Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181471104.632034.40450@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > 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. Until the key is turned in the ignition. If there's gas in the tank, then it's suddenly false. -- 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 "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:FNednZ5aMcoN3PHbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@io.com... > > "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:1181471104.632034.40450@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> 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. > > Until the key is turned in the ignition. > > If there's gas in the tank, then it's suddenly false. Look, are you trying, in your own stupid and inept way, to get me to say that there are properties that have no effect on the behavior of the thing they're a property of? Well that's a big yes! Of COURSE there are properties that have no effect on behavior. Your example of the serial number, for example. So what? Are you dishonestly trying to equate the irrelevant-to-behavior aspect of a serial number to the crucial-to-behavior aspect of subjective experience? If you were honest, your examples would be either the car's elecrtical system compared to subjective experience, or a serial number compared to a tattoo. The effects of subjective experience on behavior are not subtle, and do not conceptually map to the irrelevancy of a serial number. I think that subjective experience is the action of physical matter in physical brains following the laws of physics. The subjective experience is not apart from that physical action. Subjective Experience is simply a name we apply to a certain catagory of physical actions found in brains. It is a subset, not an "extra thing", somehow apart from the normal operation of the brain. It IS the normal operation of the brain. If you remove it from the operation of the brain, you would expect radically different behavior, just like you would expect if you ripped out crucial subroutines from a computer program. Without subjective experience, the human brain is no longer operating normally, even though it is still, of course, operating according to the laws of physics. I know it was pointless of me to type all that out in a vain attempt to communicate with you. I know you will ignore it and just ask the same fucking question you always ask again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. But I thought it was worth a try. -- 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 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181513315.844514.222860@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > On 10 Jun, 13:32, Richard Smol <richard.s...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > > Can you understand the following is always true: > No I cannot understand that, because it is not always true. > 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). > They are not the same in both (1) and (2) for all possible M and B(M) and P. > 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. > The truth values of (1) and (2) are independent. Either or both or neither may be true. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181513369.909731.134580@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: <...> > > Do you see that the following is always true: > No, because it's not always true. <snip repasted material> -- 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 10 Jun, 13:32, Richard Smol <richard.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Can you understand the following is always true: 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. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 10 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > 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. > Do you see that the following is always true: 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. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 10 Jun, 19:23, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181471104.632034.40450@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. > > Until the key is turned in the ignition. > > If there's gas in the tank, then it's suddenly false. > Then you would have changed B(M) and so (1) would no longer be true, as you couldn't explain the behaviour without knowledge of gas being in the tank. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 10 Jun, 20:36, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message > > news:FNednZ5aMcoN3PHbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@io.com... > > > > > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >news:1181471104.632034.40450@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >> 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 > (snipped some of the older stuff) > >>> >> >> > 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. > > > Until the key is turned in the ignition. > > > If there's gas in the tank, then it's suddenly false. > > Look, are you trying, in your own stupid and inept way, to get me to say > that there are properties that have no effect on the behavior of the thing > they're a property of? Well that's a big yes! Of COURSE there are properties > that have no effect on behavior. Your example of the serial number, for > example. > > So what? > > Are you dishonestly trying to equate the irrelevant-to-behavior aspect of a > serial number to the crucial-to-behavior aspect of subjective experience? If > you were honest, your examples would be either the car's elecrtical system > compared to subjective experience, or a serial number compared to a tattoo. > The effects of subjective experience on behavior are not subtle, and do not > conceptually map to the irrelevancy of a serial number. > > I think that subjective experience is the action of physical matter in > physical brains following the laws of physics. The subjective experience is > not apart from that physical action. Subjective Experience is simply a name > we apply to a certain catagory of physical actions found in brains. It is a > subset, not an "extra thing", somehow apart from the normal operation of the > brain. It IS the normal operation of the brain. > > If you remove it from the operation of the brain, you would expect radically > different behavior, just like you would expect if you ripped out crucial > subroutines from a computer program. Without subjective experience, the > human brain is no longer operating normally, even though it is still, of > course, operating according to the laws of physics. > > I know it was pointless of me to type > Subjective experiences are a label to what you actually consciously experience. That the brain is directly responsible for them is an assertion. I can't say it is an explanation, as there could be no explanation from your perspective why any physical activity would be subjectively experienced, or why it wasn't just fluctuations of the colour green for example, the brightness dependent on the amount of neurons firing. Nothing in your perspective would know what the neuron state represented. The point was that even if you wanted to believe in the story that we were simply biological mechanisms, and that our subjective experiences were an emergent property of the brain. The emergent property couldn't be said to be influential in behaviour due to: 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. The story that our subjective experiences have no influence on our behaviour is implausible, even though you bet your soul on it, unable to see through the deception, and still cling to it, even if you have to disingeniously misunderstand. That you can't face that you were wrong, and that you are shown to be so through reason, appears to me as pathetic. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 10 Jun, 22:35, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181513315.844514.222860@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On 10 Jun, 13:32, Richard Smol <richard.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Can you understand the following is always true: > > No I cannot understand that, because it is not always true. > > > 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). > > They are not the same in both (1) and (2) for all > possible M and B(M) and P. > > > 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. > > The truth values of (1) and (2) are independent. Either or both or > neither may be true. > No if (1) is true, then (2) is true, 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). Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181513466.127246.137310@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Jun, 19:23, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181471104.632034.40450@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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. >> >> Until the key is turned in the ignition. >> >> If there's gas in the tank, then it's suddenly false. >> > Then you would have changed B(M) and so (1) would no longer be true, > as you couldn't explain the behaviour without knowledge of gas being > in the tank. What? Driving is not part of the behavior of a car? I'll have to remember that. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 11 jun, 00:09, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 10 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > wrote: > > > 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. > > Do you see that the following is always true: > > 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. Fred Stone wasn't much help, but he is right. It is not always true If P is a property of M, it can influence B(M), but even when it does, you do not need to specify P, but use components op P instead (or use terms of which P is actually a part) to explain B(M). A subjective experience is a property of a person Hence it can influence the persons behaviour, but in stead of naming it, you may use the state of synapses that constitutes P. To get back to the ball: It's colour may have little influence on it's bouncing, but its composition and weight might. As ping-pong balls are mostly white and bowling balls used to be black, one may even expect that - in general - white balls will bounce higher then black balls, but I agree its whiteness is not the reason for its bouncing. Nevertheless its composition is. M = a ball B(M) = the bouncing of the ball. P = a property of the ball If P = the colour, your assessment is right. If P = the composition of the ball your assessment is wrong. That's why Fred is Right Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 I snipped the lot, as it had got so long had to download it as html, to even read your response. Your last response was: --------- What? Driving is not part of the behavior of a car? I'll have to remember that. --------- Again what I was saying went over your head. Given the following. 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. You had suggested an example written over 2 parts: ---------- The car sits there inert, according to the laws of physics. Doesn't matter if there's gas in the tank or not. ---------- ---------- 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. ---------- To which I pointed out: ---------- Presence of gas in the tank doesn't influence the car sitting there inert, so (2) would be true. ---------- To which you replied: ---------- Until the key is turned in the ignition. If there's gas in the tank, then it's suddenly false. ---------- To which I explained: ---------- Then you would have changed B(M) and so (1) would no longer be true, as you couldn't explain the behaviour without knowledge of gas being in the tank. ---------- To which in your last reply you wrote: ---------- What? Driving is not part of the behavior of a car? I'll have to remember that. ---------- It has nothing to do with driving, it is to do with you changed B(M). The engine running, when you turn the ignition, is not explainable without knowledge of whether there is petrol in the tank, therefore (1) wouldn't be true, and then neither would (2). You keep trying to either change M, B(M) or P so that they are not the same in both (1) and (2). Which is pointless, as the whole point is that if (1) is true, then (2) is true, when M is the same in both (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in both (1) and (2), and P is the same in both (1) and (2). Are you having problems facing it? Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181514806.543814.218460@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Jun, 20:36, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message >> >> news:FNednZ5aMcoN3PHbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@io.com... >> >> >> >> > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >news:1181471104.632034.40450@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> 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 >> > > (snipped some of the older stuff) > >> >>> >> >> > 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. >> >> > Until the key is turned in the ignition. >> >> > If there's gas in the tank, then it's suddenly false. >> >> Look, are you trying, in your own stupid and inept way, to get me to say >> that there are properties that have no effect on the behavior of the >> thing >> they're a property of? Well that's a big yes! Of COURSE there are >> properties >> that have no effect on behavior. Your example of the serial number, for >> example. >> >> So what? >> >> Are you dishonestly trying to equate the irrelevant-to-behavior aspect of >> a >> serial number to the crucial-to-behavior aspect of subjective experience? >> If >> you were honest, your examples would be either the car's elecrtical >> system >> compared to subjective experience, or a serial number compared to a >> tattoo. >> The effects of subjective experience on behavior are not subtle, and do >> not >> conceptually map to the irrelevancy of a serial number. >> >> I think that subjective experience is the action of physical matter in >> physical brains following the laws of physics. The subjective experience >> is >> not apart from that physical action. Subjective Experience is simply a >> name >> we apply to a certain catagory of physical actions found in brains. It is >> a >> subset, not an "extra thing", somehow apart from the normal operation of >> the >> brain. It IS the normal operation of the brain. >> >> If you remove it from the operation of the brain, you would expect >> radically >> different behavior, just like you would expect if you ripped out crucial >> subroutines from a computer program. Without subjective experience, the >> human brain is no longer operating normally, even though it is still, of >> course, operating according to the laws of physics. >> >> I know it was pointless of me to type >> > > Subjective experiences are a label to what you actually consciously > experience. Which is matter in the brain operating according to physical law. > That the brain is directly responsible for them is an > assertion. No, it's a conclusion based on evidence. If you physically manipulate the brain, you manipulate consciousness. > I can't say it is an explanation, as there could be no > explanation from your perspective why any physical activity would be > subjectively experienced, or why it wasn't just fluctuations of the > colour green for example, the brightness dependent on the amount of > neurons firing. Nothing in your perspective would know what the neuron > state represented. That's where your ability to communicate breaks down entirely. What the fuck are you babbling about? "Fluctuations of the color green"? Are you on drugs? > The point was that even if you wanted to believe in the story that we > were simply biological mechanisms, and that our subjective experiences > were an emergent property of the brain. The emergent property couldn't > be said to be influential in behaviour due to: I was right, you're going to ignore what I post and write your fucking formula again. > 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. Then P and/or B has to be pretty fucking trivial. Like a serial number, or being inert. > 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. Yeah, you can concoct a scenario that fulfills these criteria. Big deal. > If (1) is true, then (2) is true. Suppose I agree. So what? This little formula cannot be applied to non-trivial properties and behaviors. If the property is non-trivial, then it will affect behavior, and your formula cannot be applied. So, how DO you deal with properties that DO affect behavior? Do you just pretend they don't exist? > The story that our subjective experiences have no influence on our > behaviour is implausible, From my perspective, you've been arguing against that. I think that subjective experience influences our behavior. > even though you bet your soul on it, unable > to see through the deception, and still cling to it, even if you have > to disingeniously misunderstand. You have not demonstrated that. > That you can't face that you were > wrong, and that you are shown to be so through reason, appears to me > as pathetic. Or perhaps it's you that's completely wrong. Have you even considered the possibility? I'm guessing not. -- 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, 23:58, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > On 11 jun, 00:09, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > On 10 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Do you see that the following is always true: > > > 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. > > Fred Stone wasn't much help, but he is right. It is not always true > > If P is a property of M, it can influence B(M), but even when it does, > you do not need to specify P, but use components op P instead (or use > terms of which P is actually a part) to explain B(M). > > A subjective experience is a property of a person Hence it can > influence the persons behaviour, but in stead of naming it, you may > use the state of synapses that constitutes P. > > To get back to the ball: It's colour may have little influence on it's > bouncing, but its composition and weight might. As ping-pong balls are > mostly white and bowling balls used to be black, one may even expect > that - in general - white balls will bounce higher then black balls, > but I agree its whiteness is not the reason for its bouncing. > Nevertheless its composition is. > > M = a ball > B(M) = the bouncing of the ball. > P = a property of the ball > If P = the colour, your assessment is right. > If P = the composition of the ball your assessment is wrong. > So with the first P, while the colour can be thought of as a property of the composition of the ball, knowledge of that particular property isn't required to explain the bouncing of the ball, so (1) is true, and so is (2). With the second P, the more general property of the composition of the ball, will include properties which the bouncing of the ball could not be explained without knowledge of, therefore (1) would not be true. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On 11 Jun, 00:05, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181514806.543814.218460@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > On 10 Jun, 20:36, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message > > >>news:FNednZ5aMcoN3PHbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@io.com... > > >> > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >> >news:1181471104.632034.40450@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >> >> 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 > > > (snipped some of the older stuff) > > >> >>> >> >> > 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. > > >> > Until the key is turned in the ignition. > > >> > If there's gas in the tank, then it's suddenly false. > > >> Look, are you trying, in your own stupid and inept way, to get me to say > >> that there are properties that have no effect on the behavior of the > >> thing > >> they're a property of? Well that's a big yes! Of COURSE there are > >> properties > >> that have no effect on behavior. Your example of the serial number, for > >> example. > > >> So what? > > >> Are you dishonestly trying to equate the irrelevant-to-behavior aspect of > >> a > >> serial number to the crucial-to-behavior aspect of subjective experience? > >> If > >> you were honest, your examples would be either the car's elecrtical > >> system > >> compared to subjective experience, or a serial number compared to a > >> tattoo. > >> The effects of subjective experience on behavior are not subtle, and do > >> not > >> conceptually map to the irrelevancy of a serial number. > > >> I think that subjective experience is the action of physical matter in > >> physical brains following the laws of physics. The subjective experience > >> is > >> not apart from that physical action. Subjective Experience is simply a > >> name > >> we apply to a certain catagory of physical actions found in brains. It is > >> a > >> subset, not an "extra thing", somehow apart from the normal operation of > >> the > >> brain. It IS the normal operation of the brain. > > >> If you remove it from the operation of the brain, you would expect > >> radically > >> different behavior, just like you would expect if you ripped out crucial > >> subroutines from a computer program. Without subjective experience, the > >> human brain is no longer operating normally, even though it is still, of > >> course, operating according to the laws of physics. > > >> I know it was pointless of me to type > > > Subjective experiences are a label to what you actually consciously > > experience. > > Which is matter in the brain operating according to physical law. > > > That the brain is directly responsible for them is an > > assertion. > > No, it's a conclusion based on evidence. If you physically manipulate the > brain, you manipulate consciousness. > > > I can't say it is an explanation, as there could be no > > explanation from your perspective why any physical activity would be > > subjectively experienced, or why it wasn't just fluctuations of the > > colour green for example, the brightness dependent on the amount of > > neurons firing. Nothing in your perspective would know what the neuron > > state represented. > > That's where your ability to communicate breaks down entirely. What the fuck > are you babbling about? "Fluctuations of the color green"? Are you on drugs? > > > The point was that even if you wanted to believe in the story that we > > were simply biological mechanisms, and that our subjective experiences > > were an emergent property of the brain. The emergent property couldn't > > be said to be influential in behaviour due to: > > I was right, you're going to ignore what I post and write your fucking > formula again. > > > 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. > > Then P and/or B has to be pretty fucking trivial. Like a serial number, or > being inert. > > > 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. > > Yeah, you can concoct a scenario that fulfills these criteria. Big deal. > > > If (1) is true, then (2) is true. > > Suppose I agree. So what? This little formula cannot be applied to > non-trivial properties and behaviors. If the property is non-trivial, then > it will affect behavior, and your formula cannot be applied. > > So, how DO you deal with properties that DO affect behavior? Do you just > pretend they don't exist? > > > The story that our subjective experiences have no influence on our > > behaviour is implausible, > > From my perspective, you've been arguing against that. I think that > subjective experience influences our behavior. > > > even though you bet your soul on it, unable > > to see through the deception, and still cling to it, even if you have > > to disingeniously misunderstand. > > You have not demonstrated that. > > > That you can't face that you were > > wrong, and that you are shown to be so through reason, appears to me > > as pathetic. > > Or perhaps it's you that's completely wrong. Have you even considered the > possibility? > > I'm guessing not. > It is implausible that we simply are a biological mechanism simply following the laws of physics. For that reason alone I could know I wasn't wrong. It is implausible, because it would require our behaviour, including even questioning whether a robot had subjective experiences, would be uninfluenced by us having subjective experiences. This is shown by: 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. Without the assertion that we were a biological mechanism simply following the laws of physics, there would be no reason to assume anything following the laws of physics subjectively experienced, therefore what reason would the biological mechanism (if the assertion were made) have for considering such a thing uninfluenced by it having subjective experiences. You were wrong get used to it. Stop being so pathetic about it. Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181514974.826234.52110@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On 10 Jun, 22:35, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181513315.844514.222860@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 10 Jun, 13:32, Richard Smol <richard.s...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> > Can you understand the following is always true: >> >> No I cannot understand that, because it is not always true. >> >> > 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). >> >> They are not the same in both (1) and (2) for all >> possible M and B(M) and P. >> >> > 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. >> >> The truth values of (1) and (2) are independent. Either or both or >> neither may be true. >> > > No if (1) is true, then (2) is true, 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) may be true and (2) false, or true, or indeterminate. B(M) is not the same for all (1) and (2). and P is not the same in all (1) and (2). -- 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 Jeckyl Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181513315.844514.222860@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > Can you understand the following is always true: > > 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. I have no problem with that .. but you have yet to show that that applies for all M and all B(M) when P is "subjective experience". Ie .. you've not proven your point. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181514806.543814.218460@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Subjective experiences are a label to what you actually consciously > experience. > That the brain is directly responsible for them is an > assertion. There is good evidence that it is > I can't say it is an explanation, as there could be no > explanation from your perspective why any physical activity would be > subjectively experienced, or why it wasn't just fluctuations of the > colour green for example, the brightness dependent on the amount of > neurons firing. Nothing in your perspective would know what the neuron > state represented. eh? > The point was that even if you wanted to believe in the story that we > were simply biological mechanisms, Is there an alternative that isn't fanciful? > and that our subjective experiences > were an emergent property of the brain. The emergent property couldn't > be said to be influential in behaviour due to: Why not? > 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. And this does not apply to human behaviour. > The story that our subjective experiences have no influence on our > behaviour is implausible, even though you bet your soul on it, unable > to see through the deception, and still cling to it, even if you have > to disingeniously misunderstand. That you can't face that you were > wrong, and that you are shown to be so through reason, appears to me > as pathetic. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On 11 Jun, 00:17, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181514974.826234.52110@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On 10 Jun, 22:35, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >> innews:1181513315.844514.222860@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > >> > On 10 Jun, 13:32, Richard Smol <richard.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 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. > > >> > Can you understand the following is always true: > > >> No I cannot understand that, because it is not always true. > > >> > 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). > > >> They are not the same in both (1) and (2) for all > >> possible M and B(M) and P. > > >> > 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. > > >> The truth values of (1) and (2) are independent. Either or both or > >> neither may be true. > > > No if (1) is true, then (2) is true, 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) may be true and (2) false, or true, or indeterminate. B(M) is not > the same for all (1) and (2). and P is not the same in all (1) and (2). > The whole point, is that (2) follows from (1) when they are referring to the same things. Obviously if you weren't referring to the same things in both they wouldn't follow. If you were however, they would. Basically you just have to clearly define the B(M) and the P you are referring to, and then substitute them into (1), and if (1) is true, then so is (2). Do you understand how it works, or would you like me to give you some examples? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On 11 Jun, 03:32, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181513315.844514.222860@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > Can you understand the following is always true: > > > 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. > > I have no problem with that .. but you have yet to show that that applies > for all M and all B(M) when P is "subjective experience". > > Ie .. you've not proven your point. > It doesn't matter what M or B(M) or P are. Why would you suggest it does? Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 someone2 wrote: > On 11 Jun, 00:17, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> innews:1181514974.826234.52110@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> > The whole point, is that (2) follows from (1) when they are referring > to the same things. Obviously if you weren't referring to the same > things in both they wouldn't follow. If you were however, they would. > Yes, Glenn, and when YOU refer to a brain or a robot that is having subjective experiences versus one that is not having subjective experiences, those are not the same things. > Basically you just have to clearly define the B(M) and the P you are > referring to, and then substitute them into (1), and if (1) is true, > then so is (2). > No shit, Sherlock. > Do you understand how it works, or would you like me to give you some > examples? I'm sure you'll give more irrelevant examples anyway, Glenn. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 someone2 wrote: > On 11 Jun, 03:32, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181513315.844514.222860@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > Can you understand the following is always true: >> >> > 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. >> >> I have no problem with that .. but you have yet to show that that applies >> for all M and all B(M) when P is "subjective experience". >> >> Ie .. you've not proven your point. >> > > It doesn't matter what M or B(M) or P are. Why would you suggest it > does? Because it does matter. -- 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 Richo Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 7, 10:05 am, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 6 Jun, 22:53, "min...@media.mit.edu" <min...@media.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 5, 11:30 pm, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:> On Jun 6, 12:34 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > On 6 Jun, 03:29, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 5, 1:18 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > Evidently some people maintain that "subjective experience" can never > > be explained > > in terms of physical processes. They offer reasons for this opinion, > > but none of those > > make much sense to me. In the last chapter of "The Emotion Machine," > > I suggest some > > possible reasons why people find feelings so hard to describe, and > > suggest a few > > explanations of this, some of which might turn out to be wrong. > > > However, it might be a good lesson to consider the way that "life" or > > "living" was once > > considered to be so inexplicable that perople felt they had to assume > > that there must > > exist a (nonphysical) "vital force" or "spirit," etc. But today, now > > that we know how > > complex a living cell is, no serious scientist see any basic mystery. > > Insted, now that we understand how complex a cell is, we know that we > > "simply" need to answer a few thousand > > hand -- but not unsolvable -- questions. > > > It is exactly the same situation, it seems to me, with the subject of > > subjective experience. > > Too many philosophers have started with assumptions like "The > > sensation of Redness is > > basic, simple, and irreducible -- and therefore it is inexplicable." > > However, we can assume, > > instead, that when a brain sees something Red, this initiates an > > extremely complicated > > set of processes, and that these eventually cause certain parts of > > that brain to make > > very simplistic descriptions of what they observe in the rest of that > > brain. > > > Then, because those descriptions don't lead anywhere, yet other parts > > of the brain > > construct those useless dualistic descriptions, because they don't > > have adequate ways > > to explain why they can't understand what is happening. > > You've written a book on the subject? You honestly have not heard of Marvin Minsky? Wow! http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky Mark. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:47:57 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1181353677.705831.281300@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 8 Jun, 18:57, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181311994.969146.270290@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> <....> >> >> > I think it is better for you to understand the implausibility of >> > the story that we are simply a biological mechanism following the >> > known laws of physics, before discussing the retreated to >> > position that maybe the configuration or complexity freed it from >> > the known laws of physics, but that there were still only a >> > physical mechanism. >> >> I'm more interested in how the unknown laws of physics fit into your >> worldwiev. >> > >What makes you think there are any unknown laws of physics which have >any noticable influence on behaviour other than at the subatomic or >cosmic scale? When was the last time we found anything that didn't >follow the known laws of physics? I would say Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the latest. >I'm more interested whether you understood the point that was made >(and you snipped), or is it a secret? > -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:02:52 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1181415772.483273.54580@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote: [snip] > >It had nothing to do with determinism. > >The reasoning is summarised below, but was outlined in more depth in >the part of the post you snipped. > >1) The behaviour of M is explained by the laws of physics without >requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. > >Therefore > >2) Presence of P(A) or lack of, does not influence the behaviour of M, >else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or >without P(A) > >You can substitute whatever physical entity that strictly follows the >known laws of physics for M, and any property for P(A) where (1) would >be true. If (1) is true, then so is (2). But the counter argument is that P(A) is an aspect of the behavior to explain. More to the point I would argue that we can't explain M without having P(A) as part of the description and the explanation. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" 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.