Guest someone2 Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 9 Jun, 12:22, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews: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. > Yes they would have made an error, but they wouldn't have been able to explain the behaviour without including the influential property. So (1) wouldn't be true. The point was that for where (1) is true then so is (2). Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On 9 Jun, 17:04, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > 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. > What we are talking about though is our conscious experiences, which have been refered to as subjective experiences, to avoid people redefining the term so as not to refer the the conscious/subjective experiences we have. Though as no one else so far had stooped so low as to do it with the term subjective experiences, I was hoping that the people corresponding might not resort to such disingenious tricks. So your point is, that if they put a face recognition system in a phone, and the system put out the audio signal of "I saw Mary Kate", you would claim the phone to be having subjective experiences. Would it have what is sometimes refered to as an 'internal perspective' such as the robot character Terminator in the movie had though, or an 'internal perspective' such as humans have. In other words, would it make sense to say, "if you could see it through the phones eyes/ camera...", any more than it would make sense to say "if you could hear it through the phones ears/microphone"? Are you going to pretend you don't know what is being asked? Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181418224.687508.118800@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > On 9 Jun, 12:22, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews: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. >> > > Yes they would have made an error, but they wouldn't have been able to > explain the behaviour without including the influential property. So > (1) wouldn't be true. The point was that for where (1) is true then so > is (2). > We do include the property of subjective experience in explaining the behavior of conscious entities under the laws of physics, so your analogy is still faulty. -- 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, 21:51, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 9 Jun, 17:04, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > wrote: > > > 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. > > What we are talking about though is our conscious experiences, which > have been refered to as subjective experiences, to avoid people > redefining the term so as not to refer the the conscious/subjective > experiences we have. Though as no one else so far had stooped so low > as to do it with the term subjective experiences, I was hoping that > the people corresponding might not resort to such disingenious > tricks. > > So your point is, that if they put a face recognition system in a > phone, and the system put out the audio signal of "I saw Mary Kate", > you would claim the phone to be having subjective experiences. Would > it have what is sometimes refered to as an 'internal perspective' such > as the robot character Terminator in the movie had though, or an > 'internal perspective' such as humans have. In other words, would it > make sense to say, "if you could see it through the phones eyes/ > camera...", any more than it would make sense to say "if you could > hear it through the phones ears/microphone"? Are you going to pretend > you don't know what is being asked? My point is that in principle subjective experiences could be made part of a Robot. That is: An interpretation of incoming data could be stored and be used for either reporting or for comparison with other data and for deciding what action to take next. According to Dennett the essential characteristic of consciousness would be the narrative. In the simple example I gave there is already an internal perspective. The Robot "thinks" he saw Mary Kate (though it was really Ashley). For the mobile phone this does not work because the phone is not made to either interpret light and sound, report on light and sound or take action on light and sound. It can only put numbers and names together, and only remembers to numbers that have been calling/called. It doesn't even say "Charley AGAIN' when Charley's number is trying to get in touch with me a second time. So no the phone is not even "conscious" of the fact that Charley called me before, even though the earlier call is in the missed calls list. I put conscious between quotes, as this type of consciousness is indeed very flimsy compared to ours. and because someone else might have been using Charley's hand phone. (The Phone wouldn't know the difference, even if it does recreate Charley's voice, because it doesn't have a perspective on the sound it is recreating.) I do however think the term "conscious" is appropriate. What about the ball? Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in news:Xns994AC3365BEE3freddybear@66.150.105.47: > someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in > news:1181418224.687508.118800@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > >> On 9 Jun, 12:22, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >>> innews: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. >>> >> >> Yes they would have made an error, but they wouldn't have been able >> to explain the behaviour without including the influential property. >> So (1) wouldn't be true. The point was that for where (1) is true >> then so is (2). >> > > We do include the property of subjective experience in explaining the > behavior of conscious entities under the laws of physics, so your > analogy is still faulty. > But regardless of where (1) is true, (2) is not be true. While the physical explanation of operation may be accomplished without knowing that the machine in question is having subjective experience, if the machine did not have that experience it would be a different machine, and therefore could not satisfy condition (2). It is not logically possible for two entities to be identical if one has and the other does not have an "influential property". -- 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 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 9 Jun, 23:41, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > On 9 jun, 21:51, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > On 9 Jun, 17:04, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > What we are talking about though is our conscious experiences, which > > have been refered to as subjective experiences, to avoid people > > redefining the term so as not to refer the the conscious/subjective > > experiences we have. Though as no one else so far had stooped so low > > as to do it with the term subjective experiences, I was hoping that > > the people corresponding might not resort to such disingenious > > tricks. > > > So your point is, that if they put a face recognition system in a > > phone, and the system put out the audio signal of "I saw Mary Kate", > > you would claim the phone to be having subjective experiences. Would > > it have what is sometimes refered to as an 'internal perspective' such > > as the robot character Terminator in the movie had though, or an > > 'internal perspective' such as humans have. In other words, would it > > make sense to say, "if you could see it through the phones eyes/ > > camera...", any more than it would make sense to say "if you could > > hear it through the phones ears/microphone"? Are you going to pretend > > you don't know what is being asked? > > My point is that in principle subjective experiences could be made > part of a Robot. > That is: An interpretation of incoming data could be stored and be > used for either reporting or for comparison with other data and for > deciding what action to take next. According to Dennett the essential > characteristic of consciousness would be the narrative. In the simple > example I gave there is already an internal perspective. The Robot > "thinks" he saw Mary Kate (though it was really Ashley). > > For the mobile phone this does not work because the phone is not made > to either interpret light and sound, report on light and sound or take > action on light and sound. It can only put numbers and names together, > and only remembers to numbers that have been calling/called. It > doesn't even say "Charley AGAIN' when Charley's number is trying to > get in touch with me a second time. > So no the phone is not even "conscious" of the fact that Charley > called me before, even though the earlier call is in the missed calls > list. > I put conscious between quotes, as this type of consciousness is > indeed very flimsy compared to ours. and because someone else might > have been using Charley's hand phone. (The Phone wouldn't know the > difference, even if it does recreate Charley's voice, because it > doesn't have a perspective on the sound it is recreating.) > I do however think the term "conscious" is appropriate. > > What about the ball? > Ah ok, so you are talking about the subjective experiences we have, you are just suggesting that if the robot had a certain "complexity and configuration", then unlike the mobile phone it might have them too. The ball analogy, it 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. This can be shown again in the following form: 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 concrete example, to put it in context: 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 affect 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). 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). Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 9 Jun, 23:17, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181418224.687508.118800@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On 9 Jun, 12:22, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >> innews: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. > > > Yes they would have made an error, but they wouldn't have been able to > > explain the behaviour without including the influential property. So > > (1) wouldn't be true. The point was that for where (1) is true then so > > is (2). > > We do include the property of subjective experience in explaining the > behavior of conscious entities under the laws of physics, so your > analogy is still faulty. > The point is that we cannot be simply biological mechanisms following the laws of physics, it is an implausible story, and shown to be so through reason. You have said yourself that the behaviour of a robot could be explained without knowledge of whether it had any subjective experiences or not. Why would you think the same would not be the case with us if we were in a sense a biological robot? It isn't an analogy, it holds true for any physical entity strictly following the laws of physics. I have written it another way for you below: 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. Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same It follows that if (1) is true, then so is (2). To give you an concrete example, to put it in context: 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 affect 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). 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). Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 9 Jun, 23:48, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote innews:Xns994AC3365BEE3freddybear@66.150.105.47: > > > > > > > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in > >news:1181418224.687508.118800@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > > >> On 9 Jun, 12:22, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >>> innews: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. > > >> Yes they would have made an error, but they wouldn't have been able > >> to explain the behaviour without including the influential property. > >> So (1) wouldn't be true. The point was that for where (1) is true > >> then so is (2). > > > We do include the property of subjective experience in explaining the > > behavior of conscious entities under the laws of physics, so your > > analogy is still faulty. > > But regardless of where (1) is true, (2) is not be true. While the > physical explanation of operation may be accomplished without knowing > that the machine in question is having subjective experience, if the > machine did not have that experience it would be a different > machine, and therefore could not satisfy condition (2). It is not > logically possible for two entities to be identical if one has and the > other does not have an "influential property". > > -- I have given this reasoning to you in my last response, but will do so again to address your point. This can be shown again in the following form: 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. It follows that if (1) is true, then so is (2). To give you an concrete example, to put it in context: M = a car B(M) = parked with its engine running P = its serial number Which means: 1) The behaviour of 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 subjective experiences, or lack of, does not affect the car parked with its engine running, else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without subjective experiences. Since (1) is true, so is (2). Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same The reasoning has nothing to do with there being two different mechanisms, it can be applied to any given physical entity, and doesn't require a comparison entity. It is to show for any given physical entity that if something isn't required in the explanation then it can't be influential. In the car example, if the car did have a serial number the presence of the property of a serial number couldn't be said to be influential. The explanation of behaviour has nothing to do with the presence or absence of the property. Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 someone2 wrote: > On 9 Jun, 23:17, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181418224.687508.118800@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> <...> >> >> 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. >> >> > Yes they would have made an error, but they wouldn't have been able to >> > explain the behaviour without including the influential property. So >> > (1) wouldn't be true. The point was that for where (1) is true then so >> > is (2). >> >> We do include the property of subjective experience in explaining the >> behavior of conscious entities under the laws of physics, so your >> analogy is still faulty. >> > > The point is that we cannot be simply biological mechanisms following > the laws of physics, it is an implausible story, and shown to be so > through reason. You have said yourself that the behaviour of a robot > could be explained without knowledge of whether it had any subjective > experiences or not. Why would you think the same would not be the case > with us if we were in a sense a biological robot? > > It isn't an analogy, it holds true for any physical entity strictly > following the laws of physics. I have written it another way for you > below: > > 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. > > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same > > It follows that if (1) is true, then so is (2). > That does not follow. B(M) could be explained by the laws of physics independently of P, regardless of whether P does influence B(M), however the behavior then may not be the same with and without P, regardless of whether P is known to exist. For example, we can explain the motions of the planets by the laws of physics without knowing the precise property of Gravitons that produce the effect. But take away the Gravitons and planetary motion would be vastly different. > To give you an concrete example, to put it in context: > > 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. > Internal states of memories are not serial numbers. > 2) Presence of a serial number, or lack of, does not affect 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). > To give you an example, Glenn, M is a particular PC with Windows XP installed. M' is an identical PC with Linux installed. Both machines are described entirely according to the laws of physics. Both machines are completely identical in every detail except for the internal states of their memory. Their behavior will not be the same. Therefore any explanation of their behavior will necessarily not be the same. > > 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). Assuming your conclusions again, Glenn. You're just running around in circles never actually getting any closer to a demonstration that behavior can't be influenced by subjective experiences. You're just assuming it. The known laws of physics do not show that. They do not rule out subjective experience in any way shape or form. > 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. > You're simply piling up fallacies at this point, Glenn, there is no point in responding other than to say pass me the Italian Dressing for that word salad. > 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). Pure nonsense, Glenn. I don't know why you aren't completely ashamed to publish such utter bullshit in a public forum. -- 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." Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181417934.359700.133760@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > 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: No, why don't you address it the way you put it? And the way I answered it? Are you too stupid or afraid to? Are you a moron, a coward, or both? > M refers to the physical entity in question. My car! > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. It gets me to my destination in air-conditioned comfort! > P refers to the a property in question. Gas in the tank! > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > knowledge of whether it has P or not. My car employs the laws of physics to get me to my destination in air-conditioned comfort! > 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. Oddly, that doesn't match reality at all! When there's no gas in the tank of my car, I DON'T get to my destination in air conditioned comfort! My car just sits there following the laws of physics. Bummer! > if (1) is true, then so is (2) My car still says you're just plain stupid. > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same How can my car, getting somewhere in air conditioned comfort, and gas in the tank all be the same thing? That's just stupid. > 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. But if the situation is: > M = my car > B(M) = parked with its engine running > P = gas in the tank Then suddenly your formula fails! Once the gas runs out, the car no longer has a running engine. > Since (1) is true, so is (2). Not if there's no gas in the tank. > 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. You're so stupid, my car is embarrassed for you. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181415885.741369.130790@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > 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? On the basis that they know physics. The density of the helium in the black orbs will change as solar energy does its job. Don't blame me if you have no concept of physics. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 10 Jun, 02:15, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181417934.359700.133760@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > 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: > > No, why don't you address it the way you put it? > > And the way I answered it? > > Are you too stupid or afraid to? > > Are you a moron, a coward, or both? > > > M refers to the physical entity in question. > > My car! > > > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. > > It gets me to my destination in air-conditioned comfort! > > > P refers to the a property in question. > > Gas in the tank! > > > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > > knowledge of whether it has P or not. > > My car employs the laws of physics to get me to my destination in > air-conditioned comfort! > > > 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. > > Oddly, that doesn't match reality at all! When there's no gas in the tank of > my car, I DON'T get to my destination in air conditioned comfort! My car > just sits there following the laws of physics. > > Bummer! > > > if (1) is true, then so is (2) > > My car still says you're just plain stupid. > > > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same > > How can my car, getting somewhere in air conditioned comfort, and gas in the > tank all be the same thing? That's just stupid. > > > 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. > > But if the situation is: > > > M = my car > > B(M) = parked with its engine running > > P = gas in the tank > > Then suddenly your formula fails! Once the gas runs out, the car no longer > has a running engine. > > > Since (1) is true, so is (2). > > Not if there's no gas in the tank. > > > 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. > > You're so stupid, my car is embarrassed for you. > I pointed out: ------------- Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same ------------- To which you replied: ------------- How can my car, getting somewhere in air conditioned comfort, and gas in the tank all be the same thing? That's just stupid. ------------- I assume this was just another example of your disingenious creativity. M isn't the same as B(M) which isn't the same as P. It is that M mentioned in (1) is the same as M mentioned in (2), and B(M) mentioned in (1) is the same as B(M) mentioned in (2), and P mentioned in (1) is the same as P mentioned in (2). If you can now understand this, you can see if (2) wasn't true, because there was no gas in the tank, then (1) couldn't have been true, as it getting you to your destination in air couldn't be explained without gas in the tank. You'll notice it also gets through your usual well polished deception in that it applies to and physical entity that strictly follows the laws of physics, and doesn't require a comparison entity. So here it is again, and hopefully you won't simply be grasping at ways to misinterpret what is being said, but actually face reason for once. 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. Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same It follows that if (1) is true, then so is (2). Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 10 Jun, 02:15, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181417934.359700.133760@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > 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: > > No, why don't you address it the way you put it? > > And the way I answered it? > > Are you too stupid or afraid to? > > Are you a moron, a coward, or both? > > > M refers to the physical entity in question. > > My car! > > > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. > > It gets me to my destination in air-conditioned comfort! > > > P refers to the a property in question. > > Gas in the tank! > > > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > > knowledge of whether it has P or not. > > My car employs the laws of physics to get me to my destination in > air-conditioned comfort! > > > 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. > > Oddly, that doesn't match reality at all! When there's no gas in the tank of > my car, I DON'T get to my destination in air conditioned comfort! My car > just sits there following the laws of physics. > > Bummer! > > > if (1) is true, then so is (2) > > My car still says you're just plain stupid. > > > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same > > How can my car, getting somewhere in air conditioned comfort, and gas in the > tank all be the same thing? That's just stupid. > > > 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. > > But if the situation is: > > > M = my car > > B(M) = parked with its engine running > > P = gas in the tank > > Then suddenly your formula fails! Once the gas runs out, the car no longer > has a running engine. > > > Since (1) is true, so is (2). > > Not if there's no gas in the tank. > > > 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. > > You're so stupid, my car is embarrassed for you. > I pointed out: ------------- Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same ------------- To which you replied: ------------- How can my car, getting somewhere in air conditioned comfort, and gas in the tank all be the same thing? That's just stupid. ------------- I assume this was just another example of your disingenious creativity. M isn't the same as B(M) which isn't the same as P. It is that M mentioned in (1) is the same as M mentioned in (2), and B(M) mentioned in (1) is the same as B(M) mentioned in (2), and P mentioned in (1) is the same as P mentioned in (2). If you can now understand this, you can see if (2) wasn't true, because there was no gas in the tank, then (1) couldn't have been true, as it getting you to your destination in air couldn't be explained without gas in the tank. You'll notice it also gets through your usual well polished deception in that it applies to and physical entity that strictly follows the laws of physics, and doesn't require a comparison entity. So here it is again, and hopefully you won't simply be grasping at ways to misinterpret what is being said, but actually face reason for once. 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. Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same It follows that if (1) is true, then so is (2). Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181440301.918077.327620@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Jun, 02:15, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181417934.359700.133760@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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: >> >> No, why don't you address it the way you put it? >> >> And the way I answered it? >> >> Are you too stupid or afraid to? >> >> Are you a moron, a coward, or both? >> >> > M refers to the physical entity in question. >> >> My car! >> >> > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. >> >> It gets me to my destination in air-conditioned comfort! >> >> > P refers to the a property in question. >> >> Gas in the tank! >> >> > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring >> > knowledge of whether it has P or not. >> >> My car employs the laws of physics to get me to my destination in >> air-conditioned comfort! >> >> > 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. >> >> Oddly, that doesn't match reality at all! When there's no gas in the tank >> of >> my car, I DON'T get to my destination in air conditioned comfort! My car >> just sits there following the laws of physics. >> >> Bummer! >> >> > if (1) is true, then so is (2) >> >> My car still says you're just plain stupid. >> >> > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same >> >> How can my car, getting somewhere in air conditioned comfort, and gas in >> the >> tank all be the same thing? That's just stupid. >> >> > 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. >> >> But if the situation is: >> >> > M = my car >> > B(M) = parked with its engine running >> > P = gas in the tank >> >> Then suddenly your formula fails! Once the gas runs out, the car no >> longer >> has a running engine. >> >> > Since (1) is true, so is (2). >> >> Not if there's no gas in the tank. >> >> > 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. >> >> You're so stupid, my car is embarrassed for you. >> > > I pointed out: > ------------- > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same > ------------- > > To which you replied: > ------------- > How can my car, getting somewhere in air conditioned comfort, and gas > in the tank all be the same thing? That's just stupid. > ------------- > > I assume this was just another example of your disingenious > creativity. M isn't the same as B(M) which isn't the same as P. It is > that M mentioned in (1) is the same as M mentioned in (2), and B(M) > mentioned in (1) is the same as B(M) mentioned in (2), and P mentioned > in (1) is the same as P mentioned in (2). > > If you can now understand this, you can see if (2) wasn't true, > because there was no gas in the tank, then (1) couldn't have been > true, as it getting you to your destination in air couldn't be > explained without gas in the tank. > > You'll notice it also gets through your usual well polished deception > in that it applies to and physical entity that strictly follows the > laws of physics, and doesn't require a comparison entity. > > So here it is again, and hopefully you won't simply be grasping at > ways to misinterpret what is being said, but actually face reason for > once. > > M refers to the physical entity in question. My car. > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. It's sitting there inert. > P refers to the a property in question. Gas in the tank. > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > knowledge of whether it has P or not. The car sits there inert, according to the laws of physics. Doesn't matter if there's gas in the tank 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. Right. A car with no gas in the tank is exactly the same as a car with gas in the tank. Excellent! Thank you! Now I never have to buy gas again! I can drive around with or without gas. Yup, your example sure matches reality. Not. > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same Note that the above sentence is an admitted lie. > It follows that if (1) is true, then so is (2). Nope. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest Lisbeth Andersson Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181415772.483273.54580@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > 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. > I don't see any reason to go through any argument when I don't agreee with the premises. > 1) The behaviour of M is explained by the laws of physics without > requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. > P(A)? > 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). Balls dipped in catnip follow exactly the same laws of physics as balls not dipped in catnip. Howerver, the ball dipped in catnip is bouncing all over the room, while the ball not dipped in catnip is just laying there. Which properties of the cat in the room is not needed for the explanation? 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 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181439670.481064.324500@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Jun, 02:15, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181417934.359700.133760@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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: >> >> No, why don't you address it the way you put it? >> >> And the way I answered it? >> >> Are you too stupid or afraid to? >> >> Are you a moron, a coward, or both? >> >> > M refers to the physical entity in question. >> >> My car! >> >> > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. >> >> It gets me to my destination in air-conditioned comfort! >> >> > P refers to the a property in question. >> >> Gas in the tank! >> >> > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring >> > knowledge of whether it has P or not. >> >> My car employs the laws of physics to get me to my destination in >> air-conditioned comfort! >> >> > 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. >> >> Oddly, that doesn't match reality at all! When there's no gas in the tank >> of >> my car, I DON'T get to my destination in air conditioned comfort! My car >> just sits there following the laws of physics. >> >> Bummer! >> >> > if (1) is true, then so is (2) >> >> My car still says you're just plain stupid. >> >> > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same >> >> How can my car, getting somewhere in air conditioned comfort, and gas in >> the >> tank all be the same thing? That's just stupid. >> >> > 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. >> >> But if the situation is: >> >> > M = my car >> > B(M) = parked with its engine running >> > P = gas in the tank >> >> Then suddenly your formula fails! Once the gas runs out, the car no >> longer >> has a running engine. >> >> > Since (1) is true, so is (2). >> >> Not if there's no gas in the tank. >> >> > 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. >> >> You're so stupid, my car is embarrassed for you. >> > > I pointed out: Snip This is all utterly irrelevant. You've already presented an example that disproves your point, with the orbs. It no longer matters if you can concoct a situation that matches your formula, or patch up your orb example, you've already provided a concrete disconfirming scenario. It matches all the criteria of your furmula, but arrives at the opposite conclusion. That's as about as disproved as a thought experiment can possibley be. Even you should be able to see that. But you can't, can you. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 someone2 wrote: > On 9 Jun, 23:48, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote >> innews:Xns994AC3365BEE3freddybear@66.150.105.47: >> >> >> >> >> >> > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in >> >news:1181418224.687508.118800@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> On 9 Jun, 12:22, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >>> innews: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. >> >> >> Yes they would have made an error, but they wouldn't have been able >> >> to explain the behaviour without including the influential property. >> >> So (1) wouldn't be true. The point was that for where (1) is true >> >> then so is (2). >> >> > We do include the property of subjective experience in explaining the >> > behavior of conscious entities under the laws of physics, so your >> > analogy is still faulty. >> >> But regardless of where (1) is true, (2) is not be true. While the >> physical explanation of operation may be accomplished without knowing >> that the machine in question is having subjective experience, if the >> machine did not have that experience it would be a different >> machine, and therefore could not satisfy condition (2). It is not >> logically possible for two entities to be identical if one has and the >> other does not have an "influential property". >> >> -- <snip repasted material> I addressed those points, Glenn, and you didn't address mine at all. I answered your question completely and thoroughly, and destroyed it completely and thoroughly. Unless you have some new material, don't bother replying. Definitely don't bother repasting the same material again. Why are you wasting my 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." Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 10 Jun, 03:34, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181440301.918077.327620@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > On 10 Jun, 02:15, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181417934.359700.133760@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> > 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: > > >> No, why don't you address it the way you put it? > > >> And the way I answered it? > > >> Are you too stupid or afraid to? > > >> Are you a moron, a coward, or both? > > >> > M refers to the physical entity in question. > > >> My car! > > >> > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. > > >> It gets me to my destination in air-conditioned comfort! > > >> > P refers to the a property in question. > > >> Gas in the tank! > > >> > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > >> > knowledge of whether it has P or not. > > >> My car employs the laws of physics to get me to my destination in > >> air-conditioned comfort! > > >> > 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. > > >> Oddly, that doesn't match reality at all! When there's no gas in the tank > >> of > >> my car, I DON'T get to my destination in air conditioned comfort! My car > >> just sits there following the laws of physics. > > >> Bummer! > > >> > if (1) is true, then so is (2) > > >> My car still says you're just plain stupid. > > >> > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same > > >> How can my car, getting somewhere in air conditioned comfort, and gas in > >> the > >> tank all be the same thing? That's just stupid. > > >> > 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. > > >> But if the situation is: > > >> > M = my car > >> > B(M) = parked with its engine running > >> > P = gas in the tank > > >> Then suddenly your formula fails! Once the gas runs out, the car no > >> longer > >> has a running engine. > > >> > Since (1) is true, so is (2). > > >> Not if there's no gas in the tank. > > >> > 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. > > >> You're so stupid, my car is embarrassed for you. > > > I pointed out: > > ------------- > > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same > > ------------- > > > To which you replied: > > ------------- > > How can my car, getting somewhere in air conditioned comfort, and gas > > in the tank all be the same thing? That's just stupid. > > ------------- > > > I assume this was just another example of your disingenious > > creativity. M isn't the same as B(M) which isn't the same as P. It is > > that M mentioned in (1) is the same as M mentioned in (2), and B(M) > > mentioned in (1) is the same as B(M) mentioned in (2), and P mentioned > > in (1) is the same as P mentioned in (2). > > > If you can now understand this, you can see if (2) wasn't true, > > because there was no gas in the tank, then (1) couldn't have been > > true, as it getting you to your destination in air couldn't be > > explained without gas in the tank. > > > You'll notice it also gets through your usual well polished deception > > in that it applies to and physical entity that strictly follows the > > laws of physics, and doesn't require a comparison entity. > > > So here it is again, and hopefully you won't simply be grasping at > > ways to misinterpret what is being said, but actually face reason for > > once. > > > M refers to the physical entity in question. > > My car. > > > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. > > It's sitting there inert. > > > P refers to the a property in question. > > Gas in the tank. > > > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > > knowledge of whether it has P or not. > > The car sits there inert, according to the laws of physics. Doesn't matter > if there's gas in the tank 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. > > Right. A car with no gas in the tank is exactly the same as a car with gas > in the tank. > > Excellent! Thank you! Now I never have to buy gas again! I can drive around > with or without gas. > > Yup, your example sure matches reality. > > Not. > > > Notice the M, B(M) and P in both (1) and (2) are the same > > Note that the above sentence is an admitted lie. > > > It follows that if (1) is true, then so is (2). > > Nope. > Presence of gas in the tank doesn't influence the car sitting there inert, so (2) would be true. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 10 Jun, 03:46, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181415772.483273.54580@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > 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. > > I don't see any reason to go through any argument when I don't > agreee with the premises. > > > 1) The behaviour of M is explained by the laws of physics without > > requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. > > P(A)? > > > 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). > > Balls dipped in catnip follow exactly the same laws of physics as > balls not dipped in catnip. Howerver, the ball dipped in catnip is > bouncing all over the room, while the ball not dipped in catnip is > just laying there. Which properties of the cat in the room is not > needed for the explanation? > Let me put it another way, I didn't notice you were still on a different wording of it, one which has caused other similar misunderstandings of what is being said, so I accept some responsibility for not making it clear. Using the following wording: 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. Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), and P is the same in (1) and (2). 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 influence/affect B(M), else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. If (1) is true, then (2) is true. Hopefully now it is reworded, you can see why your example wasn't appropriate. Quote
Guest Richard Smol Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On Jun 10, 12:57 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 10 Jun, 03:46, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote: > > > > > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181415772.483273.54580@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > > > > 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. > > > I don't see any reason to go through any argument when I don't > > agreee with the premises. > > > > 1) The behaviour of M is explained by the laws of physics without > > > requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. > > > P(A)? > > > > 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). > > > Balls dipped in catnip follow exactly the same laws of physics as > > balls not dipped in catnip. Howerver, the ball dipped in catnip is > > bouncing all over the room, while the ball not dipped in catnip is > > just laying there. Which properties of the cat in the room is not > > needed for the explanation? > > Let me put it another way, I didn't notice you were still on a > different wording of it, one which has caused other similar > misunderstandings of what is being said, so I accept some > responsibility for not making it clear. > > Using the following wording: > > 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. > > Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), > and P is the same in (1) and (2). > > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > knowledge of whether it has P or not. Yes. Everything follows the laws of physcis, no matter what behavior is shown and no matter if the base of that behavior is biological of not. > 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the > explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. That totally depends on the property, the entity it applies to and the behavior we see. In other words: you need a lot more information to tell whether a certain property affects the behavior of something. This is also totally unrelated to the original question how to determine whether something exhibits consciousness . The answer to that question can only be derived from an object's behavior, unrelated to the question of what properties caused that behavior in the first place. Maybe consciousness could arise if you just tie a lot of shoelaces together. Why would it matter? > If (1) is true, then (2) is true. Not at all all. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. > Hopefully now it is reworded, you can see why your example wasn't > appropriate. Coming from someone who is so inept at logic, that's quite an ironic remark. RS Quote
Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 10 jun, 02:11, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 9 Jun, 23:41, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > wrote: > > > On 9 jun, 21:51, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 9 Jun, 17:04, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > What we are talking about though is our conscious experiences, which > > > have been refered to as subjective experiences, to avoid people > > > redefining the term so as not to refer the the conscious/subjective > > > experiences we have. Though as no one else so far had stooped so low > > > as to do it with the term subjective experiences, I was hoping that > > > the people corresponding might not resort to such disingenious > > > tricks. > > > > So your point is, that if they put a face recognition system in a > > > phone, and the system put out the audio signal of "I saw Mary Kate", > > > you would claim the phone to be having subjective experiences. Would > > > it have what is sometimes refered to as an 'internal perspective' such > > > as the robot character Terminator in the movie had though, or an > > > 'internal perspective' such as humans have. In other words, would it > > > make sense to say, "if you could see it through the phones eyes/ > > > camera...", any more than it would make sense to say "if you could > > > hear it through the phones ears/microphone"? Are you going to pretend > > > you don't know what is being asked? > > > My point is that in principle subjective experiences could be made > > part of a Robot. > > That is: An interpretation of incoming data could be stored and be > > used for either reporting or for comparison with other data and for > > deciding what action to take next. According to Dennett the essential > > characteristic of consciousness would be the narrative. In the simple > > example I gave there is already an internal perspective. The Robot > > "thinks" he saw Mary Kate (though it was really Ashley). > > > For the mobile phone this does not work because the phone is not made > > to either interpret light and sound, report on light and sound or take > > action on light and sound. It can only put numbers and names together, > > and only remembers to numbers that have been calling/called. It > > doesn't even say "Charley AGAIN' when Charley's number is trying to > > get in touch with me a second time. > > So no the phone is not even "conscious" of the fact that Charley > > called me before, even though the earlier call is in the missed calls > > list. > > I put conscious between quotes, as this type of consciousness is > > indeed very flimsy compared to ours. and because someone else might > > have been using Charley's hand phone. (The Phone wouldn't know the > > difference, even if it does recreate Charley's voice, because it > > doesn't have a perspective on the sound it is recreating.) > > I do however think the term "conscious" is appropriate. > > > What about the ball? > > Ah ok, so you are talking about the subjective experiences we have, > you are just suggesting that if the robot had a certain "complexity > and configuration", then unlike the mobile phone it might have them > too. > > The ball analogy, it 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. > > This can be shown again in the following form: > > 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 concrete example, to put it in context: > > 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 affect 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). > > 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). Misunderstandings are hard to get rid of so just to be sure: I am not suggesting that the robot needs complexity to have subjective experiences. I am suggesting that a simple robot might have them, but we can only conclude that is has them, if it can keep track of intermediate or output data and report on the data, and take action because of the data. This logged data would in fact be the subjective experience. I am also suggesting that the raw input data, even if stored and reported on, would not constitute a subjective experience. (it would be rather objective ) It is true that because of the way our brain is functioning we have little objective experiences, whereas a voicemail recorder has little else. I do not think that subjective experiences cannot influence the behaviour of the mechanism. They hardly influence there own creation, but they can have a great influence over our later functioning. A simple test would be imagining slimy snails while eating escargots, If you imagination is strong enough, it may make you spit out your food. The fact that the spitting could be theoretically explained by the working of brain synapses only doesn't change the fact that these synapses where triggered because of previous knowledge concerning slimy snails. (which by itself seems to be only a chemical condition in a group of synapses, I am not an expert in this field, so I might be mistaken here) I will present to you a simple piece of computer program, to explain this better (I hope) IF R130-KMV = 1 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO GO OUT WITH ME TONIGHT?" END-IF The printed line could be explained by the fact that a computer byte contained the character "1". However, that doesn't change the subjective experience, that the computer will ask this for every female employee he finds in the file. R130-KMV happens to be the gender-code in our employee database, 1 meaning female, 2 meaning male. You do not need to know this in order to explain the workings of the computer program, but if you do the program makes a bit more sense especially if you know the programmer is a heterosexual male. A serial number on a car is a bad example, as the car itself does not keep track of serial numbers, nor does its serial number influence its future behaviour. Also it is not subjective, but rather objective. Also I do not agree subjective experiences are coincidental. If that were so, people would be really bad witnesses, and intelligence would be impossible. We need subjective experiences in order to have something to put into our memory. There is no room in our brain for all the raw data our senses keep putting in. So we change a bitmap into a JPEG (actually something quite different, but the technical aspects are not important) and if the JPEG qualifies as "the face of Mary Kate" we only remember "MaryKate" bringing the required memory down to 64 bits of data (or something similar). I do not see why the laws of physics would not be true for subjective experiences. To get back to the ball: It's colour is not a subjective experience of the ball. It is an objective attribute of the ball If I see the ball, the colour might be part of the subjective experience I have, and may lure me into thinking it was a bowling ball (if black) or a Ping-Pong ball if white) To the ball it would not be an experience at all. Sorry, Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181308393.093187.316190@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> > 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, I have none .. you on the other hand... > and to try be dispassionately > logial when evaluating the following. I am [snip copy and paste] > 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. B is incorrect, as the explanation would need to take into account any effects of subhjective expereicens. > C) Whether the mechanism were subjectively experiencing doesn't affect > behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. Wrong because B is wrong [snip implication from incorrect argument] Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181434855.600392.292620@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > The point is that we cannot be simply biological mechanisms following > the laws of physics, We can > it is an implausible story, Incorrect > and shown to be so through reason. If so, then not done by you > 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. That is not valid when P is subjective experience. > 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. [snip crap] Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181473049.903786.211810@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), > and P is the same in (1) and (2). > > 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 influence/affect B(M), else the > explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. > > If (1) is true, then (2) is true. Yeup .. but not relevant Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181352048.160480.199190@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > 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. There you go .. subject experience affects behaviour .. behaiouv that is not outside the laws of physics. Thanks for disproving your own arguements. Now you can go away 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.