not be subjectively experienced. > > Agreed. > > > B) The mechanisms behaviour is explainable in terms of the mechanism > > following the laws of physics, without requiring knowledge of whether > > it is subjectively experienced. > > Agreed. > > > C) Whether the mechanism were being subjectively experienced or not, > > doesn't influence the behaviour, > > Yes it does. Of course it does. Subjective experience is a physical process > that affects behavior. A mechanism that has it should act differently from > one that doesn't. Just like a mechanism that has wheels will move > differently from one with legs. > > > else the explanation for the > > behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. > > It isn't the same in either case. > > If the mechanism subjectively experiences things, it's built one way, if it > doesn't subjectively experience things, it's built another way. Explaining > how mechanisms that are different might behave differently in no way > contradicts the fact that both are operating according to physical law. > So in © how can you claim that is could be behaving the way it is because it is subjectively experiencing, when it might not be? To try to help you with the mistake you are making, an analogy would be that there is a ball, which may be black or white, and the question was whether if it was black or white would influence the behaviour. A) The ball might be black or white, you don't know. B) The way the ball bounces is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it is black or white. C) Whether the ball were black or white doesn't affect behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. Do you think it is correct to reason that a black ball is different from a white ball, and that if it was white, it was because it was white that it bounced the way it did? Do you see, you can't claim that it bounced the way it did because it was white, when it might not be. 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.