Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 13:27, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@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. 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. Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 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. Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 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? Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 15:50, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews: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. > You suggest that the reasoning that you know will be coming is "unsupported", while avoiding admitting that the reasoning behind it is actually logical given the evidence, as it would be the same reasoning behind how the colour of the ball is not influencing the way the ball bounces. If you think the reasoning behind why the colour of the ball is uninfluential is illogical and unsupported, why don't you point out where it is? If you wish to agree that the reasoning behind the ball is logical, but have objections when the same reasoning is applied to a mechanism following the laws of physics, then why don't you do it that way. In other words, admit it is logically reasoned in the ball scenario, but place your objections when the reason is applied to the mechanism, rather than simply refusing to answer a simple question, for fear of the implications. Quote
Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 <snip the previous correspondence as it is not nescesairy and causes problems while answering> Someone said: 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? ================================================== Peter answers: I follow it, but I do not understand that there is a problem, between the mechanical explanation and the "subjective experience" I will explain why. We are supposing all human have subjective experiences because all human tell us about them. According to Daniel C, Dennet that is actually what consciousness is, our ability to report subjective experiences. This I will theoretically apply to a robot: Say a Robot was to be made who was logging some - but not all - of the intermediate data is was processing, say we make a robot that can scan both human faces and addresses on envelopes and connect them to both to an internal list of names. The report would be extracted from a simple list of names mail-ID's, with timestamps attached: During the day it collects 4 envelopes from the mailbox and scans the addressees, walks thru a building, where it meats 5 people and scans their faces, handing mail if there is a match between the face-scan and the address scan. It's logging list would preserve the following data. June 7, 2007, 13.45h mail 1 address Ashley June 7, 2007, 13:46h mail 2 address Ringo June 7, 2007, 13:47h mail 3 address Paul June 7, 2007, 13:48h mail 4 address John June 7, 2007,.14:00h:John gave mail 4 June 7, 2007, 14:55h George gave no mail June 7, 2007, 14:57h Mary Kate gave no mail June 7, 2007, 15:01h Paul gave mail 3 June 7, 2007. 15:55h Ringo gave mail 2 A report program is also available that could answer questions like: "Whom did you meet at 14:57 today? "The subjective experience" it would then report would be: "I met Mary Kate", which would be actually have been right, but for the fact that it wasn't Marty Kate but her twin sister Ashley. The workings of the Robot can still be explained in a mechanical way, (but please don't ask me to do so!) but the subjective experience is present, and even influences the workings of the Robot, as it was also programmed to distribute mail, but failed to do so as it did not give Ashley the letter that was addressed to her Do you agree that the Robot can be mechanically explained? Do you agree, that despite that fact, the subjective experience (I met Mary Kate) still influenced it's behaviour? (as did the subjective experience about meeting John at 14:00h) Of course the Robot doesn't know the Olsen twins at all. It just tries and links optical scan to addresses on the mail. But it is far easier to say, "the Robot mistook Ashley for Mary-Kate" then to explain what mechanically happened. I hope you now understand why I see no problem with your question. Of course in this example the report program is not needed for the mail-delivery, but if we change the coding a little so that the Robot first has to report "I met John" and only on "hearing" it's own report would it start the action to search it's internal list, for mail addressed to John, it would be needed. Just, like a person sometimes has to think in words, before (s)he can perform the right action. Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > 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? I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it does." is in response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being subjectively experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning it DOES affect behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things subjectively or not, not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. The context of a reply is important. > 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. If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is white then it's made of margarine. Both follow the laws of physics. Do you expect them to act the same? > 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. I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "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 Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 17:00, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > <snip the previous correspondence as it is not nescesairy and causes > problems while answering> > > Someone said: > > 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? > ================================================== > > Peter answers: > > I follow it, but I do not understand that there is a problem, > between the mechanical explanation and the "subjective experience" > > I will explain why. > We are supposing all human have subjective experiences > because all human tell us about them. > According to Daniel C, Dennet that is actually what consciousness is, > our ability to report subjective experiences. > > This I will theoretically apply to a robot: > > Say a Robot was to be made who was logging some - but not all - of the > intermediate data is was processing, say we make a robot that can scan > both human faces and addresses on envelopes and connect them to both > to an internal list of names. > The report would be extracted from a simple list of names mail-ID's, > with timestamps attached: > > During the day it collects 4 envelopes from the mailbox and scans the > addressees, walks thru a building, where it meats 5 people and scans > their faces, handing mail if there is a match between the face-scan > and the address scan. > > It's logging list would preserve the following data. > > June 7, 2007, 13.45h mail 1 address Ashley > June 7, 2007, 13:46h mail 2 address Ringo > June 7, 2007, 13:47h mail 3 address Paul > June 7, 2007, 13:48h mail 4 address John > > June 7, 2007,.14:00h:John gave mail 4 > June 7, 2007, 14:55h George gave no mail > June 7, 2007, 14:57h Mary Kate gave no mail > June 7, 2007, 15:01h Paul gave mail 3 > June 7, 2007. 15:55h Ringo gave mail 2 > > A report program is also available that could answer questions like: > "Whom did you meet at 14:57 today? > > "The subjective experience" it would then report would be: "I met Mary > Kate", > which would be actually have been right, > but for the fact that it wasn't Marty Kate but her twin sister Ashley. > > The workings of the Robot can still be explained in a mechanical way, > (but please don't ask me to do so!) but the subjective experience is > present, and even influences the workings of the Robot, as it was also > programmed to distribute mail, but failed to do so as it did not give > Ashley the letter that was addressed to her > > Do you agree that the Robot can be mechanically explained? > > Do you agree, that despite that fact, the subjective experience > (I met Mary Kate) still influenced it's behaviour? > (as did the subjective experience about meeting John at 14:00h) > > Of course the Robot doesn't know the Olsen twins at all. It just tries > and links optical scan to addresses on the mail. But it is far easier > to say, "the Robot mistook Ashley for Mary-Kate" then to explain what > mechanically happened. > > I hope you now understand why I see no problem with your question. > > Of course in this example the report program is not needed for the > mail-delivery, > but if we change the coding a little so that the Robot first has to > report "I met John" and only on "hearing" it's own report would it > start the action to search it's internal list, for mail addressed to > John, it would be needed. > Just, like a person sometimes has to think in words, > before (s)he can perform the right action. > Yes I admit the robot can be mechanically explained. You haven't shown though that it has subjective experiences like we do, any more than a mobile phone. Is the following reasoning 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. Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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? > > I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it does." is in > response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being subjectively > experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning it DOES affect > behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things subjectively or not, > not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. > > The context of a reply is important. > > > 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. > > If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is white then > it's made of margarine. > > Both follow the laws of physics. > > Do you expect them to act the same? > > > 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. > > I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. > > Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "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." > Ok, I'll put the issue another way for you, re-asking the question, and addressing the point at the same time. Hypothetically in the future during space travel, we come across a planet an atmosphere similar to ours, which has orbs on it. These orbs have an outer shell of 1 inch, and are filled with helium. There are black orbs which have an outer shell of a different substance which absorbs light, to those of the of the white orbs which has an outer substance which reflects light, though both substances are of the same density. The white orbs are 1 meter in diameter, and black coloured orbs balls 1km in diameter. The black orbs are found higher in the atmosphere than the white orbs, and this is explained in terms of the overall density of the orbs according to the laws of physics, without reference to whether they are black or white. One group of people (the colour influentialists) claim that whether the orbs reflect light or not, is influential in where they are found in the atmosphere. They use the reasoning that the black balls behave differently to the white orbs, and that if the outer shell is white, it has a different outer shell to if it was black. Another group (the colour non-influentialists) point out, that the colour of the orbs could have nothing to do with the behaviour as the behaviour could be explained without reference to the colour. There is another similar planet found on which there may also be orbs. The colour non-influentialists point out that if there are orbs found on the new planet: A) The orb might be black or white (have an outer shell of either substance), you don't know. B) The height the orb is found in the atmosphere is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it is black or white. C) Whether the orb were black or white doesn't affect how high the orb is found within the atmosphere behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. Do you think the reasoning of the colour non-influentialists is logial or would you claim it is illogical, and that the reasoning of the colour influentialists was logical? Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181235681.627164.136740@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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? >> >> I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it does." is in >> response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being >> subjectively >> experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning it DOES >> affect >> behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things subjectively or >> not, >> not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. >> >> The context of a reply is important. >> >> > 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. >> >> If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is white then >> it's made of margarine. >> >> Both follow the laws of physics. >> >> Do you expect them to act the same? >> >> > 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. >> >> I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. >> >> Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "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." >> > > Ok, I'll put the issue another way for you, re-asking the question, > and addressing the point at the same time. No. Address my point as stated. Until then I will not address another of your tortured hypotheticals. My turn to interrogate. Snip -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > 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? > > I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it does." is in > response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being subjectively > experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning it DOES affect > behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things subjectively or not, > not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. > > The context of a reply is important. > > > 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. > > If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is white then > it's made of margarine. > > Both follow the laws of physics. > > Do you expect them to act the same? > > > 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. > > I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. > > Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "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." > (I've posted a response similar to this, but it doesn't seem to have come through, so I have retyped it out (which was annoying), and reposted. There might be slight differences, but essentially they are the same, you can answer either one) I'll put the issue over another way taking your point into account. Hypothetically, supposing in the future space travels of humanity they came across a planet with a similar atmosphere to ours, on which there were found to be orbs. There were two types of orbs, though both had an outer shell of a 10cm thickness. Though one type was of a substance which reflected light (white orbs), and the other was of a type with absorbed light (black orbs). Both the light reflective (white) substance and the light absorbing (black) substance were of the same density, and both types of orb were filled with helium. The white orbs were 10m in diameter, while the black orbs where 1km in diameter. The black orbs were found higher in the atmosphere, and this was explained by the laws of physics, and the explanation had no reference to whether the orbs were black or white, but to do with the average density of the orb. There were two groups of people. One was the colour influentialists, who claimed that colour of the orbs influenced the behaviour, as black orbs behaved differently from white orbs, and that if they were white, they had one type of outer shell, and that if they were black, they had another type of outer shell. The other group were the colour non- influentialists who pointed out that the explanation of where the orbs were found in the atmosphere didn't mention whether the orbs were black or white, and would remain the same in either case. Now supposing another similar planet were to be spotted where it was suspected that helium filled orbs with either light reflective or light absorbing shells may again be found. The colour non- influentialists pointed out to the colour influentialists regarding the position of any such orb in the atmosphere: A) The orb might be black or white, you don't know. B) The height it is found at in the atmosphere is explained by the laws of physics. C) Whether the orb is black or white doesn't affect the behaviour doesn't influence the behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. Do you think that the reasoning of the colour non-influentialists was logical, or do you think that the reasoning of the colour influentialists was? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > 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? > > I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it does." is in > response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being subjectively > experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning it DOES affect > behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things subjectively or not, > not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. > > The context of a reply is important. > > > 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. > > If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is white then > it's made of margarine. > > Both follow the laws of physics. > > Do you expect them to act the same? > > > 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. > > I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. > > Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "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." > I'll put the issue over another way taking your point into account. Hypothetically, supposing in the future space travels of humanity they came across a planet with a similar atmosphere to ours, on which there were found to be orbs. There were two types of orbs, though both had an outer shell of a 10cm thickness. Though one type of shell was of a substance which reflected light (white orbs), and the other was of a type with absorbed light (black orbs). Both the light reflective (white) substance and the light absorbing (black) shells were of the same density, and both types of orb were filled with helium. The white orbs were 10m in diameter, while the black orbs where 1km in diameter. The black orbs were found higher in the atmosphere, and this was explained by the laws of physics, and the explanation had no reference to whether the orbs were black or white, but to do with the average density of the orb. There were two groups of people. One was the colour influentialists, who claimed that colour of the orbs influenced the behaviour, as black orbs behaved differently from white orbs, and that if they were white, they had one type of outer shell, and that if they were black, they had another type of outer shell. The other group were the colour non- influentialists who pointed out that the explanation of where the orbs were found in the atmosphere didn't mention whether the orbs were black or white, and would remain the same in either case. Now supposing another similar planet were to be spotted where it was suspected that helium filled orbs with either light reflective or light absorbing shells may again be found. The colour non- influentialists pointed out to the colour influentialists regarding the position of any such orb in the atmosphere: A) The orb might be black or white, you don't know. B) The height it is found at in the atmosphere is explained by the laws of physics, without mention of the colour (whether it absorbed or reflected light). C) Whether the orb is black or white doesn't influence how high the orb is found in the atmosphere, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. Do you think that the reasoning of the colour non-influentialists was logical, or do you think that the reasoning of the colour influentialists was? Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 someone3 <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181231825.991263.78680@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On 7 Jun, 15:50, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews: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. >> > > You suggest that the reasoning that you know will be coming is > "unsupported", while avoiding admitting that the reasoning behind it > is actually logical given the evidence, Because it's not. > as it would be the same > reasoning behind how the colour of the ball is not influencing the way > the ball bounces. No, Glenn, it would not be the same reasoning. > If you think the reasoning behind why the colour of > the ball is uninfluential is illogical and unsupported, why don't you > point out where it is? Because I'm not going to play silly semantic games with you, and I'm not going to let you imply that the subjective experiences of a meat brain or an electronic one are equivalent to the color of colored ball. Because they are not. Balls don't think. Brains do. > If you wish to agree that the reasoning behind > the ball is logical, but have objections when the same reasoning is > applied to a mechanism following the laws of physics, then why don't > you do it that way. In other words, admit it is logically reasoned in > the ball scenario, but place your objections when the reason is > applied to the mechanism, rather than simply refusing to answer a > simple question, for fear of the implications. > Why would I "admit" that? I'm not afraid of the implications of pure materialism. I live in a purely material universe and I don't have any trouble with that. It's you who is afraid to admit that you're nothing more than a machine that follows the laws of physics, Glenn. -- 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 Denis Loubet Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181237528.194193.258590@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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? >> >> I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it does." is in >> response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being >> subjectively >> experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning it DOES >> affect >> behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things subjectively or >> not, >> not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. >> >> The context of a reply is important. >> >> > 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. >> >> If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is white then >> it's made of margarine. >> >> Both follow the laws of physics. >> >> Do you expect them to act the same? >> >> > 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. >> >> I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. >> >> Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "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." >> > > (I've posted a response similar to this, but it doesn't seem to have > come through, so I have retyped it out (which was annoying), and > reposted. There might be slight differences, but essentially they are > the same, you can answer either one) > > I'll put the issue over another way taking your point into account. > > Hypothetically, supposing in the future space travels of humanity they > came across a planet with a similar atmosphere to ours, on which there > were found to be orbs. There were two types of orbs, though both had > an outer shell of a 10cm thickness. Though one type was of a substance > which reflected light (white orbs), and the other was of a type with > absorbed light (black orbs). Both the light reflective (white) > substance and the light absorbing (black) substance were of the same > density, and both types of orb were filled with helium. The white orbs > were 10m in diameter, while the black orbs where 1km in diameter. The > black orbs were found higher in the atmosphere, and this was explained > by the laws of physics, and the explanation had no reference to > whether the orbs were black or white, but to do with the average > density of the orb. Why? > There were two groups of people. One was the colour influentialists, > who claimed that colour of the orbs influenced the behaviour, as black > orbs behaved differently from white orbs, and that if they were white, > they had one type of outer shell, and that if they were black, they > had another type of outer shell. The other group were the colour non- > influentialists who pointed out that the explanation of where the orbs > were found in the atmosphere didn't mention whether the orbs were > black or white, and would remain the same in either case. > > Now supposing another similar planet were to be spotted where it was > suspected that helium filled orbs with either light reflective or > light absorbing shells may again be found. The colour non- > influentialists pointed out to the colour influentialists regarding > the position of any such orb in the atmosphere: > > A) The orb might be black or white, you don't know. Sigh. Very well. > B) The height it is found at in the atmosphere is explained by the > laws of physics. Sigh. Just as one would expect. > C) Whether the orb is black or white doesn't affect the behaviour > doesn't influence the behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the > same in either case. No. Clearly, since the albedo of the orbs are completely different, one reflecting light and the other absorbing it, there should exist a marked difference in temperature, and thus density of the gas inside, and thus bouancy. Add to this the immensely greater heat-gathering surface area of the black orbs and you should expect radically different behaviors. > Do you think that the reasoning of the colour non-influentialists was > logical, or do you think that the reasoning of the colour > influentialists was? The non-color influentalists are a bunch of idiots who know nothing about physics. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Deathbringer Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Sigh. Prodding stupid people for fun is pretty twisted. I mean, its been 29 pages of the OP demonstrating that he cannot or will not reason despite some very good explanations of why he's wrong. Get a hobby, people. I may be fine as a total loser with a computer, but you might not. Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181240250.819773.7120@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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? >> >> I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it does." is in >> response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being >> subjectively >> experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning it DOES >> affect >> behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things subjectively or >> not, >> not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. >> >> The context of a reply is important. >> >> > 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. >> >> If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is white then >> it's made of margarine. >> >> Both follow the laws of physics. >> >> Do you expect them to act the same? >> >> > 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. >> >> I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. >> >> Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "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." > > (I've posted a response similar to this, but it doesn't seem to have > come through, so I have retyped it out (which was annoying), and > reposted. There might be slight differences, but essentially they are > the same, you can answer either one) > > I'll put the issue over another way taking your point into account. > > Hypothetically, supposing in the future space travels of humanity they > came across a planet with a similar atmosphere to ours, on which there > were found to be orbs. There were two types of orbs, though both had > an outer shell of a 10cm thickness. Though one type was of a substance > which reflected light (white orbs), and the other was of a type with > absorbed light (black orbs). Both the light reflective (white) > substance and the light absorbing (black) substance were of the same > density, and both types of orb were filled with helium. The white orbs > were 10m in diameter, while the black orbs where 1km in diameter. The > black orbs were found higher in the atmosphere, and this was explained > by the laws of physics, and the explanation had no reference to > whether the orbs were black or white, but to do with the average > density of the orb. Why? > There were two groups of people. One was the colour influentialists, > who claimed that colour of the orbs influenced the behaviour, as black > orbs behaved differently from white orbs, and that if they were white, > they had one type of outer shell, and that if they were black, they > had another type of outer shell. The other group were the colour non- > influentialists who pointed out that the explanation of where the orbs > were found in the atmosphere didn't mention whether the orbs were > black or white, and would remain the same in either case. > > Now supposing another similar planet were to be spotted where it was > suspected that helium filled orbs with either light reflective or > light absorbing shells may again be found. The colour non- > influentialists pointed out to the colour influentialists regarding > the position of any such orb in the atmosphere: > > A) The orb might be black or white, you don't know. Sigh. Very well. > B) The height it is found at in the atmosphere is explained by the > laws of physics. Sigh. Just as one would expect. > C) Whether the orb is black or white doesn't affect the behaviour > doesn't influence the behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the > same in either case. No. Clearly, since the albedo of the orbs are completely different, one reflecting light and the other absorbing it, there should exist a marked difference in temperature, and thus density of the gas inside, and thus bouancy. Add to this the immensely greater heat-gathering surface area of the black orbs and you should expect radically different behaviors. > Do you think that the reasoning of the colour non-influentialists was > logical, or do you think that the reasoning of the colour > influentialists was? The non-color influentalists are a bunch of idiots who know nothing about physics. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On 7 Jun, 19:49, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181231825.991263.78680@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > > On 7 Jun, 15:50, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >> innews: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. > > > You suggest that the reasoning that you know will be coming is > > "unsupported", while avoiding admitting that the reasoning behind it > > is actually logical given the evidence, > > Because it's not. > > > as it would be the same > > reasoning behind how the colour of the ball is not influencing the way > > the ball bounces. > > No, Glenn, it would not be the same reasoning. > > > If you think the reasoning behind why the colour of > > the ball is uninfluential is illogical and unsupported, why don't you > > point out where it is? > > Because I'm not going to play silly semantic games with you, and I'm not > going to let you imply that the subjective experiences of a meat brain > or an electronic one are equivalent to the color of colored ball. > Because they are not. Balls don't think. Brains do. > > > If you wish to agree that the reasoning behind > > the ball is logical, but have objections when the same reasoning is > > applied to a mechanism following the laws of physics, then why don't > > you do it that way. In other words, admit it is logically reasoned in > > the ball scenario, but place your objections when the reason is > > applied to the mechanism, rather than simply refusing to answer a > > simple question, for fear of the implications. > > Why would I "admit" that? I'm not afraid of the implications of pure > materialism. I live in a purely material universe and I don't have any > trouble with that. It's you who is afraid to admit that you're nothing > more than a machine that follows the laws of physics, Glenn. > So why do you refuse to answer the question about whether the reasoning behind the balls bouncing is reasoned, if you don't believe the same reasoning couldn't be used in regards to the influence of subjective experiences on mechanisms following the laws of physics. Surely it would have been quicker to have simply said yes if you thought it was reasoned, or giving your objection if it wasn't. Then wait for me to try to use the same reasoning in regard to a mechanism being subjectively experiencing, then pointing out your objection. You have bothered posting twice now to avoid answering which seems quite a bit of effort to have gone to. Though, if you wish to go no further with the discussion, refusing to answer a single simple question then that is up to you (its not as if I had bombarded you with loads of questions requiring an essay back from you). Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On 7 Jun, 20:48, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181237528.194193.258590@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> > 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? > > >> I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it does." is in > >> response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being > >> subjectively > >> experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning it DOES > >> affect > >> behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things subjectively or > >> not, > >> not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. > > >> The context of a reply is important. > > >> > 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. > > >> If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is white then > >> it's made of margarine. > > >> Both follow the laws of physics. > > >> Do you expect them to act the same? > > >> > 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. > > >> I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. > > >> Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "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." > > > (I've posted a response similar to this, but it doesn't seem to have > > come through, so I have retyped it out (which was annoying), and > > reposted. There might be slight differences, but essentially they are > > the same, you can answer either one) > > > I'll put the issue over another way taking your point into account. > > > Hypothetically, supposing in the future space travels of humanity they > > came across a planet with a similar atmosphere to ours, on which there > > were found to be orbs. There were two types of orbs, though both had > > an outer shell of a 10cm thickness. Though one type was of a substance > > which reflected light (white orbs), and the other was of a type with > > absorbed light (black orbs). Both the light reflective (white) > > substance and the light absorbing (black) substance were of the same > > density, and both types of orb were filled with helium. The white orbs > > were 10m in diameter, while the black orbs where 1km in diameter. The > > black orbs were found higher in the atmosphere, and this was explained > > by the laws of physics, and the explanation had no reference to > > whether the orbs were black or white, but to do with the average > > density of the orb. > > Why? > > > There were two groups of people. One was the colour influentialists, > > who claimed that colour of the orbs influenced the behaviour, as black > > orbs behaved differently from white orbs, and that if they were white, > > they had one type of outer shell, and that if they were black, they > > had another type of outer shell. The other group were the colour non- > > influentialists who pointed out that the explanation of where the orbs > > were found in the atmosphere didn't mention whether the orbs were > > black or white, and would remain the same in either case. > > > Now supposing another similar planet were to be spotted where it was > > suspected that helium filled orbs with either light reflective or > > light absorbing shells may again be found. The colour non- > > influentialists pointed out to the colour influentialists regarding > > the position of any such orb in the atmosphere: > > > A) The orb might be black or white, you don't know. > > Sigh. Very well. > > > B) The height it is found at in the atmosphere is explained by the > > laws of physics. > > Sigh. Just as one would expect. > > > C) Whether the orb is black or white doesn't affect the behaviour > > doesn't influence the behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the > > same in either case. > > No. Clearly, since the albedo of the orbs are completely different, one > reflecting light and the other absorbing it, there should exist a marked > difference in temperature, and thus density of the gas inside, and thus > bouancy. Add to this the immensely greater heat-gathering surface area of > the black orbs and you should expect radically different behaviors. > > > Do you think that the reasoning of the colour non-influentialists was > > logical, or do you think that the reasoning of the colour > > influentialists was? > > The non-color influentalists are a bunch of idiots who know nothing about > physics. > Well supposing it was explained to you that the orbs formed under the planet surface and seemed to have been released in plate movements. The density of the helium inside both was the same, the slight heat difference only resulted in a slight difference in internal pressure, not density, and thus not bouancy. Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181267542.569449.176200@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Jun, 20:48, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181237528.194193.258590@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > 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? >> >> >> I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it does." is in >> >> response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being >> >> subjectively >> >> experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning it DOES >> >> affect >> >> behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things subjectively or >> >> not, >> >> not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. >> >> >> The context of a reply is important. >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is white >> >> then >> >> it's made of margarine. >> >> >> Both follow the laws of physics. >> >> >> Do you expect them to act the same? >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. >> >> >> Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "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." >> >> > (I've posted a response similar to this, but it doesn't seem to have >> > come through, so I have retyped it out (which was annoying), and >> > reposted. There might be slight differences, but essentially they are >> > the same, you can answer either one) >> >> > I'll put the issue over another way taking your point into account. >> >> > Hypothetically, supposing in the future space travels of humanity they >> > came across a planet with a similar atmosphere to ours, on which there >> > were found to be orbs. There were two types of orbs, though both had >> > an outer shell of a 10cm thickness. Though one type was of a substance >> > which reflected light (white orbs), and the other was of a type with >> > absorbed light (black orbs). Both the light reflective (white) >> > substance and the light absorbing (black) substance were of the same >> > density, and both types of orb were filled with helium. The white orbs >> > were 10m in diameter, while the black orbs where 1km in diameter. The >> > black orbs were found higher in the atmosphere, and this was explained >> > by the laws of physics, and the explanation had no reference to >> > whether the orbs were black or white, but to do with the average >> > density of the orb. >> >> Why? >> >> > There were two groups of people. One was the colour influentialists, >> > who claimed that colour of the orbs influenced the behaviour, as black >> > orbs behaved differently from white orbs, and that if they were white, >> > they had one type of outer shell, and that if they were black, they >> > had another type of outer shell. The other group were the colour non- >> > influentialists who pointed out that the explanation of where the orbs >> > were found in the atmosphere didn't mention whether the orbs were >> > black or white, and would remain the same in either case. >> >> > Now supposing another similar planet were to be spotted where it was >> > suspected that helium filled orbs with either light reflective or >> > light absorbing shells may again be found. The colour non- >> > influentialists pointed out to the colour influentialists regarding >> > the position of any such orb in the atmosphere: >> >> > A) The orb might be black or white, you don't know. >> >> Sigh. Very well. >> >> > B) The height it is found at in the atmosphere is explained by the >> > laws of physics. >> >> Sigh. Just as one would expect. >> >> > C) Whether the orb is black or white doesn't affect the behaviour >> > doesn't influence the behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the >> > same in either case. >> >> No. Clearly, since the albedo of the orbs are completely different, one >> reflecting light and the other absorbing it, there should exist a marked >> difference in temperature, and thus density of the gas inside, and thus >> bouancy. Add to this the immensely greater heat-gathering surface area of >> the black orbs and you should expect radically different behaviors. >> >> > Do you think that the reasoning of the colour non-influentialists was >> > logical, or do you think that the reasoning of the colour >> > influentialists was? >> >> The non-color influentalists are a bunch of idiots who know nothing about >> physics. >> > > Well supposing it was explained to you that the orbs formed under the > planet surface and seemed to have been released in plate movements. > The density of the helium inside both was the same, the slight heat > difference only resulted in a slight difference in internal pressure, > not density, and thus not bouancy. No. You made your elaborate foot and placed it square in your dishonest mouth. And I'm going to laugh at your pathetic and transparent attempt at an ad-hoc rescue of your own scenario. A scenario that shows that you are obviously wrong, and clearly demonstrates that you have been wrong all along, and with this pitiable attempt at a fix, shows that you fully intend to remain wrong in the future. You are a testament to willful ignorance. Anyone with a scrap of intellectual integrity would at LEAST follow where their OWN examples lead. But not you. If you don't find YOUR OWN arguments convincing, why on earth do you think they'll convince anyone else? You have no concept of logic, and as your scenario shows, you are completely ignorant of the physical laws you pretend knowledge of. I can't even imagine what you thought your latest rationalization was supposed to accomplish. You're a complete and total idiot. I am going to treat your scenario as your admission that you are wrong, because that's what it is. You have successfully torpedoed your own argument. You tried to show one thing, but ended up showing something exactly the opposite. If you were honest, you would admit that, so I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though your ad-hoc nonsense shows that you don't deserve it. Don't bother replaying unless you're admitting that your point is dead. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> > C) Whether the mechanism were being subjectively experienced or not, >> > doesn't influence the behaviour, > > 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? That you CAN get the same behaviour from more than one set of intiail conditions with different mechanisms does not mean the initial conditions and the mechanisms are the same > To try to help you with the mistake you are making, You are the one making the mistake .. you make invalid assumptions > 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. Great example .. when it comes to bouncing, it makes no difference .. When it comes to other behaviours (eg how much it might expand when exposed to light energy .. the color makes a difference Just beacuse you CAN get some behaviour where some characteristics make no difference, that does not mean the the characteristic makes no difference for all behaviours. > 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. Again .. you're constructing strawmen and using incorrect analogies. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181228753.223148.244660@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Jun, 13:27, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@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. > > 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. That is fine .. but that analogy does not apply to all situations and behaviours. If you are talking about how human beings bounce, then their subjective experiences make no difference. Noone is making a claim that every behaviour of human beings is controlled by (or even influenced by) subjective experience. Yet you seem to think that if you can find ONE example where the behaviour is not influenced, that you can extend that to every behaviour. That is very poor logical reasoning. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181228927.521596.127780@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Is the following logical to you: [snip more copy and paste .. you keep posting the same thing over and over ... once is sufficient] Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181232715.910987.107760@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Is the following reasoning logical to you: [snip more copy and paste .. you keep posting the same thing over and over ... once is sufficient] Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181267251.091124.158690@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > On 7 Jun, 19:49, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181231825.991263.78680@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> >> > On 7 Jun, 15:50, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> innews: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.co >> >> >> >> >> m: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 14:13, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> innews:1181096859.045313.216360 >> >> >> @p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: <...> >> >> >> 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. >> >> > You suggest that the reasoning that you know will be coming is >> > "unsupported", while avoiding admitting that the reasoning behind >> > it is actually logical given the evidence, >> >> Because it's not. >> >> > as it would be the same >> > reasoning behind how the colour of the ball is not influencing the >> > way the ball bounces. >> >> No, Glenn, it would not be the same reasoning. >> >> > If you think the reasoning behind why the colour of >> > the ball is uninfluential is illogical and unsupported, why don't >> > you point out where it is? >> >> Because I'm not going to play silly semantic games with you, and I'm >> not going to let you imply that the subjective experiences of a meat >> brain or an electronic one are equivalent to the color of colored >> ball. Because they are not. Balls don't think. Brains do. >> >> > If you wish to agree that the reasoning behind >> > the ball is logical, but have objections when the same reasoning is >> > applied to a mechanism following the laws of physics, then why >> > don't you do it that way. In other words, admit it is logically >> > reasoned in the ball scenario, but place your objections when the >> > reason is applied to the mechanism, rather than simply refusing to >> > answer a simple question, for fear of the implications. >> >> Why would I "admit" that? I'm not afraid of the implications of pure >> materialism. I live in a purely material universe and I don't have >> any trouble with that. It's you who is afraid to admit that you're >> nothing more than a machine that follows the laws of physics, Glenn. >> > > So why do you refuse to answer the question about whether the > reasoning behind the balls bouncing is reasoned, if you don't believe > the same reasoning couldn't be used in regards to the influence of > subjective experiences on mechanisms following the laws of physics. Because it's irrelevant to the discussion, Glenn, and I don't feel like wasting thousands of lines of text while you dodge and bob and weave all over the place. > Surely it would have been quicker to have simply said yes if you > thought it was reasoned, or giving your objection if it wasn't. I gave my objection, Glenn. It's not germane. > Then > wait for me to try to use the same reasoning in regard to a mechanism > being subjectively experiencing, then pointing out your objection. You > have bothered posting twice now to avoid answering which seems quite a > bit of effort to have gone to. Though, if you wish to go no further > with the discussion, refusing to answer a single simple question then > that is up to you (its not as if I had bombarded you with loads of > questions requiring an essay back from you). > It's not as if I haven't seen these tactics from you before, Glenn. I've been around the block a few times, in case you forgot. -- 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 Lisbeth Andersson Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, What about any laws of physics that are not known? Can the mechanism "ignore" them? > 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. Since you are counting - no, I don't understand that. You must have left out some assumptions and/or steps in the reasoning. Lisbeth. ---- The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die. What we know is not nearly as interesting as how we know it. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On 8 Jun, 04:59, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181267542.569449.176200@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > On 7 Jun, 20:48, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181237528.194193.258590@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > 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? > > >> >> I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it does." is in > >> >> response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being > >> >> subjectively > >> >> experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning it DOES > >> >> affect > >> >> behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things subjectively or > >> >> not, > >> >> not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. > > >> >> The context of a reply is important. > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is white > >> >> then > >> >> it's made of margarine. > > >> >> Both follow the laws of physics. > > >> >> Do you expect them to act the same? > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. > > >> >> Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "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." > > >> > (I've posted a response similar to this, but it doesn't seem to have > >> > come through, so I have retyped it out (which was annoying), and > >> > reposted. There might be slight differences, but essentially they are > >> > the same, you can answer either one) > > >> > I'll put the issue over another way taking your point into account. > > >> > Hypothetically, supposing in the future space travels of humanity they > >> > came across a planet with a similar atmosphere to ours, on which there > >> > were found to be orbs. There were two types of orbs, though both had > >> > an outer shell of a 10cm thickness. Though one type was of a substance > >> > which reflected light (white orbs), and the other was of a type with > >> > absorbed light (black orbs). Both the light reflective (white) > >> > substance and the light absorbing (black) substance were of the same > >> > density, and both types of orb were filled with helium. The white orbs > >> > were 10m in diameter, while the black orbs where 1km in diameter. The > >> > black orbs were found higher in the atmosphere, and this was explained > >> > by the laws of physics, and the explanation had no reference to > >> > whether the orbs were black or white, but to do with the average > >> > density of the orb. > > >> Why? > > >> > There were two groups of people. One was the colour influentialists, > >> > who claimed that colour of the orbs influenced the behaviour, as black > >> > orbs behaved differently from white orbs, and that if they were white, > >> > they had one type of outer shell, and that if they were black, they > >> > had another type of outer shell. The other group were the colour non- > >> > influentialists who pointed out that the explanation of where the orbs > >> > were found in the atmosphere didn't mention whether the orbs were > >> > black or white, and would remain the same in either case. > > >> > Now supposing another similar planet were to be spotted where it was > >> > suspected that helium filled orbs with either light reflective or > >> > light absorbing shells may again be found. The colour non- > >> > influentialists pointed out to the colour influentialists regarding > >> > the position of any such orb in the atmosphere: > > >> > A) The orb might be black or white, you don't know. > > >> Sigh. Very well. > > >> > B) The height it is found at in the atmosphere is explained by the > >> > laws of physics. > > >> Sigh. Just as one would expect. > > >> > C) Whether the orb is black or white doesn't affect the behaviour > >> > doesn't influence the behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the > >> > same in either case. > > >> No. Clearly, since the albedo of the orbs are completely different, one > >> reflecting light and the other absorbing it, there should exist a marked > >> difference in temperature, and thus density of the gas inside, and thus > >> bouancy. Add to this the immensely greater heat-gathering surface area of > >> the black orbs and you should expect radically different behaviors. > > >> > Do you think that the reasoning of the colour non-influentialists was > >> > logical, or do you think that the reasoning of the colour > >> > influentialists was? > > >> The non-color influentalists are a bunch of idiots who know nothing about > >> physics. > > > Well supposing it was explained to you that the orbs formed under the > > planet surface and seemed to have been released in plate movements. > > The density of the helium inside both was the same, the slight heat > > difference only resulted in a slight difference in internal pressure, > > not density, and thus not bouancy. > > No. You made your elaborate foot and placed it square in your dishonest > mouth. And I'm going to laugh at your pathetic and transparent attempt at an > ad-hoc rescue of your own scenario. A scenario that shows that you are > obviously wrong, and clearly demonstrates that you have been wrong all > along, and with this pitiable attempt at a fix, shows that you fully intend > to remain wrong in the future. You are a testament to willful ignorance. > > Anyone with a scrap of intellectual integrity would at LEAST follow where > their OWN examples lead. But not you. If you don't find YOUR OWN arguments > convincing, why on earth do you think they'll convince anyone else? > > You have no concept of logic, and as your scenario shows, you are completely > ignorant of the physical laws you pretend knowledge of. I can't even imagine > what you thought your latest rationalization was supposed to accomplish. > You're a complete and total idiot. > > I am going to treat your scenario as your admission that you are wrong, > because that's what it is. You have successfully torpedoed your own > argument. You tried to show one thing, but ended up showing something > exactly the opposite. If you were honest, you would admit that, so I'm > actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though your ad-hoc > nonsense shows that you don't deserve it. > > Don't bother replaying unless you're admitting that your point is dead. > You'll notice that there was never a mention of the helium density being different within the orbs. You just invented that to avoid the issue. Now when that path of avoidance has been removed, and you would have to face that your reasoning is analogous to the colour influentialists, in other words ridiculous and obviously incorrect, you are attempting to run. Even if I had made a mistake in putting a point across, or were to do so at a later point, so what, I can always adjust it, what difference does it make? This isn't some silly little debating game, it is that your whole world view is implausible, and that you have been deceived into believing it, but now your ego won't allow you to face that. It wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't for a point we haven't got to yet, but that is, it isn't just that you aren't simply a biological mechanism, it is that God and the Devil exist, and that by rejecting God, and encouraging others to do so, you will be experiencing Hell afterwards. I'm just trying to help you, even though you don't think you need to be helped, and don't appreciate the effort I am putting in at all. I'm not asking for any appreciation, but simply for you to put aside your preconceptions, and look at what is being said unbiasly. I'll rewrite the scenario to make it easier for you to see the point it is highlighting for you about the reasoning you have been convinced into believing, and couldn't see through as a deception: Hypothetically, supposing in the future space travels of humanity they came across a planet with a similar atmosphere to ours, on which there were found to be orbs. There were two types of orbs, though both had an outer shell of a 10cm thickness. Though one type of shell was of a substance which reflected light (white orbs), and the other was of a type with absorbed light (black orbs). Both the light reflective (white) substance and the light absorbing (black) shells were of the same density, and both types of orb were filled with helium at an equal density. The white orbs were 10m in diameter, while the black orbs where 1km in diameter. The black orbs were found higher in the atmosphere, and this was explained by the laws of physics, and the explanation had no reference to whether the orbs were black or white, but to do with the average density of the orb. There were two groups of people. One was the colour influentialists, who claimed that colour of the orbs influenced the behaviour, as black orbs behaved differently from white orbs, and that if they were white, they had one type of outer shell, and that if they were black, they had another type of outer shell. The other group were the colour non- influentialists who pointed out that the explanation of where the orbs were found in the atmosphere didn't mention whether the orbs were black or white, and would remain the same in either case. Now supposing another similar planet were to be spotted where it was suspected that helium filled orbs with either light reflective or light absorbing shells may again be found. The colour non- influentialists pointed out to the colour influentialists regarding the position of any such orb in the atmosphere: A) The orb might be black or white, you don't know. B) The height it is found at in the atmosphere is explained by the laws of physics, without mention of the colour (whether it absorbed or reflected light). C) Whether the orb is black or white doesn't influence how high the orb is found in the atmospherer, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. Can you understand that the reasoning of the colour influentialists is not logical, and it is analagous to your reasoning about mechanisms following the laws of physics, that behave as they do irrespective of whether you were to consider them having any subjective experiences or not. It is that your assertion that we are simply a biological mechanism strictly following the laws of physics is wrong (else we couldn't even be mentioning subjective experiences because they existed, the laws of physics show us this), and without that assertion, you would have no reason to think anything that followed the laws of physics subjectively experienced, and most certainly couldn't explain how or why they should. 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.