Guest someone2 Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On 8 Jun, 05:32, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone3" <glenn.spig...@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. > Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you have about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be dispassionately logial when evaluating the following. If the following is logically reasoned: 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. Why is this not also logically reasoned regarding any mechanism that simply follows the known laws of physics: A) The mechanism might be subjectively experiencing or not you don't know. B) The behaviour of the mechanism is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it is subjectively experiencing or not. C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing doesn't affect behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. The implication is that we are not a biological mechanism strictly following the laws of physics, for if we were, we couldn't even be mentioning the subjective experiences we have because they existed (as their existance couldn't influence our behaviour), and without that assertion, you would have no reason to think that any mechanism strictly following the known laws of physics was subjectively experiencing. Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181308393.093187.316190@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you have > about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be dispassionately > logial when evaluating the following. > Oh, brother. > If the following is logically reasoned: > > 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. > > Why is this not also logically reasoned regarding any mechanism that > simply follows the known laws of physics: > > A) The mechanism might be subjectively experiencing or not you don't > know. > B) The behaviour of the mechanism is explained by the laws of physics > without requiring knowledge of whether it is subjectively experiencing > or not. > C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing doesn't affect > behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. > Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you have about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be dispassionately logial when evaluating the following, GLENN : The difference between subjective experience and the color of a ball is that subjective experience is determined by the internal state of the control system of an organism or a hypothetical mechanism. The color of a ball is simply an external property that is irrelevant to the behavior of the ball. Given that the internal states of a mechanism do influence its behavior, it is simply a contradiction to claim otherwise. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181313545.041004.92500@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > On 8 Jun, 14:23, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181308393.093187.316190@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> >> > Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you >> > have about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be >> > dispassionately logial when evaluating the following. >> >> Oh, brother. >> >> >> >> >> >> > If the following is logically reasoned: >> >> > 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. >> >> > Why is this not also logically reasoned regarding any mechanism >> > that simply follows the known laws of physics: >> >> > A) The mechanism might be subjectively experiencing or not you >> > don't know. >> > B) The behaviour of the mechanism is explained by the laws of >> > physics without requiring knowledge of whether it is subjectively >> > experiencing or not. >> > C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing doesn't >> > affect behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either >> > case. >> >> Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you have >> about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be dispassionately >> logial when evaluating the following, GLENN : >> >> The difference between subjective experience and the color of a ball >> is that subjective experience is determined by the internal state of >> the control system of an organism or a hypothetical mechanism. The >> color of a ball is simply an external property that is irrelevant to >> the behavior of the ball. Given that the internal states of a >> mechanism do influence its behavior, it is simply a contradiction >> to claim otherwise. >> <snip repasted material> You keep repeating the same assertions, Glenn, without ever addressing any counterarguments at all. Why do you waste our time? -- 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 someone2 Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On 8 Jun, 13:50, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews: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. > Here is an example of logical reasoning: 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. Which if you consider logical, is the same logic that is used in evaluating whether influence subjective experiences could influence the behaviour of a mechanism following the known laws of physics such as a robot: A) The mechanism might be subjectively experiencing or not you don't know. B) The behaviour of the mechanism is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it is subjectively experiencing or not. C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing doesn't affect behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. It shows that subjective experiences couldn't be said influence the behaviour of any mechanism simply following the laws of physics. The reason for rejecting that we are simply biological mechanism following the known laws of physics, is that our behaviour couldn't be influenced by any subjective experiences that we had (the known laws of physics show us this). So philosphers couldn't be discussing qualia because of their existance, nor could people talking about anything the subjectively experienced because of the experience, nor could we be even having this discussion because conscious experiences existed. The existance of them would have to be coincidental to behaviour. It is the required coincidence that makes the story of us being simply biological mechanisms implausible. Without the assertion that we are simply biological mechanisms, there would be no reason to suggest that any mechanism following the known laws of physics had any subjective experiences, nor could they explain how or why they should have. Furthermore, if people still wished to still try to cling to the possibility that it was simply the coincidence, what reason would the biological mechanism have for even trying to explain subjective experiences (its own subjective experiences couldn't have influenced its behaviour), and what reason would it have to consider whether other things such as robots might also have, when there could be no other reason than the subjective experiences were influencing its behaviour (which if this were the reason, would show it couldn't be a biological mechanism strictly following the known laws of physics). I think it is better for you to understand the implausibility of the story that we are simply a biological mechanism following the known laws of physics, before discussing the retreated to position that maybe the configuration or complexity freed it from the known laws of physics, but that there were still only a physical mechanism. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On 8 Jun, 14:23, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181308393.093187.316190@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > > Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you have > > about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be dispassionately > > logial when evaluating the following. > > Oh, brother. > > > > > > > If the following is logically reasoned: > > > 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. > > > Why is this not also logically reasoned regarding any mechanism that > > simply follows the known laws of physics: > > > A) The mechanism might be subjectively experiencing or not you don't > > know. > > B) The behaviour of the mechanism is explained by the laws of physics > > without requiring knowledge of whether it is subjectively experiencing > > or not. > > C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing doesn't affect > > behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. > > Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you have > about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be dispassionately > logial when evaluating the following, GLENN : > > The difference between subjective experience and the color of a ball is > that subjective experience is determined by the internal state of the > control system of an organism or a hypothetical mechanism. The color of > a ball is simply an external property that is irrelevant to the behavior > of the ball. Given that the internal states of a mechanism do > influence its behavior, it is simply a contradiction to claim otherwise. > The point that your egotistical attachment to an implausible story blinds you from understanding is that if existance of subjective experiences influenced our behaviour, we couldn't simply be biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics. Here is an example of logical reasoning: 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 explanation for the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. Which if you consider logical, is the same logic that is used in evaluating whether influence subjective experiences could influence the behaviour of a mechanism following the known laws of physics such as a robot: A) The mechanism might be subjectively experiencing or not you don't know. B) The behaviour of the mechanism is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it is subjectively experiencing or not. C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing doesn't affect behaviour, else the explanation for the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. It shows that subjective experiences couldn't be said influence the behaviour of any mechanism simply following the laws of physics. The reason for rejecting that we are simply biological mechanism following the known laws of physics, is that our behaviour couldn't be influenced by any subjective experiences that we had (the known laws of physics show us this). So philosphers couldn't be discussing qualia because of their existance, nor could people talking about anything the subjectively experienced because of the experience, nor could we be even having this discussion because conscious experiences existed. The existance of them would have to be coincidental to behaviour. It is the required coincidence that makes the story of us being simply biological mechanisms implausible. Without the assertion that we are simply biological mechanisms, there would be no reason to suggest that any mechanism following the known laws of physics had any subjective experiences, nor could they explain how or why they should have. Furthermore, if people still wished to still try to cling to the possibility that it was simply the coincidence, what reason would the biological mechanism have for even trying to explain subjective experiences (its own subjective experiences couldn't have influenced its behaviour), and what reason would it have to consider whether other things such as robots might also have, when there could be no other reason than the subjective experiences were influencing its behaviour (which if this were the reason, would show it couldn't be a biological mechanism strictly following the known laws of physics). I think it is better for you to understand the implausibility of the story that we are simply a biological mechanism following the known laws of physics, before discussing the retreated to position that maybe the configuration or complexity freed it from the known laws of physics, but that there were still only a physical mechanism. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On 8 Jun, 15:11, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181313545.041004.92500@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On 8 Jun, 14:23, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >> innews:1181308393.093187.316190@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > >> > Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you > >> > have about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be > >> > dispassionately logial when evaluating the following. > > >> Oh, brother. > > >> > If the following is logically reasoned: > > >> > 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. > > >> > Why is this not also logically reasoned regarding any mechanism > >> > that simply follows the known laws of physics: > > >> > A) The mechanism might be subjectively experiencing or not you > >> > don't know. > >> > B) The behaviour of the mechanism is explained by the laws of > >> > physics without requiring knowledge of whether it is subjectively > >> > experiencing or not. > >> > C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing doesn't > >> > affect behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either > >> > case. > > >> Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you have > >> about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be dispassionately > >> logial when evaluating the following, GLENN : > > >> The difference between subjective experience and the color of a ball > >> is that subjective experience is determined by the internal state of > >> the control system of an organism or a hypothetical mechanism. The > >> color of a ball is simply an external property that is irrelevant to > >> the behavior of the ball. Given that the internal states of a > >> mechanism do influence its behavior, it is simply a contradiction > >> to claim otherwise. > > <snip repasted material> > > You keep repeating the same assertions, Glenn, without ever addressing > any counterarguments at all. Why do you waste our time? > You are the one that refuses to address the issues. You blantantly refused to comment on whether the following was logically reasoned: 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 explanation for the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. Quote
Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 On 7 jun, 18:11, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > 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 Sorry, I think I have shown you the Robot had the following experiences: (Not only did he have them, he remembered them and acted upon them three times out of five.) 1. "I met John" 2. "I met George" 3. "I met Mary Kate" 4. "I met Paul" 5. "I met Ringo" That these experiences are subjective is proven by the fact that the Robot in reality did not meet Mary Kate, but Ashley. The difference with a mobile phone is in the fact that these experiences were not only logged in its memory but were reflected in the Robot's behaviour too (he gave mail to John Paul and Ringo). I agree it is a small difference. That the mobile phone doesn't work that way is because this task has been delegated to the voicemail computer. But than I was trying to make a statement within less then 1 megabyte. . . If you want more complex experiences, this medium (Alt.atheism) is not suited. I have no idea where you are going to with the ball, but I will tackle your three statements 1 The ball might reflect any combination of visible wavelengths, and it certainly has other properties than you haven't told me. =Yes 2 pparently the ball started falling down until it hit a solid surface (for else it could not bounce). In general I would need to know the speed of impact, the elasticity of both the ball and the solid object, as well as the local gravity to be theoretically able to predict if and how the ball bounces. (Personally I still couldn't do it) Other factors might be the density of the atmosphere (the pressure inside the ball is already accounted for within its elasticity), local wind speed, the balls rotation and direction (was it falling straight down or at an angle?). Whether it was black of white would have little influence unless there was a lot of light present, and its elasticity would be greatly influenced by its surface temperature (which I doubt). = almost certainly true (especially if no visible wavelengths are present) 3 This may not be completely true. It might depend on other circumstances whether its colour had any influence on its behaviour. (If the surface it is landing on is a Robot with orders to catch white balls and box away black balls..... ). But in general this would be the case. = strictly untrue but again very true if no visible wavelengths are present Curious where you are going with your ball (to the basket?) Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181307535.236792.214630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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. I see now that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You remain, as always, a dishonest twat. Very well, in the spirit of compassion for the retarded, I shall respond. (I'm SUCH a softy.) The helium density in the orbs is a direct result of the temperature of the heluim which is a direct result of the absorption of heat from the sun by the orbs. The black orbs, according to the laws of physics that YOU INSIST THEY ADHERE TO, absorb more heat and thus will be hotter than the white orbs BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, and so their helium density will be different, as will their behavior. Think I'm making this shit up? Examine this: http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Toys-that-fly/solar-airship-GB.asp. I would direct you at the wikipedia articles on boyancy and albedo and such, but they would only confuse you. I figure a toy is something you might have a chance to understand. Listening to you try to discuss scientific and philosophical issues is like watching a monkey wear clothes, it's amusing at first but quickly gets stale. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:4668db6d$0$1181$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au... > "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. Damn excellent point! :-) >> 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. Get used to it. ;-) -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181316239.868789.305740@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On 8 Jun, 15:11, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181313545.041004.92500@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 8 Jun, 14:23, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> innews:1181308393.093187.316190@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you >> >> > have about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be >> >> > dispassionately logial when evaluating the following. >> >> >> Oh, brother. >> >> >> > If the following is logically reasoned: >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> > Why is this not also logically reasoned regarding any mechanism >> >> > that simply follows the known laws of physics: >> >> >> > A) The mechanism might be subjectively experiencing or not you >> >> > don't know. >> >> > B) The behaviour of the mechanism is explained by the laws of >> >> > physics without requiring knowledge of whether it is >> >> > subjectively experiencing or not. >> >> > C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing doesn't >> >> > affect behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in >> >> > either case. >> >> >> Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you >> >> have about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be >> >> dispassionately logial when evaluating the following, GLENN : >> >> >> The difference between subjective experience and the color of a >> >> ball is that subjective experience is determined by the internal >> >> state of the control system of an organism or a hypothetical >> >> mechanism. The color of a ball is simply an external property that >> >> is irrelevant to the behavior of the ball. Given that the internal >> >> states of a mechanism do influence its behavior, it is simply a >> >> contradiction to claim otherwise. >> >> <snip repasted material> >> >> You keep repeating the same assertions, Glenn, without ever >> addressing any counterarguments at all. Why do you waste our time? >> > > You are the one that refuses to address the issues. You blantantly > refused to comment on whether the following was logically reasoned: > It's not relevant, so why should I? > 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 explanation for the behaviour couldn't be the same in either > case. > YOU keep refusing to comment on whether the following is logically reasoned: A ball is not a brain or a hypothetical conscious computer. The way a brain operates is explained by the laws of physics, including the subjective experiences which are the internal states of that brain. The brain controls the behavior of the organism, and is influenced by its internal states. Therefore the subjective experiences of an organism or a conscious compupter influence the behavior of that organism or conscious computer which is operating purely according to the laws of physics. -- 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:1181311994.969146.270290@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: <....> > I think it is better for you to understand the implausibility of > the story that we are simply a biological mechanism following the > known laws of physics, before discussing the retreated to > position that maybe the configuration or complexity freed it from > the known laws of physics, but that there were still only a > physical mechanism. I'm more interested in how the unknown laws of physics fit into your worldwiev. 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 Lisbeth Andersson Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181311994.969146.270290@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > Here is an example of logical reasoning: > > 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. <....> What a wonderful example of assuming the conclusion. 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 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 8 Jun, 17:15, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > On 7 jun, 18:11, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Sorry, I think I have shown you the Robot had the following > experiences: > (Not only did he have them, he remembered them > and acted upon them three times out of five.) > > 1. "I met John" > 2. "I met George" > 3. "I met Mary Kate" > 4. "I met Paul" > 5. "I met Ringo" > > That these experiences are subjective is proven by the fact that the > Robot in reality did not meet Mary Kate, but Ashley. > > The difference with a mobile phone is in the fact that these > experiences were not only logged in its memory but were reflected in > the Robot's behaviour too (he gave mail to John Paul and Ringo). I > agree it is a small difference. That the mobile phone doesn't work > that way is because this task has been delegated to the voicemail > computer. > But than I was trying to make a statement within less then 1 > megabyte. . . > If you want more complex experiences, this medium (Alt.atheism) is not > suited. > > I have no idea where you are going to with the ball, > but I will tackle your three statements > > 1 > The ball might reflect any combination of visible wavelengths, > and it certainly has other properties than you haven't told me. > =Yes > > 2 > pparently the ball started falling down until it hit a solid surface > (for else it could not bounce). In general I would need to know the > speed of impact, the elasticity of both the ball and the solid object, > as well as the local gravity to be theoretically able to predict if > and how the ball bounces. (Personally I still couldn't do it) Other > factors might be the density of the atmosphere (the pressure inside > the ball is already accounted for within its elasticity), local wind > speed, the balls rotation and direction (was it falling straight down > or at an angle?). > Whether it was black of white would have little influence unless there > was a lot of light present, and its elasticity would be greatly > influenced by its surface temperature (which I doubt). > = almost certainly true (especially if no visible wavelengths are > present) > > 3 > This may not be completely true. It might depend on other > circumstances whether its colour had any influence on its behaviour. > (If the surface it is landing on is a Robot with orders to catch white > balls and box away black balls..... ). > But in general this would be the case. > = strictly untrue but again very true if no visible wavelengths are > present > > Curious where you are going with your ball (to the basket?) > I mean by subjective experiences, experiences like we do, sights, sounds, smells, thoughts etc. You haven't shown it had these any more than a mobile phone (which might have a camera etc). We suppose all humans have subjective experiences, because we know we do, and we know (well for the sake of debate I'll saw that "it seems") that which experiences influences the behaviour and uses these subjective experiences to base its judgement on. When we see other people also behaving as though they base their judgement on subjective experiences we assume they have them, and they are basing their judgement on them. As for the ball scenario, let me put it another way for you, as you seem to be missing the point. Can you see that if the following two statements were true, the third would follow. 1) You have no knowledge of whether the ball is black or white. 2) The way the ball bounces can be explained by the laws of physics without knowledge of whether it is black or white. (in a dark room if it makes it easier for you to comprehend the point being made. You seem to be trying to show you are clever, and actually missing the whole point) Given (1) and (2) (could be done with just (2) actually) the following logically follows: 3) Whether the ball were black or white doesn't affect behaviour, else the explanation for its behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. Give it some thought, and see if you can understand it. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 8 Jun, 17:24, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181307535.236792.214630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. > > I see now that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You remain, as > always, a dishonest twat. > > Very well, in the spirit of compassion for the retarded, I shall respond. > > (I'm SUCH a softy.) > > The helium density in the orbs is a direct result of the temperature of the > heluim which is a direct result of the absorption of heat from the sun by > the orbs. The black orbs, according to the laws of physics that YOU INSIST > THEY ADHERE TO, absorb more heat and thus will be hotter than the white orbs > BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, and so their helium density will be different, as > will their behavior. Think I'm making this shit up? Examine this:http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Toys-that-fly/solar-airs.... I > would direct you at the wikipedia articles on boyancy and albedo and such, > but they would only confuse you. I figure a toy is something you might have > a chance to understand. > > Listening to you try to discuss scientific and philosophical issues is like > watching a monkey wear clothes, it's amusing at first but quickly gets > stale. > You really are disingenious. You snipped the post, and above it had already been explained to you: 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. That I even had to write that, just so that you could face the scenario is enough to make me embarrassed for you. That you didn't and tried to avoid it, and are doing so again is pathetic. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 8 Jun, 18:45, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181316239.868789.305740@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On 8 Jun, 15:11, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >> innews:1181313545.041004.92500@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > > >> > On 8 Jun, 14:23, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >> >> innews:1181308393.093187.316190@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > >> >> > Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you > >> >> > have about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be > >> >> > dispassionately logial when evaluating the following. > > >> >> Oh, brother. > > >> >> > If the following is logically reasoned: > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> > Why is this not also logically reasoned regarding any mechanism > >> >> > that simply follows the known laws of physics: > > >> >> > A) The mechanism might be subjectively experiencing or not you > >> >> > don't know. > >> >> > B) The behaviour of the mechanism is explained by the laws of > >> >> > physics without requiring knowledge of whether it is > >> >> > subjectively experiencing or not. > >> >> > C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing doesn't > >> >> > affect behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in > >> >> > either case. > > >> >> Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions you > >> >> have about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be > >> >> dispassionately logial when evaluating the following, GLENN : > > >> >> The difference between subjective experience and the color of a > >> >> ball is that subjective experience is determined by the internal > >> >> state of the control system of an organism or a hypothetical > >> >> mechanism. The color of a ball is simply an external property that > >> >> is irrelevant to the behavior of the ball. Given that the internal > >> >> states of a mechanism do influence its behavior, it is simply a > >> >> contradiction to claim otherwise. > > >> <snip repasted material> > > >> You keep repeating the same assertions, Glenn, without ever > >> addressing any counterarguments at all. Why do you waste our time? > > > You are the one that refuses to address the issues. You blantantly > > refused to comment on whether the following was logically reasoned: > > It's not relevant, so why should I? > > > 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 explanation for the behaviour couldn't be the same in either > > case. > > YOU keep refusing to comment on whether the following is logically > reasoned: > > A ball is not a brain or a hypothetical conscious computer. > The way a brain operates is explained by the laws of physics, > including the subjective experiences which are the internal states of > that brain. > The brain controls the behavior of the organism, and is influenced by > its internal states. > Therefore the subjective experiences of an organism or a conscious > compupter influence the behavior of that organism or conscious computer > which is operating purely according to the laws of physics. > Aaahhhhhh! Are you really as illogical as you appear or are you just trying to wind me up? The question is just whether the the conclusion about whether the ball was black or white didn't affect the way it bounced was logically arrived at. It could even be shortened to: 1) The behaviour of M is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. Therefore 2) Presence of P(A) or lack of, does not influence the behaviour of M, else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P(A) You can substitute whatever physical entity that strictly follows the known laws of physics you like for M, and any property for which P(A) where (1) would be true. If (1) is true, then so is (2). Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 8 Jun, 18:57, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181311994.969146.270290@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > <....> > > > I think it is better for you to understand the implausibility of > > the story that we are simply a biological mechanism following the > > known laws of physics, before discussing the retreated to > > position that maybe the configuration or complexity freed it from > > the known laws of physics, but that there were still only a > > physical mechanism. > > I'm more interested in how the unknown laws of physics fit into your > worldwiev. > What makes you think there are any unknown laws of physics which have any noticable influence on behaviour other than at the subatomic or cosmic scale? When was the last time we found anything that didn't follow the known laws of physics? I'm more interested whether you understood the point that was made (and you snipped), or is it a secret? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 9 Jun, 02:28, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 8 Jun, 17:24, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > > > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >news:1181307535.236792.214630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > 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. > > > I see now that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You remain, as > > always, a dishonest twat. > > > Very well, in the spirit of compassion for the retarded, I shall respond. > > > (I'm SUCH a softy.) > > > The helium density in the orbs is a direct result of the temperature of the > > heluim which is a direct result of the absorption of heat from the sun by > > the orbs. The black orbs, according to the laws of physics that YOU INSIST > > THEY ADHERE TO, absorb more heat and thus will be hotter than the white orbs > > BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, and so their helium density will be different, as > > will their behavior. Think I'm making this shit up? Examine this:http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Toys-that-fly/solar-airs.... I > > would direct you at the wikipedia articles on boyancy and albedo and such, > > but they would only confuse you. I figure a toy is something you might have > > a chance to understand. > > > Listening to you try to discuss scientific and philosophical issues is like > > watching a monkey wear clothes, it's amusing at first but quickly gets > > stale. > > You really are disingenious. You snipped the post, and above it had > already been explained to you: > > 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. > > That I even had to write that, just so that you could face the > scenario is enough to make me embarrassed for you. That you didn't and > tried to avoid it, and are doing so again is pathetic. Can you understand the following: 1) The behaviour of M is explained by the laws of physics without reference requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. Therefore 2) Presence of P(A) or lack of, does not affect the behaviour of M, else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P(A) You can substitute whatever physical entity that strictly follows the known laws of physics for M, and any property for which P(A) where (1) would be true. If (1) is true, then so is (2). Quote
Guest Lisbeth Andersson Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181353677.705831.281300@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On 8 Jun, 18:57, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181311994.969146.270290@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> <....> >> >> > I think it is better for you to understand the implausibility >> > of the story that we are simply a biological mechanism >> > following the known laws of physics, before discussing the >> > retreated to position that maybe the configuration or >> > complexity freed it from the known laws of physics, but that >> > there were still only a physical mechanism. >> >> I'm more interested in how the unknown laws of physics fit into >> your worldwiev. >> > > What makes you think there are any unknown laws of physics which > have any noticable influence on behaviour other than at the > subatomic or cosmic scale? Why should I exclude those? What makes you think that the subatomic laws doesn't affect behaviour. And whatever laws (if any) that governs consciousness and awareness seems somewhat missing. When was the last time we found > anything that didn't follow the known laws of physics? > Mercury orbit? No, it's probably been some discoveries after that. I heard a rumour a few weeks back about nerve cells using some form of tunneling, it was from a very unreliable source though. > I'm more interested whether you understood the point that was > made (and you snipped), or is it a secret? I think your "point" was of the form: since we don't want to think our behaviour is deterministic (?), there has to be something that prevents it, I'm not sure if you are going for free will, the soul or god, or any combinations of it. If you ever get the basic assumptions sorted out, I might take a closer look at the rest of your argument. 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 Denis Loubet Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181352490.810453.248960@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 8 Jun, 17:24, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181307535.236792.214630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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. >> >> I see now that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You remain, as >> always, a dishonest twat. >> >> Very well, in the spirit of compassion for the retarded, I shall respond. >> >> (I'm SUCH a softy.) >> >> The helium density in the orbs is a direct result of the temperature of >> the >> heluim which is a direct result of the absorption of heat from the sun by >> the orbs. The black orbs, according to the laws of physics that YOU >> INSIST >> THEY ADHERE TO, absorb more heat and thus will be hotter than the white >> orbs >> BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, and so their helium density will be different, as >> will their behavior. Think I'm making this shit up? Examine >> this:http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Toys-that-fly/solar-airs.... >> I >> would direct you at the wikipedia articles on boyancy and albedo and >> such, >> but they would only confuse you. I figure a toy is something you might >> have >> a chance to understand. >> >> Listening to you try to discuss scientific and philosophical issues is >> like >> watching a monkey wear clothes, it's amusing at first but quickly gets >> stale. >> > > You really are disingenious. You snipped the post, and above it had > already been explained to you: I snipped text that addressed neither the problems with your scenario, nor your abject defeat. You said I should trim. > 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. That's all irrelevant since you already presented your scenario and it proved the opposite of what you wanted it to. Thus I win. Attempting to offer a feeble ad-hoc patch is just embarrassing. Especially one that doesn't even address any of the basic problems with your scenario. > That I even had to write that, just so that you could face the > scenario is enough to make me embarrassed for you. That you didn't and > tried to avoid it, and are doing so again is pathetic. I faced your scenario, it was an elegant disproof of your point. Well done. Nothing more need be said. Except that you're an utter moron. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181354132.485509.210500@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Jun, 02:28, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> On 8 Jun, 17:24, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:1181307535.236792.214630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > 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. >> >> > I see now that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You remain, >> > as >> > always, a dishonest twat. >> >> > Very well, in the spirit of compassion for the retarded, I shall >> > respond. >> >> > (I'm SUCH a softy.) >> >> > The helium density in the orbs is a direct result of the temperature of >> > the >> > heluim which is a direct result of the absorption of heat from the sun >> > by >> > the orbs. The black orbs, according to the laws of physics that YOU >> > INSIST >> > THEY ADHERE TO, absorb more heat and thus will be hotter than the white >> > orbs >> > BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, and so their helium density will be different, >> > as >> > will their behavior. Think I'm making this shit up? Examine >> > this:http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Toys-that-fly/solar-airs.... >> > I >> > would direct you at the wikipedia articles on boyancy and albedo and >> > such, >> > but they would only confuse you. I figure a toy is something you might >> > have >> > a chance to understand. >> >> > Listening to you try to discuss scientific and philosophical issues is >> > like >> > watching a monkey wear clothes, it's amusing at first but quickly gets >> > stale. >> >> You really are disingenious. You snipped the post, and above it had >> already been explained to you: >> >> 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. >> >> That I even had to write that, just so that you could face the >> scenario is enough to make me embarrassed for you. That you didn't and >> tried to avoid it, and are doing so again is pathetic. > > Can you understand the following: > > 1) The behaviour of M is explained by the laws of physics without > reference requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. Let's see, can I explain the behavior of my car without knowing if it has gas in the tank or not by the laws of physics? Yes, I can explain both behaviors, and one of them will be correct. > Therefore > > 2) Presence of P(A) or lack of, does not affect the behaviour of M, Well, personally I think gas in the tank radically affects the behavior of my car. > else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or > without P(A) The behavior of my car with gas in the tank is explainable by the laws of physics, as is the behavior of my car without gas in the tank. But somehow I only get places I need to get to in air-conditioned comfort when there is gas in the tank. That's very different behavior from when there isn't gas in the tank. Gosh! How very odd! It seems your point 2 is completely wrong on such a basic level that it's hard to comprehend how you can function in society at all. I take it you don't own a car? Please tell me you don't. > You can substitute whatever physical entity that strictly follows the > known laws of physics for M, and any property for which P(A) where (1) > would be true. If (1) is true, then so is (2). My car says you're just plain stupid. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181353497.844379.23820@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > On 8 Jun, 18:45, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181316239.868789.305740@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 8 Jun, 15:11, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> innews:1181313545.041004.92500@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > On 8 Jun, 14:23, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> >> innews:1181308393.093187.316190@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> > Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions >> >> >> > you have about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be >> >> >> > dispassionately logial when evaluating the following. >> >> >> >> Oh, brother. >> >> >> >> > If the following is logically reasoned: >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> > Why is this not also logically reasoned regarding any >> >> >> > mechanism that simply follows the known laws of physics: >> >> >> >> > A) The mechanism might be subjectively experiencing or not >> >> >> > you don't know. >> >> >> > B) The behaviour of the mechanism is explained by the laws of >> >> >> > physics without requiring knowledge of whether it is >> >> >> > subjectively experiencing or not. >> >> >> > C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing >> >> >> > doesn't affect behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the >> >> >> > same in either case. >> >> >> >> Try to put your egotistical attachment to any preconceptions >> >> >> you have about the matter aside for a moment, and to try be >> >> >> dispassionately logial when evaluating the following, GLENN : >> >> >> >> The difference between subjective experience and the color of a >> >> >> ball is that subjective experience is determined by the >> >> >> internal state of the control system of an organism or a >> >> >> hypothetical mechanism. The color of a ball is simply an >> >> >> external property that is irrelevant to the behavior of the >> >> >> ball. Given that the internal states of a mechanism do >> >> >> influence its behavior, it is simply a contradiction to claim >> >> >> otherwise. >> >> >> <snip repasted material> >> >> >> You keep repeating the same assertions, Glenn, without ever >> >> addressing any counterarguments at all. Why do you waste our time? >> >> > You are the one that refuses to address the issues. You blantantly >> > refused to comment on whether the following was logically reasoned: >> >> It's not relevant, so why should I? >> >> > 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 explanation for the behaviour couldn't be the same in >> > either case. >> >> YOU keep refusing to comment on whether the following is logically >> reasoned: >> >> A ball is not a brain or a hypothetical conscious computer. >> The way a brain operates is explained by the laws of physics, >> including the subjective experiences which are the internal states >> of that brain. >> The brain controls the behavior of the organism, and is influenced by >> its internal states. >> Therefore the subjective experiences of an organism or a conscious >> compupter influence the behavior of that organism or conscious >> computer which is operating purely according to the laws of physics. >> > > Aaahhhhhh! Are you really as illogical as you appear or are you just > trying to wind me up? > > The question is just whether the the conclusion about whether the ball > was black or white didn't affect the way it bounced was logically > arrived at. > > It could even be shortened to: > > 1) The behaviour of M is explained by the laws of physics without > requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. > > Therefore > > 2) Presence of P(A) or lack of, does not influence the behaviour of M, > else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or > without P(A) > > You can substitute whatever physical entity that strictly follows the > known laws of physics you like for M, and any property for which P(A) > where (1) would be true. If (1) is true, then so is (2). > No, it is not correctly reasoned. An observer's knowledge of the existence of a property has no bearing on whether that property influences the behavior of an object under the laws of physics. If the observer concludes that the presense or absense of a property which does influence behavior does not influence behavior, that observer has made an error. -- 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 pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 9 jun, 03:20, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 8 Jun, 17:15, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 jun, 18:11, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Sorry, I think I have shown you the Robot had the following > > experiences: > > (Not only did he have them, he remembered them > > and acted upon them three times out of five.) > > > 1. "I met John" > > 2. "I met George" > > 3. "I met Mary Kate" > > 4. "I met Paul" > > 5. "I met Ringo" > > > That these experiences are subjective is proven by the fact that the > > Robot in reality did not meet Mary Kate, but Ashley. > > > The difference with a mobile phone is in the fact that these > > experiences were not only logged in its memory but were reflected in > > the Robot's behaviour too (he gave mail to John Paul and Ringo). I > > agree it is a small difference. That the mobile phone doesn't work > > that way is because this task has been delegated to the voicemail > > computer. > > But than I was trying to make a statement within less then 1 > > megabyte. . . > > If you want more complex experiences, this medium (Alt.atheism) is not > > suited. > > > I have no idea where you are going to with the ball, > > but I will tackle your three statements > > > 1 > > The ball might reflect any combination of visible wavelengths, > > and it certainly has other properties than you haven't told me. > > =Yes > > > 2 > > pparently the ball started falling down until it hit a solid surface > > (for else it could not bounce). In general I would need to know the > > speed of impact, the elasticity of both the ball and the solid object, > > as well as the local gravity to be theoretically able to predict if > > and how the ball bounces. (Personally I still couldn't do it) Other > > factors might be the density of the atmosphere (the pressure inside > > the ball is already accounted for within its elasticity), local wind > > speed, the balls rotation and direction (was it falling straight down > > or at an angle?). > > Whether it was black of white would have little influence unless there > > was a lot of light present, and its elasticity would be greatly > > influenced by its surface temperature (which I doubt). > > = almost certainly true (especially if no visible wavelengths are > > present) > > > 3 > > This may not be completely true. It might depend on other > > circumstances whether its colour had any influence on its behaviour. > > (If the surface it is landing on is a Robot with orders to catch white > > balls and box away black balls..... ). > > But in general this would be the case. > > = strictly untrue but again very true if no visible wavelengths are > > present > > > Curious where you are going with your ball (to the basket?) > > I mean by subjective experiences, experiences like we do, sights, > sounds, smells, thoughts etc. You haven't shown it had these any more > than a mobile phone (which might have a camera etc). > > We suppose all humans have subjective experiences, because we know we > do, and we know (well for the sake of debate I'll saw that "it seems") > that which experiences influences the behaviour and uses these > subjective experiences to base its judgement on. When we see other > people also behaving as though they base their judgement on subjective > experiences we assume they have them, and they are basing their > judgement on them. > > As for the ball scenario, let me put it another way for you, as you > seem to be missing the point. Can you see that if the following two > statements were true, the third would follow. > > 1) You have no knowledge of whether the ball is black or white. > 2) The way the ball bounces can be explained by the laws of physics > without knowledge of whether it is black or white. > (in a dark room if it makes it easier for you to comprehend the point > being made. You seem to be trying to show you are clever, and actually > missing the whole point) > > Given (1) and (2) (could be done with just (2) actually) the following > logically follows: > > 3) Whether the ball were black or white doesn't affect behaviour, else > the explanation for its behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. > > Give it some thought, and see if you can understand it.- For simplicity reason I didn't take the trouble to equip the hypothetical Robot with more then one (the optical) sense. The mobile phone actually can have two these days (sight and sound), but unlike my Robot, the mobile phone cannot say "I saw Mary Kate". That is what I see as a subjective experience. A transformation of mechanical input into a narrative. (D.C, Dennet: Consciousness explained) If you do not appreciate the difference, I am afraid we will have no solid basis for this discussion. Actually not everybody knows (s)he has subjective experiences, some are deluded into thinking their experiences are objective But yes: You and me think we have them. And like you I therefore suppose every human being has them. However I think this believe is strongly enhanced by the fact that almost every human being talks about these experiences. (again borrowed from Dennet). I agree the colour of a ball has little influence over its elasticity. But what of it? I gave it some thought and you accuse me of missing the point. There is little point I assume, but enlighten me if you see one. Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 9 Jun, 06:46, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181353677.705831.281300@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On 8 Jun, 18:57, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >> innews:1181311994.969146.270290@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > >> <....> > > >> > I think it is better for you to understand the implausibility > >> > of the story that we are simply a biological mechanism > >> > following the known laws of physics, before discussing the > >> > retreated to position that maybe the configuration or > >> > complexity freed it from the known laws of physics, but that > >> > there were still only a physical mechanism. > > >> I'm more interested in how the unknown laws of physics fit into > >> your worldwiev. > > > What makes you think there are any unknown laws of physics which > > have any noticable influence on behaviour other than at the > > subatomic or cosmic scale? > > Why should I exclude those? What makes you think that the subatomic > laws doesn't affect behaviour. And whatever laws (if any) that governs > consciousness and awareness seems somewhat missing. > > When was the last time we found > > > anything that didn't follow the known laws of physics? > > Mercury orbit? No, it's probably been some discoveries after that. I > heard a rumour a few weeks back about nerve cells using some form of > tunneling, it was from a very unreliable source though. > > > I'm more interested whether you understood the point that was > > made (and you snipped), or is it a secret? > > I think your "point" was of the form: since we don't want to think our > behaviour is deterministic (?), there has to be something that > prevents it, I'm not sure if you are going for free will, the soul or > god, or any combinations of it. If you ever get the basic assumptions > sorted out, I might take a closer look at the rest of your argument. > It had nothing to do with determinism. The reasoning is summarised below, but was outlined in more depth in the part of the post you snipped. 1) The behaviour of M is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. Therefore 2) Presence of P(A) or lack of, does not influence the behaviour of M, else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P(A) You can substitute whatever physical entity that strictly follows the known laws of physics for M, and any property for P(A) where (1) would be true. If (1) is true, then so is (2). Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 9 Jun, 08:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181352490.810453.248960@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > On 8 Jun, 17:24, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181307535.236792.214630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> > 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. > > >> I see now that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You remain, as > >> always, a dishonest twat. > > >> Very well, in the spirit of compassion for the retarded, I shall respond. > > >> (I'm SUCH a softy.) > > >> The helium density in the orbs is a direct result of the temperature of > >> the > >> heluim which is a direct result of the absorption of heat from the sun by > >> the orbs. The black orbs, according to the laws of physics that YOU > >> INSIST > >> THEY ADHERE TO, absorb more heat and thus will be hotter than the white > >> orbs > >> BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, and so their helium density will be different, as > >> will their behavior. Think I'm making this shit up? Examine > >> this:http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Toys-that-fly/solar-airs.... > >> I > >> would direct you at the wikipedia articles on boyancy and albedo and > >> such, > >> but they would only confuse you. I figure a toy is something you might > >> have > >> a chance to understand. > > >> Listening to you try to discuss scientific and philosophical issues is > >> like > >> watching a monkey wear clothes, it's amusing at first but quickly gets > >> stale. > > > You really are disingenious. You snipped the post, and above it had > > already been explained to you: > > I snipped text that addressed neither the problems with your scenario, nor > your abject defeat. > > You said I should trim. > > > 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. > > That's all irrelevant since you already presented your scenario and it > proved the opposite of what you wanted it to. Thus I win. Attempting to > offer a feeble ad-hoc patch is just embarrassing. Especially one that > doesn't even address any of the basic problems with your scenario. > > > That I even had to write that, just so that you could face the > > scenario is enough to make me embarrassed for you. That you didn't and > > tried to avoid it, and are doing so again is pathetic. > > I faced your scenario, it was an elegant disproof of your point. Well done. > Nothing more need be said. > > Except that you're an utter moron. > Well if the helium is at the same density within both, as explained above, then on what basis do you support the colour influentialists? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 9 Jun, 08:25, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181354132.485509.210500@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > On 9 Jun, 02:28, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On 8 Jun, 17:24, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > > >> > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >news:1181307535.236792.214630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> > > 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. > > >> > I see now that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You remain, > >> > as > >> > always, a dishonest twat. > > >> > Very well, in the spirit of compassion for the retarded, I shall > >> > respond. > > >> > (I'm SUCH a softy.) > > >> > The helium density in the orbs is a direct result of the temperature of > >> > the > >> > heluim which is a direct result of the absorption of heat from the sun > >> > by > >> > the orbs. The black orbs, according to the laws of physics that YOU > >> > INSIST > >> > THEY ADHERE TO, absorb more heat and thus will be hotter than the white > >> > orbs > >> > BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, and so their helium density will be different, > >> > as > >> > will their behavior. Think I'm making this shit up? Examine > >> > this:http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Toys-that-fly/solar-airs.... > >> > I > >> > would direct you at the wikipedia articles on boyancy and albedo and > >> > such, > >> > but they would only confuse you. I figure a toy is something you might > >> > have > >> > a chance to understand. > > >> > Listening to you try to discuss scientific and philosophical issues is > >> > like > >> > watching a monkey wear clothes, it's amusing at first but quickly gets > >> > stale. > > >> You really are disingenious. You snipped the post, and above it had > >> already been explained to you: > > >> 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. > > >> That I even had to write that, just so that you could face the > >> scenario is enough to make me embarrassed for you. That you didn't and > >> tried to avoid it, and are doing so again is pathetic. > > > Can you understand the following: > > > 1) The behaviour of M is explained by the laws of physics without > > reference requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. > > Let's see, can I explain the behavior of my car without knowing if it has > gas in the tank or not by the laws of physics? Yes, I can explain both > behaviors, and one of them will be correct. > > > Therefore > > > 2) Presence of P(A) or lack of, does not affect the behaviour of M, > > Well, personally I think gas in the tank radically affects the behavior of > my car. > > > else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or > > without P(A) > > The behavior of my car with gas in the tank is explainable by the laws of > physics, as is the behavior of my car without gas in the tank. But somehow I > only get places I need to get to in air-conditioned comfort when there is > gas in the tank. That's very different behavior from when there isn't gas in > the tank. > > Gosh! How very odd! It seems your point 2 is completely wrong on such a > basic level that it's hard to comprehend how you can function in society at > all. > > I take it you don't own a car? Please tell me you don't. > > > You can substitute whatever physical entity that strictly follows the > > known laws of physics for M, and any property for which P(A) where (1) > > would be true. If (1) is true, then so is (2). > > My car says you're just plain stupid. > Your reponses have a certain entertainment value I guess. Let me put it another way: M refers to the physical entity in question. B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. P refers to the a property in question. 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has P or not. 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not affect B(M), else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. if (1) is true, then so is (2) Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same To give you an example, just to make sure you have no excuses for pretending you can't grasp the point, and are misunderstanding it: M = a car B(M) = parked with its engine running P = its serial number Which means: 1) A car parked with its engine running is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has a serial number or not. 2) Presence of a serial number, or lack of, does not the car parked with its engine running, else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without a serial number. Since (1) is true, so is (2). So though I have tried to plug up the holes where you might try to pretend to misunderstand, your ability to, still does give you some artistic scope for disingenuity, which I'm sure you will use if able. 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.