Guest Lisbeth Andersson Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181558571.566915.292060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > 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? > As long as P is not "being dipped in catnip". Lisbeth. ---- The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die. What we know is not nearly as interesting as how we know it. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:52:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1181605974.936417.289110@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 12 Jun, 00:40, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:36:05 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1181601365.782001.291...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On 11 Jun, 23:16, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:48:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> <1181598534.195254.186...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >On 11 Jun, 22:04, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:46:24 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> <1181594784.494509.169...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On 11 Jun, 21:38, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:35:19 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> >> in <1181579719.193969.12...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Jun 11, 10:43 am, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:02:52 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1181415772.483273.54...@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. >> >> >> >> >> >Then you have simply rejected premise (1) of the argument -- >> >> >> >> >explanation of the behavior of M requires knowledge of whether it has >> >> >> >> >P(A). >> >> >> >> >> Not quite. I would say that AFAICT I would include SE as part of my >> >> >> >> discussion of the behavior. I would end up describing the SE as >> >> >> >> internal state and processes. So I don't need a priori knowledge that >> >> >> >> the SE exists, but it does seem sufficiently important to the >> >> >> >> individual that no description of behavior would work without taking >> >> >> >> it into account. >> >> >> >> >> (Note that the related question of the behavior of groups does not >> >> >> >> require knowledge of the SE of the individual.) >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >The counter to your counter would go: what evidence have you that >> >> >> >> >subjective experience is found anywhere in the laws of physics? Are >> >> >> >> >you relying on a Schroedinger's Cat thought-experiment (which is not >> >> >> >> >evidence by itself btw) or something? >> >> >> >> >> I rely on the large number of experiences we have with physical >> >> >> >> actions affecting internal states. I rely on the enormous number of >> >> >> >> neurological experiments showing physical actions affect subjective >> >> >> >> experience. >> >> >> >> >With a robot though you can surely see that its behaviour could be >> >> >> >explained without knowledge of whether it had subjective experiences >> >> >> >or not, >> >> >> >> I don't see why. My claim, in fact, is that if a robot acts >> >> >> sufficiently human for me to think it has subjective experience then >> >> >> it probably does have subjective experience. Why don't you tell me why >> >> >> you know that we can explain the robot behavior without referring to >> >> >> SE. >> >> >> >> >and therefore, as shown, whether it did or didn't that >> >> >> >particular property couldn't be said to be influential. Is it that you >> >> >> >were sure that you would never be shown to be wrong causing you a >> >> >> >problem in facing that it has happened? >> >> >> >> No. >> >> >> >Well because we can simply just explain how the mechanism of the robot >> >> >works, same as we could explain how a car or mobile phone works. We >> >> >don't require knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing or >> >> >not. >> >> >> That is just an assertion. Sorry, but this is not a logical construct, >> >> it requires some empirical work. Have you read the work on the Turing >> >> Test or even the Chinese Room? Those help set some of the >> >> philosophical boundaries here, but you still have to do the work. If >> >> we have a robot that seem to have some large set of human like >> >> qualities you don't know that we can explain it without explaining >> >> and/or describing something very much like subjective experience. >> >> >Well let's say for arguments sake, there was a robot, following the >> >known laws of physics, driven by a neural network which had a million >> >more nodes than you have neurons in your brain. Each node wrote out to >> >a log the messages it received, and the messages it sent out, and the >> >message contained information such as time sent, time received, source >> >node, destination node (which might be the same as the source node for >> >feedback messages), the message etc. Then after an hour converstation >> >with it, a bank of computers could go through the logs confirming that >> >no unexplained messages appeared, and that each node followed the laws >> >of physics as expected, giving the outputs expected given the inputs. >> >If necessary even if it took a thousand years, the behaviour of the >> >robot could be explained without knowledge of whether it had any >> >subjective experiences or not. Simply in terms of the configuration of >> >the nodes, and the inputs they received, and how the nodes worked. >> >> Ok, so lets suppose this. >> >> >The only assertion is yours, that we are a biological mechanism >> >strictly following the laws of physics. You are just having problems >> >accepting that it is shown that this is implausible, >> >> Excuse me, somehow you went from the "suppose" to a conclusion. You >> did not offer an argument, you just went from supposing some situation >> about robots, and then concluded something about people. That is not >> even a bad argument, it is no argument at all. You did not show >> anything, you just gave a preliminary supposition. I could point out >> some problems with the supposition, but why bother since you don't >> build on the supposition, you just assert it. >> >> >as without the >> >subjective experiences influencing our behaviour, it could only be >> >coincidental that the human we experience being was perhaps talking >> >about them or wondering whether the robot had similar experiences or >> >not. >> >> I think you are going to have to tell me what you mean by "subjective >> experience" because the above just does not make sense to me. >> > >By subjective experiences, I every experience you or anybody else has >had, without any assumption that the human you experience being is >essentially you. That is not sufficient for me to understand you. What I am having trouble with is the bit about (subjective) experience influencing behavior. I think that you mean will , not experience, here. >In the sense that you don't subjectively experience >brain activity which may be labelled subconsious, But "I" may well be that brain activity. I don't directly experience that electro-chemical activity, but it is an empirical issue on whether or not I experience them. >or what an >individual white blood cell is doing etc. Do you think you understand >what I am referring to? > >The example was just an illustration of if you it was possible that a >robot following the known laws of physics ever had subjective >experiences, that the they in themselves could not be influential. >Though mainly it addressed your response to where I said: >---------- >Well because we can simply just explain how the mechanism of the robot >works, same as we could explain how a car or mobile phone works. We >don't require knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing or >not. >---------- > >And you replied: >---------- >That is just an assertion. Sorry, but this is not a logical construct, >it requires some empirical work. >---------- > >You can see in the example, it isn't just an assertion, because we can >explain how the mechanism works, we don't require any knowledge of >whether it was subjectively experiencing or not. No, I don't see that. It may well be, and I suspect it will be, that if we have such a sufficiently complex "thinking" robot then our explanation of the mechanism will also include the subjective experience. I don't see the robot/human distinction you assert and I don't think I can sufficiently understanding either without also producing a theory of the mind which will, of necessity, deal with subjective experience (and "will", if that is what you mean) >How could you or >anyone else contest that the the robot in the examples behaviour could >be explained simply in terms of the configuration of the nodes, and >the inputs they received, and how the nodes worked? Because we have a better grasp of what it means to "understand". That your PC. It is possible to explain a PC in terms of the actions of quarks. But that explanation won't say a thing about your newsreader. The very low level explanation won't tell the person reading it everything they might want to know about higher level processes. -- 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 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:55:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1181606154.582220.239610@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 12 Jun, 00:41, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:05:09 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1181599509.977306.20...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On 11 Jun, 22:51, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:23:10 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> in <1181596990.691238.117...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jun 11, 4:38 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:35:19 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> in <1181579719.193969.12...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Jun 11, 10:43 am, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:02:52 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> <1181415772.483273.54...@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. >> >> >> >> >Then you have simply rejected premise (1) of the argument -- >> >> >> >explanation of the behavior of M requires knowledge of whether it has >> >> >> >P(A). >> >> >> >> Not quite. I would say that AFAICT I would include SE as part of my >> >> >> discussion of the behavior. >> >> >> >Any behavior? Like the behavior of your PC, say? >> >> >> No, the topic was behavior of people, not any behavior at all. >> >> >> > You do realize the >> >> >argument is a general one for any mechanism whose operation is fully >> >> >explained by the laws of physics, right? >> >> >> And I was discussing how it was not an appropriate claim in this case. >> >> >> >I guess the question is, what are you talking about now? What >> >> >behavior? (It seems that you might be trying to slip in an >> >> >unwarranted exception for certain types of subjectively-judged >> >> >behavior here.) >> >> >> No, I am saying that the claim (1) does not apply when we put in the >> >> issues here. Let us look at one again: >> >> >> 1) The behavior of M is explained by the laws of physics without >> >> requiring knowledge of whether it has P(A) or not. >> >> >> That would apply in some cases and not in others. That is, if we have >> >> some thing M and some property P, sometimes P is a property of M and >> >> sometimes not. That is an empirical question, not a logical one. >> >> >> >> I would end up describing the SE as >> >> >> internal state and processes. So I don't need a priori knowledge that >> >> >> the SE exists, but it does seem sufficiently important to the >> >> >> individual that no description of behavior would work without taking >> >> >> it into account. >> >> >> >The criterion (of whether to try to explain SE) is how important it >> >> >seems to an individual?? What individual? >> >> >> You mis-read that sentence so let me reword it: Subjective experience >> >> seems sufficiently significant an aspect of human behavior that I >> >> doubt that we can provide a physical description/analysis without also >> >> explaining/accounting for SE. >> >> >> >How do you know how >> >> >important SE seems to an individual (like e.g. your PC)? And could >> >> >you possibly have anything more unscientific/unverifiable as a >> >> >criterion? >> >> >> In this case "important" is a short hand for a large amount of >> >> information about the necessity to account for human internal states >> >> when discussing human behavior. In order to properly describe and >> >> predict human actions we need to have some "theory of the mind" that >> >> models the SE. >> >> >> >> (Note that the related question of the behavior of groups does not >> >> >> require knowledge of the SE of the individual.) >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >The counter to your counter would go: what evidence have you that >> >> >> >subjective experience is found anywhere in the laws of physics? Are >> >> >> >you relying on a Schroedinger's Cat thought-experiment (which is not >> >> >> >evidence by itself btw) or something? >> >> >> >> I rely on the large number of experiences we have with physical >> >> >> actions affecting internal states. I rely on the enormous number of >> >> >> neurological experiments showing physical actions affect subjective >> >> >> experience. >> >> >> >That is evidence only for physical influence _on_ SE, not evidence at >> >> >all that SE _is_ a part of the laws of physics. (Again, we are >> >> >talking about explanations/influences _on_ physical behavior, not >> >> >physical influences on subjective experience.) >> >> >> SE is not part of the laws of physics any more than the Moon is part >> >> of the laws of physics. And you are now hand waving about some magical >> >> process that is somehow not physical but affected by wide range of >> >> physical things. Show me some examples of SE that does not have a >> >> physical instantiation. >> >> >I'm not even bringing into the converstation at the moment what >> >reality actually is, I am just pointing out the implausibility of the >> >story that we are simply a biological mechanism strictly following the >> >laws of physics. >> >> You haven't started to do that. >> >> >As for your point about that P might not be a property of M, well yes, >> >you could rewrite it as F (a factor), such as wind in the behaviour of >> >a flying kite for example (where (1) would not be true) as opposed to >> >whether I was in fact the person that ate all the pies in Mrs Miggins >> >pie shop (where (1) would be true, and so would (2) ). >> >It still doesn't seem to have sunk in yet, that it is not that our >> >experience is a deception, we do influence the behaviour of the human >> >we experience being. It is that it is implausible that we can be >> >explained as being simply a biological mechanism following the laws of >> >physics. >> >> So you keep asserting, but you have yet to provide an actual argument. >> You give a supposition and you give a conclusion, but no logical steps >> from accepted givens to results. >> > >I have provided reason: > >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. > >If it wasn't true, then why can't you or anyone else provide an >example of where it wouldn't be? I agree that if (1) is true then (2) is true. I deny that (1) is true for humans and subjective experience. That is, I assert that a naturalistic explanation of behavior of humans (M) will include an explanations of Subjective Experience (P). What you have not done is show that it is possible to provide an explanation for human behavior without accounting for Subjective Experience nor have you shown that it is impossible to provide a naturalistic explanation for human behavior. -- 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 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:17:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1181643479.706311.14240@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 12 Jun, 01:55, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:56:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1181602598.637285.269...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On 11 Jun, 22:37, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181594965.007188.174010@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 20:52, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> >> innews:1181593745.206175.160780@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 20:47, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:29:57 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> <1181590197.482419.50...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >Anyway, did you manage to understand 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 >> >> >> >> >> I disagree that (2) is true if (1) is true. I could identify a >> >> >> >> class of phenomena, C, of which P is one possible member. But that >> >> >> >> is a minor point. My major point is in (1). I disagree that (1) >> >> >> >> reasonably captures a physical understanding of human behavior and >> >> >> >> subjective experience (SE). All of the physical analysis I see >> >> >> >> take the existence of SE as a given and work to explain that >> >> >> >> existence. So, while I think your argument here is wrong, I think >> >> >> >> the argument itself does not meaningfully relate to a physicalist >> >> >> >> (not scientism) theory of the mind. >> >> >> >> > It is always true, and you have just avoided even attempting to >> >> >> > point out why it isn't. >> >> >> >> You have avoided seeing every attempt to point out why it isn't. >> >> >> >> > Yes you are right that subjective experiences do >> >> >> > influence our behaviour, else what reason would we have to consider >> >> >> > whether a robot is? Once you take away your assertion (which is >> >> >> > shown to be implausible) >> >> >> >> You keep repeating that assertion, but you are assuming your >> >> >> conclusion. >> >> >> > Where has it been pointed out where it isn't correct. Attempts where >> >> > you change either B(M) or P between (1) and (2) obviously don't count, >> >> > as it only applies where B(M) and P are the same between (1) and (2). >> >> >> But every example you offer, Glenn, you also change B or B(M) or P >> >> yourself. You just offer us trivial changes that don't make a difference >> >> to the behavior B(M) whereas we all know that subjective experience DOES >> >> make a difference to behavior. You then assume your conclusion when you >> >> state that under materialism that subjective experience could not >> >> possibly affect behavior. >> >> >> > Attempts so far have been shown to be deceptively attempting to do >> >> > this. Perhaps you'd care to give an example where it wouldn't be true. >> >> >> I have already offered you several examples, all as straighforward and >> >> truthful as yours. >> >> >Well I can show you a few examples here, and you can see that I don't >> >change B(M) or P between (1) and (2) for any given example. Obviously >> >they are different in different examples. >> >> >Example 1: >> >---------- >> >> >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. >> >> >As (1) is true, so is: >> >> >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. >> >> I think you have missed the point. No one, AFAICT, disagrees that your >> (2) is a reformulation of your (1). It is really just a version of >> parsimony. The question is whether or not the abstract (1) hold true >> for humans. That is, we assert that it is not true that we can develop >> an explanation of humans that ignores subjective experience. >> Furthermore we are asserting that it sure looks like we will be able >> to develop a physical explanation of humans, including explaining >> subjective experience. >> >> [snip] >> > >It's not simply a reformulation. > >(1) is about knowledge of the property, and explanation. >(2) is about whether the property is influential. > >If (1) wasn't true for humans, then humans can't be simply a >biological mechanism following the laws of physics (else their >behaviour could be explained in terms of the mechanism following the >laws of physics), which is the point I am getting at. Sorry, but there is also my assertion: that a natural explanation of human behavior will account for subjective experience as well. You keep ignoring that possibility. -- 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 pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 11 jun, 18:42, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 11 Jun, 16:41, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > wrote: > > > I think you understand Fred and me. > > I think I do, you are desperately grasping at straws in an attempt to > avoid what has been shown to you in reason, and when I pointed out to > you that your objection was unfounded you just cut the whole post. > Still I'll put it put the last bits in, and directly show how the > answer I gave applies to your objection, in case you weren't capable > of doing it yourself. > > I had asked: > ---------- > 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. > ---------- > > You replied: > ---------- > 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. > ---------- > > To which I pointed out the how the your counter argument was deceptive > as: > ---------- > 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. > ---------- > > You have chosen not to respond to this directly, but let me show you > how it would be the same with the synapses and the subjective > experiences if we were considered to simply be a biological mechanism > following the known laws of physics. > > If we were then like a robot, if it were known how the mechanism > worked, the behaviour could be explained without knowledge of whether > the biological mechanism had subjective experiences or not. So as > above, with the first P being subjective experiences which can be > thought of as a property of the synapses/brain, knowledge of that > particular property wouldnn't required to explain the behaviour of the > biological mechanism (if the assertion that is what we were was > correct) so (1) would be true, and so would (2). > > If the property was the more general property of synapses themselves, > which include properties the behaviour could not be explained without, > then (1) would not be true. > > You seem to have a problem facing a reasoned truth when it is > presented to you, is this because it shows your whole world > perspective to be an implausible story, and you would have to admit, > that not only did you claim to have seen and understood it, and > thought it was reasonable, you also encouraged others to do the same? You keep on assuming that subjective experiences do not have physical properties. However they do. Subjective experiences are memories (either temporary or lasting) These memories do influence our behaviour as you very well know. Although I do not know how memories are actually "stored" in cortex, we have ample proof that they are. Of course we can theoretically explain our conduct mechanically without realizing that the synapse behaviour we are describing is actually the act of "remembering" but that does not change the fact, that without the information coming from our memory our behaviour would change drastically. In my previous example of my computer program you can explain the working by the hexadecimal machine code (a mix of numbers and the letters A,B,C,D, E and F) and totally ignore what they mean, but that does not mean that the fact that the employee is a female does not matter! Likewise you can explain human behaviour by the chemical working of synapses, but that does not mean in doesn't matter whether I thought I saw Ashley or Kate. Humans are actually using subjective experiences to guide their behaviour. I started re-reading "consciousness explained" by Daniel C. Dennett, and found out his idea of consciousness goes one step further than I thought. He thinks consciousness is caused by ideas in our head, that make us think in a conscious way. Ideas that we have mostly learned from other people. I am not sure that is correct. To me everything we can theoretically remember and theoretically communicate about, is a subjective experience and is or has been part of our consciousness. But the fact that almost nobody can remember much of his/her early childhood, might mean that Dennett is right. But it would be a good thing to read to book anyway. (did you read it already?) Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:466dedbe$0$1189$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au... > "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:1181581549.652693.254210@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> On 11 Jun, 16:43, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> The question is can you face the truth, or are you going to continue >> to grasp at straws, hoping that they will enable you to avoid it, >> instead of making you look more and more pathetic. > > That is what you're doing .. not the rest of us. > > Come on .. just make your argument in one concise post. > > It appears you are either trying to either > 1) prove subjective experience doesn't exists . > 2) prove subjective experience doesn't have any effects on reality > 3) do some reduction to the absurd to show that the above is not the case > > So far you've not succeeded with any of the above. His objective is to try to force materialists into saying their position is something it isn't. He has to do this to establish a strawman that he can then attack. So really, he's arguing in favor of something he doesn't believe, to get us to agree to something we don't believe. He's fuckin' insane. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun, 16:28, Deathbringer <Deathbringer.2s2...@wpyo.bbs.local> wrote: > someone2;1504729 Wrote: > > > > > > > On 12 Jun, 13:49, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 7:36 am, jien...@aol.com wrote: > > > > > On Jun 11, 5:08 pm, Matt Silberstein > > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:29:05 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > > <1181593745.206175.160...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > >On 11 Jun, 20:47, Matt Silberstein > > > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:29:57 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > > > > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > > >> <1181590197.482419.50...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> [snip] > > > > > > >> >Anyway, did you manage to understand 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 > > > > > > >> I disagree that (2) is true if (1) is true. I could identify a > > class > > > > > >> of phenomena, C, of which P is one possible member. But that > > is a > > > > > >> minor point. My major point is in (1). I disagree that (1) > > reasonably > > > > > >> captures a physical understanding of human behavior and > > subjective > > > > > >> experience (SE). All of the physical analysis I see take the > > existence > > > > > >> of SE as a given and work to explain that existence. So, while > > I think > > > > > >> your argument here is wrong, I think the argument itself does > > not > > > > > >> meaningfully relate to a physicalist (not scientism) theory of > > the > > > > > >> mind. > > > > > > >It is always true, and you have just avoided even attempting to > > point > > > > > >out why it isn't. Yes you are right that subjective experiences > > do > > > > > >influence our behaviour, else what reason would we have to > > consider > > > > > >whether a robot is? Once you take away your assertion (which is > > shown > > > > > >to be implausible) that we are simply a biological mechanism > > following > > > > > >the laws of physics, then you would have no reason to think that > > any > > > > > >physical mechanism following the laws of physics had subjective > > > > > >experiences. > > > > > > Ok, Jientho, Glenn is just assuming the conclusion here. You > > have not > > > > > shown it implausible that we are "just" biological mechanisms. > > > > > He has shown that if we are such mechanisms fully explained by the > > > > laws of physics, then any subjective experiences we have are non- > > > > influential of our behavior -- they (SE) are simply side-effects, > > > > outputs, coincidental. > > > > He has not "shown" it - he has asserted it in various forms > > including > > > in the form of a question. > > > People are just seeing straight through such tactics. > > > > > And their "effects" on the physical world are > > > > illusory -- our subjective selves are just observers here. > > Serious > > > > materialists have made much the same point. > > > > "Serious materialists" - speaking of rhetorical tricks! > > > Too much sparing with Skeptic old friend - you have lost some of > > your > > > old edge. > > > Jeff understands it, whereas you still don't understand that where: > > > 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. > > > and 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. > > > As you don't understand it, you don't think it is shown, but you will > > never until the day you are no longer being presented with the > > physical world be able to give an example where it isn't true. > > It is perfectly logical so far, but its incomplete. Now, explain to me > how P not effecting B(M) translates into humans having souls. Assume I'm > stupid. Put it in simplest possible terms. > It shows that subjective experiences couldn't be said influence the behaviour of any mechanism simply following the laws of physics. The reason for rejecting that we are simply biological mechanism following the known laws of physics, is that our behaviour couldn't be influenced by any subjective experiences that we had (the known laws of physics show us this). So philosphers couldn't be discussing qualia because of their existance, nor could people talking about anything the subjectively experienced because of the experience, nor could we be even having this discussion because conscious experiences existed. The existance of them would have to be coincidental to behaviour. It is the required coincidence that makes the story of us being simply biological mechanisms implausible. Without the assertion that we are simply biological mechanisms, there would be no reason to suggest that any mechanism following the known laws of physics had any subjective experiences, nor could they explain how or why they should have. So it show's the story that all there is is the physical, that was 'seen' by the so called intelligent (atheists), wasn't even a plausible story. It was written that it would happen, and that their 'intelligence' would vanish http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2029&version=31 Isaiah 29:14-16 14 Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish." 15 Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?" 16 You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun, 16:59, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181643629.665515.215790@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > On 12 Jun, 02:00, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181607322.623131.144640@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 12 Jun, 00:56, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1181603668.494011.312460@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 12 Jun, 00:09, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:1181598999.112030.3470@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 22:34, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:1181593524.600437.247290@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 20:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >>news:1181583039.890628.118980@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 18:23, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181581549.652693.254210@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 16:43, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181517234.889369.239710@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So you determine if you're right about something based > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> on > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nothing > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> but > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> arbitrary feelings? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That explains a lot. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, it's influenced by subjective experience. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lets see if we can apply this stupidity to something > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> affects > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Can you apply it to reflexes? Oops, no, there's a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> difference > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you have reflexes compared to you not having reflexes. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apply > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> your little formula to reflexes, what makes you think > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apply > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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, > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm a biological mechanism simply following the laws of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjectively experience, therefore I conclude that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> biological > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mechanisms > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> following the laws of can subjectively experience. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > therefore what reason would the biological mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assertion > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were made) have for considering such a thing > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > uninfluenced > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > by > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > having > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective experiences. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This one doesn't. This one observes that it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experiences > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> influence its behavior. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You were wrong get used to it. Stop being so pathetic > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > about > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You're not stating my position. Why would your > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> criticizism > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> position > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> do not hold show that I am wrong? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > If you changed the property to one that behaviour > >> >> >> >> >> >> > couldn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained without knowledge of, then (1) wouldn't be > >> >> >> >> >> >> > true. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Which means you can't apply your formula to reflexes, > >> >> >> >> >> >> right? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> So why do you think you can apply it to consciousness? The > >> >> >> >> >> >> behaviors > >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious and unconscious things, in real life, is pretty > >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> different. > >> >> >> >> >> >> The unconscious ones lie inert while the conscious ones > >> >> >> >> >> >> run > >> >> >> >> >> >> about. > >> >> >> >> >> >> According > >> >> >> >> >> >> to (1) of your formula, you can't apply it to > >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > You have already admitted that though you could know the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> > the robot (and therefore be able to explain its > >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour) > >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> > wouldn't have knowledge of whether it has subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences > >> >> >> >> >> >> > or > >> >> >> >> >> >> > not. I asked you before: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Is this an argument about my state of ignorance concerning > >> >> >> >> >> >> if > >> >> >> >> >> >> something > >> >> >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious or not? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> That has fuck-all to do with anything. My state of > >> >> >> >> >> >> ignorance > >> >> >> >> >> >> has > >> >> >> >> >> >> nothing > >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> do with whether something is conscious or not, or what the > >> >> >> >> >> >> source > >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousnsess is. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > To which you replied: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > >> >> >> >> >> >> > I fucking understand that you twit. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > The question is can you face the truth, or are you going > >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> > continue > >> >> >> >> >> >> > to grasp at straws, hoping that they will enable you to > >> >> >> >> >> >> > avoid > >> >> >> >> >> >> > it, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > instead of making you look more and more pathetic. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> The truth would be that if it acts like it's conscious, > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'll > >> >> >> >> >> >> call > >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. That's my prerogative. > > >> >> >> >> >> > The point was outlined in the reason, you are unable to > >> >> >> >> >> > face: > > >> >> >> >> >> > 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. > > >> >> >> >> >> > So with the robot, since it's behaviour can be explained > >> >> >> >> >> > without > >> >> >> >> >> > requiring knowledge of whether it is conscious or not, > > >> >> >> >> >> Ok, you asked for it. > > >> >> >> >> >> B(M) is not same for conscious vs unconscious robots. > > >> >> >> >> >> So your formula does not apply. > > >> >> >> >> >> If you have a robot that you say is not conscious, yet in all > >> >> >> >> >> respects > >> >> >> >> >> acts > >> >> >> >> >> as if it is, then there is consciousness involved. The > >> >> >> >> >> mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> doesn't > >> >> >> >> >> matter. > > >> >> >> >> >> Consider, if the robot is just a clever tape recorder > >> >> >> >> >> specifically > >> >> >> >> >> programmed to answer my likely questions, then some conscious > >> >> >> >> >> entity > >> >> >> >> >> had > >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> program it and record the responses. THAT'S the conscious > >> >> >> >> >> entity > >> >> >> >> >> I'm > >> >> >> >> >> talking > >> >> >> >> >> to via the robot. The robot is only the middle-man between me > >> >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> another > >> >> >> >> >> consciousness. I may confuse the robot for the conscious > >> >> >> >> >> entity, > >> >> >> >> >> but > >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> doesn't mean I'm not talking to another consciousness. > > >> >> >> >> >> It's the same with any elaborate Eliza program you might want > >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> construct. > >> >> >> >> >> I'm talking to the programmer through the robot, even though > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> programmer > >> >> >> >> >> may be long dead. > > >> >> >> >> >> And if you arrive at the robot through no artifice, meaning > >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> constructed by unconscious nature with no intent, then by > >> >> >> >> >> what > >> >> >> >> >> authority > >> >> >> >> >> do > >> >> >> >> >> you declare it non-conscious if it acts like it is? > > >> >> >> >> >> > whether it is > >> >> >> >> >> > or not couldn't be influencing its behaviour, > > >> >> >> >> >> But since it is influencing its behavior, your formula does > >> >> >> >> >> not > >> >> >> >> >> apply. > > >> >> >> >> >> > no more than it could > >> >> >> >> >> > influence ours, if we were simply a biological mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> > following > >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> > laws of physics... > > >> >> >> >> >> ...with consciousness as part of that biological mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> influencing > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> behavior. > > >> >> >> >> >> > It is implausible that we are, for reasons given to > >> >> >> >> >> > you before. > > >> >> >> >> >> And your formula is as inapplicable as before. > > >> >> >> >> >> > You can choose to be totally illogical if you like, and to > >> >> >> >> >> > not > >> >> >> >> >> > face > >> >> >> >> >> > reason. Though you won't be experiencing the physical world > >> >> >> >> >> > forever, > >> >> >> >> >> > and you'll regret your choice. > > >> >> >> >> >> And if you're wrong, which is always possible, your continued > >> >> >> >> >> insistence > >> >> >> >> >> that this is the case is nothing more than your arrogant > >> >> >> >> >> self-absorption > >> >> >> >> >> talking. > > >> >> >> >> > The formula doesn't require a comparitive entity. It can be > >> >> >> >> > used > >> >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> >> > regards to any physical entity. > > >> >> >> >> Any physical entity? > > >> >> >> >> Let's try it: > > >> >> >> >> M = A man > >> >> >> >> B(M) = Walking around > >> >> >> >> P = Legs > > >> >> >> >> How the fuck do you: > > >> >> >> >> "1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > >> >> >> >> knowledge > >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> whether it has P or not." > > >> >> >> >> I don't know about you, but if I'm going to explain how a guy > >> >> >> >> walks > >> >> >> >> around, > >> >> >> >> I'm gonna have to know if he has legs 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." > > >> >> >> >> I would think legs have something to do with walking around, and > >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> don't > >> >> >> >> think it's gonna be the same with or without them. > > >> >> >> >> Please explain how your formula applies. With the values I've > >> >> >> >> plugged > >> >> >> >> in, > >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> doesn't make any sense. > > >> >> >> >> > You keep trying to talk about two > >> >> >> >> > different mechanisms, and say well they act differently, but > >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> > like talking about a car and a toaster, and saying well the > >> >> >> >> > car > >> >> >> >> > has > >> >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> >> > numberplate, and they act differently so the number plate is > >> >> >> >> > influential. You need to face that the formula is true, and > >> >> >> >> > can > >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> > shown to be so, when you stop trying to make B(M) or P > >> >> >> >> > different > >> >> >> >> > between (1) and (2). Basically it cuts through the deception > >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> > were fooled by. > > >> >> >> >> Apply your formula to the entities I provided above. > > >> >> >> > Er... you really are having trouble understanding this aren't > >> >> >> > you. > > >> >> >> Either that, or you're really bad at making others understand you. > > >> >> >> > Is > >> >> >> > it the complexity of it, or is it that for it to be correct would > >> >> >> > mean > >> >> >> > that you were wrong, and your ego won't let you face that you > >> >> >> > were > >> >> >> > wrong? > > >> >> >> Gosh, no thought whatsoever that maybe the problem lies with you. > > >> >> >> > In your example (1) would not be true, you couldn't explain the > >> >> >> > man > >> >> >> > walking around, without knowledge of whether he had legs or not. > > >> >> >> So your formula CANNOT be applied to "any physical entity". > > >> >> >> Were you lying when you said it could? "The formula doesn't require > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> comparitive entity. It can be used in regards to any physical > >> >> >> entity." > > >> >> >> Perhaps you're suggesting that legs aren't physical. Or could this > >> >> >> be > >> >> >> another example of your mastery of the language that makes it so > >> >> >> easy > >> >> >> for > >> >> >> others to understand you? > > >> >> > Yes it can be applied to any physical entity. The point is that only > >> >> > when (1) is true, (2) is true. Obviously where (1) is false as in > >> >> > your > >> >> > example then (2) would also be false. The point was never that (1) > >> >> > is > >> >> > always true. Can you understand it now? You can ask for > >> >> > clarification > >> >> > on it if you like, after all it would be silly of you to be stating > >> >> > that it wasn't true, if it was just a case of you not understanding > >> >> > it. > > >> >> I see now, you relegated the IF THEN statement to a tiny sentence at > >> >> the > >> >> end, without a number, that didn't appear to be part of the formula. > >> >> Understood now. > > >> >> Excellent. Just like the leg example, since the behavior of a person > >> >> walking > >> >> around cannot be explained by the laws of physics without knowledge of > >> >> whether he's conscious or not, (2) is not true. > > >> >> I mean, to explain the behavior of a person walking around, I have to > >> >> know > >> >> if the person is conscious or unconscious. I know how conscious and > >> >> unconscious people behave, and it's not similar at all. > > >> >> Cool! We're done! > > >> > Not quite. The point in contention is that we are not simply a > >> > biological mechanism following the laws of physics, because if we were > >> > then it wouldn't be influential. > > >> You have a strange definition of influential. Are you saying there would > >> be > >> no such thing as influence if the universe were clockwork? > > >> Tell me how legs are not influential to walking around. > > >> Then tell me why consciousness is not influential to walking around. > > >> You require them both to walk around. > > >> > So if you were contesting this, then with knowledge of how the > >> > biological mechanism operated, its behaviour could be explained simply > >> > in terms of the biological mechanism following the laws of physics. > > >> Like how a man with no legs can't walk around. > > >> Like how a man who's unconscious can't walk around. > > >> > Which would require no knowledge of whether it were subjectively > >> > experiencing or not, any more than it would be required to explain the > >> > way a robot were behaving. > > >> I've changed my mind. You need to know if the person is conscious or not > >> to > >> explain his behavior. > > >> See, I'm not as dogmatic as you think I am. It you that is as dogmatic as > >> you think I am. > > >> > So (1) would be true, > > >> No. It fails (1) for the same reason the leg example failed. You need to > >> know if the person is conscious or unconscious. > > >> > and so would (2). > > >> Nope. (1) fails so (2) is not true! Your formula is actually working > >> pretty > >> well now. > > >> > It > >> > is an implausible story though, but for it not to be true, would > >> > require the assumption that we were simply a biological mechanism > >> > strictly following the laws of physics. > > >> That's what your formula seems to be supporting. > > >> > Just to remind you, you acknowledged that subjective experiences are a > >> > property in their own right, > > >> Just like legs. > > >> > and that the property may be present in a > >> > robot or not, > > >> Just like legs. > > >> > in that you can have knowledge of the other properties > >> > such as the mechanism, but not of whether the property of subjective > >> > experiences had emerged, was acknowledge by you in response to where I > >> > said: > > >> How does that work with the legs/no legs scenario? > > >> > 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. > > >> If I can't see the guy, I can't see if he has any legs. Check. > > >> > To which you replied: > >> > ------------ > >> > I fucking understand that you twit. > >> > ------------ > > >> > Don't you reflect yourself on the straws you grasp at, or is it that > >> > you are just desperate to avoid facing you were wrong? > > >> M = A man > >> B(M) = Walking around > >> P = Consciousness > > >> (1) fails utterly. (For the same reason as the legs example.) > >> (2) Isn't true. (Presence of consciousness affects B(M)) > > >> I agree. > > > When you say: > > ------ > > I've changed my mind. You need to know if the person is conscious or > > not to > > explain his behavior. > > ------ > > > Do you mean whether the person has subjective experiences or not? > > Oh, so NOW you feel you have to draw some distinction between the two terms > that up until now you've been using interchangably. Gee, I wonder why? > > I meant exactly what I wrote. Consciousness. Will you agree there's a > difference between the behavior of a conscious person and the behavior of an > unconscious person? > Well I was just checking as you seem to be using it in the sense that refers to a behaviour such as in the context of "I walked in, and there he was in the middle of the room unconscious". Obviously it wouldn't make sense to use it in this context as you have stated that the behaviour was that he was walking around. In the context of it being meant as whether the man had any conscious experiences or not, I refer you two what I said earlier regarding the point that the reasoning shows we are not simply a biological mechanism following the laws of physics, because if we were then it wouldn't be influential: --------- So if you were contesting this, then with knowledge of how the biological mechanism operated, its behaviour could be explained simply in terms of the biological mechanism following the laws of physics. --------- In other words like a robot without knowledge of whether it had subjective experiences or not. Your reply was: --------- Like how a man with no legs can't walk around. Like how a man who's unconscious can't walk around. --------- Which you can see while it was a reply, it wasn't one that addressed the point I had made. Can you comprehend that if we were simply a biological mechanism following the laws of physics, then any behaviour could be explained without knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing/was conscious or not, perhaps by an alien robot for example, just as the behaviour of the alien robot could be explained by us without knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing/ was conscious or not. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun, 17:24, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:52:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > <1181605974.936417.289...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On 12 Jun, 00:40, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:36:05 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> <1181601365.782001.291...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >On 11 Jun, 23:16, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:48:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> <1181598534.195254.186...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >On 11 Jun, 22:04, Matt Silberstein > >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:46:24 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> >> <1181594784.494509.169...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >On 11 Jun, 21:38, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:35:19 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> >> >> in <1181579719.193969.12...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >On Jun 11, 10:43 am, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:02:52 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> >> >> >> <1181415772.483273.54...@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. > > >> >> >> >> >Then you have simply rejected premise (1) of the argument -- > >> >> >> >> >explanation of the behavior of M requires knowledge of whether it has > >> >> >> >> >P(A). > > >> >> >> >> Not quite. I would say that AFAICT I would include SE as part of my > >> >> >> >> discussion of the behavior. I would end up describing the SE as > >> >> >> >> internal state and processes. So I don't need a priori knowledge that > >> >> >> >> the SE exists, but it does seem sufficiently important to the > >> >> >> >> individual that no description of behavior would work without taking > >> >> >> >> it into account. > > >> >> >> >> (Note that the related question of the behavior of groups does not > >> >> >> >> require knowledge of the SE of the individual.) > > >> >> >> >> >> 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. > > >> >> >> >> >The counter to your counter would go: what evidence have you that > >> >> >> >> >subjective experience is found anywhere in the laws of physics? Are > >> >> >> >> >you relying on a Schroedinger's Cat thought-experiment (which is not > >> >> >> >> >evidence by itself btw) or something? > > >> >> >> >> I rely on the large number of experiences we have with physical > >> >> >> >> actions affecting internal states. I rely on the enormous number of > >> >> >> >> neurological experiments showing physical actions affect subjective > >> >> >> >> experience. > > >> >> >> >With a robot though you can surely see that its behaviour could be > >> >> >> >explained without knowledge of whether it had subjective experiences > >> >> >> >or not, > > >> >> >> I don't see why. My claim, in fact, is that if a robot acts > >> >> >> sufficiently human for me to think it has subjective experience then > >> >> >> it probably does have subjective experience. Why don't you tell me why > >> >> >> you know that we can explain the robot behavior without referring to > >> >> >> SE. > > >> >> >> >and therefore, as shown, whether it did or didn't that > >> >> >> >particular property couldn't be said to be influential. Is it that you > >> >> >> >were sure that you would never be shown to be wrong causing you a > >> >> >> >problem in facing that it has happened? > > >> >> >> No. > > >> >> >Well because we can simply just explain how the mechanism of the robot > >> >> >works, same as we could explain how a car or mobile phone works. We > >> >> >don't require knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing or > >> >> >not. > > >> >> That is just an assertion. Sorry, but this is not a logical construct, > >> >> it requires some empirical work. Have you read the work on the Turing > >> >> Test or even the Chinese Room? Those help set some of the > >> >> philosophical boundaries here, but you still have to do the work. If > >> >> we have a robot that seem to have some large set of human like > >> >> qualities you don't know that we can explain it without explaining > >> >> and/or describing something very much like subjective experience. > > >> >Well let's say for arguments sake, there was a robot, following the > >> >known laws of physics, driven by a neural network which had a million > >> >more nodes than you have neurons in your brain. Each node wrote out to > >> >a log the messages it received, and the messages it sent out, and the > >> >message contained information such as time sent, time received, source > >> >node, destination node (which might be the same as the source node for > >> >feedback messages), the message etc. Then after an hour converstation > >> >with it, a bank of computers could go through the logs confirming that > >> >no unexplained messages appeared, and that each node followed the laws > >> >of physics as expected, giving the outputs expected given the inputs. > >> >If necessary even if it took a thousand years, the behaviour of the > >> >robot could be explained without knowledge of whether it had any > >> >subjective experiences or not. Simply in terms of the configuration of > >> >the nodes, and the inputs they received, and how the nodes worked. > > >> Ok, so lets suppose this. > > >> >The only assertion is yours, that we are a biological mechanism > >> >strictly following the laws of physics. You are just having problems > >> >accepting that it is shown that this is implausible, > > >> Excuse me, somehow you went from the "suppose" to a conclusion. You > >> did not offer an argument, you just went from supposing some situation > >> about robots, and then concluded something about people. That is not > >> even a bad argument, it is no argument at all. You did not show > >> anything, you just gave a preliminary supposition. I could point out > >> some problems with the supposition, but why bother since you don't > >> build on the supposition, you just assert it. > > >> >as without the > >> >subjective experiences influencing our behaviour, it could only be > >> >coincidental that the human we experience being was perhaps talking > >> >about them or wondering whether the robot had similar experiences or > >> >not. > > >> I think you are going to have to tell me what you mean by "subjective > >> experience" because the above just does not make sense to me. > > >By subjective experiences, I every experience you or anybody else has > >had, without any assumption that the human you experience being is > >essentially you. > > That is not sufficient for me to understand you. What I am having > trouble with is the bit about (subjective) experience influencing > behavior. I think that you mean will , not experience, here. > > >In the sense that you don't subjectively experience > >brain activity which may be labelled subconsious, > > But "I" may well be that brain activity. I don't directly > experience that electro-chemical activity, but it is an empirical > issue on whether or not I experience them. > > >or what an > >individual white blood cell is doing etc. Do you think you understand > >what I am referring to? > > >The example was just an illustration of if you it was possible that a > >robot following the known laws of physics ever had subjective > >experiences, that the they in themselves could not be influential. > >Though mainly it addressed your response to where I said: > >---------- > >Well because we can simply just explain how the mechanism of the robot > >works, same as we could explain how a car or mobile phone works. We > >don't require knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing or > >not. > >---------- > > >And you replied: > >---------- > >That is just an assertion. Sorry, but this is not a logical construct, > >it requires some empirical work. > >---------- > > >You can see in the example, it isn't just an assertion, because we can > >explain how the mechanism works, we don't require any knowledge of > >whether it was subjectively experiencing or not. > > No, I don't see that. It may well be, and I suspect it will be, that > if we have such a sufficiently complex "thinking" robot then our > explanation of the mechanism will also include the subjective > experience. I don't see the robot/human distinction you assert and I > don't think I can sufficiently understanding either without also > producing a theory of the mind which will, of necessity, deal with > subjective experience (and "will", if that is what you mean) > > >How could you or > >anyone else contest that the the robot in the examples behaviour could > >be explained simply in terms of the configuration of the nodes, and > >the inputs they received, and how the nodes worked? > > Because we have a better grasp of what it means to "understand". That > your PC. It is possible to explain a PC in terms of the actions of > quarks. But that explanation won't say a thing about your newsreader. > The very low level explanation won't tell the person reading it > everything they might want to know about higher level processes. > When you asked: ----------- I think you are going to have to tell me what you mean by "subjective experience" because the above just does not make sense to me. ----------- I replied: ----------- By subjective experiences, I every experience you or anybody else has had, without any assumption that the human you experience being is essentially you. ----------- You then remarked: ----------- That is not sufficient for me to understand you. What I am having trouble with is the bit about (subjective) experience influencing behavior. I think that you mean will , not experience, here. ----------- Well first of all did you understand what I was referring to by subjective experiences. There was no mention of them there influencing behaviour, so I am not sure how it was the bit about influencing behaviour that you didn't get in the explanation. Also when I went onto say: ----------- In the sense that you don't subjectively experience brain activity which may be labelled subconsious, ----------- You replied: ----------- But "I" may well be that brain activity. I don't directly experience that electro-chemical activity, but it is an empirical ----------- Where you did seem to grasp that you don't experience subconscious brain activity, and therefore understood what I meant by experiencing. People have in the past questioned as to whether robots in the future might be made which also were conscious, or subjectively experiencing, have you never understood what they were talking about, or is it that you are hiding behind the difficulty of actually defining it, rather than understanding it through what you yourself experience, and not regarding a mobile phone to have such experiences. To illustrate the point, most people don't consider smashing a mobile phone to be inflicting any pain on the mobile phone. Are you different in this regard, or just being disingenious? When I said: ----------- You can see in the example, it isn't just an assertion, because we can explain how the mechanism works, we don't require any knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing or not. ----------- You replied: ----------- No, I don't see that. It may well be, and I suspect it will be, that if we have such a sufficiently complex "thinking" robot then our explanation of the mechanism will also include the subjective experience. I don't see the robot/human distinction you assert and I don't think I can sufficiently understanding either without also producing a theory of the mind which will, of necessity, deal with subjective experience (and "will", if that is what you mean) ----------- I had already pointed out to you, using an example of a neural network with a million more nodes than you have neurons, that its behaviour could be explained simply in terms of the configuration of the nodes, and the inputs they received and how the nodes worked, which doesn't include any knowledge of whether it had subjectively experiences or not. As I had said: ----------- How could you or anyone else contest that the the robot in the examples behaviour could be explained simply in terms of the configuration of the nodes, and the inputs they received, and how the nodes worked? ----------- To which you gave a response that distracted from the issue, talking in terms of how convenient explanations could be terms of understanding, which had nothing to do with the point. ----------- Because we have a better grasp of what it means to "understand". That your PC. It is possible to explain a PC in terms of the actions of quarks. But that explanation won't say a thing about your newsreader. The very low level explanation won't tell the person reading it everything they might want to know about higher level processes ----------- Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun, 17:31, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > On 11 jun, 18:42, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 11 Jun, 16:41, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > wrote: > > > > I think you understand Fred and me. > > > I think I do, you are desperately grasping at straws in an attempt to > > avoid what has been shown to you in reason, and when I pointed out to > > you that your objection was unfounded you just cut the whole post. > > Still I'll put it put the last bits in, and directly show how the > > answer I gave applies to your objection, in case you weren't capable > > of doing it yourself. > > > I had asked: > > ---------- > > 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. > > ---------- > > > You replied: > > ---------- > > 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. > > ---------- > > > To which I pointed out the how the your counter argument was deceptive > > as: > > ---------- > > 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. > > ---------- > > > You have chosen not to respond to this directly, but let me show you > > how it would be the same with the synapses and the subjective > > experiences if we were considered to simply be a biological mechanism > > following the known laws of physics. > > > If we were then like a robot, if it were known how the mechanism > > worked, the behaviour could be explained without knowledge of whether > > the biological mechanism had subjective experiences or not. So as > > above, with the first P being subjective experiences which can be > > thought of as a property of the synapses/brain, knowledge of that > > particular property wouldnn't required to explain the behaviour of the > > biological mechanism (if the assertion that is what we were was > > correct) so (1) would be true, and so would (2). > > > If the property was the more general property of synapses themselves, > > which include properties the behaviour could not be explained without, > > then (1) would not be true. > > > You seem to have a problem facing a reasoned truth when it is > > presented to you, is this because it shows your whole world > > perspective to be an implausible story, and you would have to admit, > > that not only did you claim to have seen and understood it, and > > thought it was reasonable, you also encouraged others to do the same? > > You keep on assuming that subjective experiences do not have physical > properties. > However they do. Subjective experiences are memories (either temporary > or lasting) > These memories do influence our behaviour as you very well know. > Although I do not know how memories are actually "stored" in cortex, > we have ample proof that they are. Of course we can theoretically > explain our conduct mechanically without realizing that the synapse > behaviour we are describing is actually the act of "remembering" but > that does not change the fact, that without the information coming > from our memory our behaviour would change drastically. > > In my previous example of my computer program > you can explain the working by the hexadecimal machine code (a mix of > numbers and the letters A,B,C,D, E and F) and totally ignore what they > mean, > but that does not mean that the fact that the employee is a female > does not matter! > > Likewise you can explain human behaviour by the chemical working of > synapses, > but that does not mean in doesn't matter whether I thought I saw > Ashley or Kate. > > Humans are actually using subjective experiences to guide their > behaviour. > > I started re-reading "consciousness explained" by Daniel C. Dennett, > and found out his idea of consciousness goes one step further than I > thought. He thinks consciousness is caused by ideas in our head, that > make us think in a conscious way. Ideas that we have mostly learned > from other people. > I am not sure that is correct. To me everything we can theoretically > remember and theoretically communicate about, is a subjective > experience and is or has been part of our consciousness. > But the fact that almost nobody can remember much of his/her early > childhood, might mean that Dennett is right. > But it would be a good thing to read to book anyway. (did you read it > already?) > I can understand that you have been deceived by Dennet's explanation. I can show it to be a deception. Step 1. Do you understand that if there was a robot, no matter how it behaved, as long as it followed the known laws of physics, and therefore its behaviour could be explained to you in these terms, you wouldn't know whether it actually had any subjective experiences or not. This isn't about what your guess would be, it is about the truth about what you know. Nor is it a statement that the robot couldn't be subjectively experiencing by the way, in case you were going to disingeniously suggest that it was. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun, 16:32, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181660806.879163.32060@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > > > On 12 Jun, 12:50, Fred Stone <N...@Biznez.net> wrote: > >> someone2 wrote: > >> > On 12 Jun, 02:36, Fred Stone <N...@Biznez.net> wrote: > >> >> someone2 wrote: > >> >> > On 11 Jun, 22:37, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >> >> >> innews:1181594965.007188.174010@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > > >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 20:52, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >> >> >> >> innews:1181593745.206175.160780 > > @q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > > >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 20:47, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> >> > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:29:57 -0700, in alt.atheism , > >> >> >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> >> >> >> <1181590197.482419.50...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> >> >> >Anyway, did you manage to understand 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 > > >> >> >> >> >> I disagree that (2) is true if (1) is true. I could > >> >> >> >> >> identify a class of phenomena, C, of which P is one > >> >> >> >> >> possible member. But that is a minor point. My major > >> >> >> >> >> point is in (1). I disagree that (1) reasonably captures > >> >> >> >> >> a physical understanding of human behavior and subjective > >> >> >> >> >> experience (SE). All of the physical analysis I see take > >> >> >> >> >> the existence of SE as a given and work to > >> >> >> >> >> explain that existence. So, while I think your argument > >> >> >> >> >> here is wrong, I think the argument itself does not > >> >> >> >> >> meaningfully relate to a physicalist (not scientism) > >> >> >> >> >> theory of the mind. > > >> >> >> >> > It is always true, and you have just avoided even > >> >> >> >> > attempting to point out why it isn't. > > >> >> >> >> You have avoided seeing every attempt to point out why it > >> >> >> >> isn't. > > >> >> >> >> > Yes you are right that subjective experiences do > >> >> >> >> > influence our behaviour, else what reason would we have to > >> >> >> >> > consider whether a robot is? Once you take away your > >> >> >> >> > assertion (which is shown to be implausible) > > >> >> >> >> You keep repeating that assertion, but you are assuming your > >> >> >> >> conclusion. > > >> >> >> > Where has it been pointed out where it isn't correct. > >> >> >> > Attempts where you change either B(M) or P between (1) and > >> >> >> > (2) obviously don't count, as it only applies where B(M) and > >> >> >> > P are the same between (1) and (2). > > >> >> >> But every example you offer, Glenn, you also change B or B(M) > >> >> >> or P yourself. You just offer us trivial changes that don't > >> >> >> make a difference to the behavior B(M) whereas we all know that > >> >> >> subjective experience DOES make a difference to behavior. You > >> >> >> then assume your conclusion when you state that under > >> >> >> materialism that subjective experience could not possibly > >> >> >> affect behavior. > > >> >> >> > Attempts so far have been shown to be deceptively attempting > >> >> >> > to do this. Perhaps you'd care to give an example where it > >> >> >> > wouldn't be true. > > >> >> >> I have already offered you several examples, all as > >> >> >> straighforward and truthful as yours. > > >> >> > Well I can show you a few examples here, and you can see that I > >> >> > don't change B(M) or P between (1) and (2) for any given > >> >> > example. Obviously they are different in different examples. > > >> >> > Example 1: > >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> You changed B. > > >> >> > As (1) is true, so is: > > >> >> (1) is not true. B is different. > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> Irrelevant conclusion. > > >> >> > Example 2: > >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> > M = a television > >> >> > B(M) = television showing a broadcast television program > >> >> > P = a chalk mark on the side > > >> >> > Which means (1) would be: > > >> >> > 1) A television showing a broadcast television program is > >> >> > explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of > >> >> > whether it has a chalk mark on the side or not. > > >> >> > As (1) is true, so is: > > >> >> Again, you changed B. > > >> >> > 2) Presence of a chalk mark on the side, or lack of, does not > >> >> > affect the television showing a broadcast television program, > >> >> > else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or > >> >> > without a chalk mark on the side. > > >> >> > Example 3: > >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> > M = a car > >> >> > B(M) = parked with its engine running > >> >> > P = petrol in the tank > > >> >> > Which means (1) would be: > > >> >> > 1) A car parked with its engine running is explained by the laws > >> >> > of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has petrol > >> >> > in the tank or not. > > >> >> > Which is false, so (2) would also be false: > > >> >> > 2) Presence of petrol in the tank, 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 petrol in the > >> >> > tank. > > >> >> > As you can see, in examples 1 and 2 in which (1) is true in both > >> >> > cases have B(M) and P the same in both (1) and (2) within the > >> >> > given example. Example 3 is just an example of where (1) is > >> >> > false, there was no need to include (2), but did so just to show > >> >> > that if it was included B(M) and P would be the same in both (1) > >> >> > and (2). > > >> >> > So now it is your turn, I've given three examples, you only need > >> >> > to give one. Here are my predictions, either: > > >> >> And again you changed B. > > >> >> > a) you won't give an example > >> >> > b) you will change B(M) or P between (1) and (2) of your > >> >> > example. c) you will give an example which does have knowledge > >> >> > of P in (1), even if it is worded deceptively so as not to be > >> >> > immediately obvious. d) you will give an example which > >> >> > highlights what I have been saying. > > >> >> You merely highlighted exactly what I was saying by repeating > >> >> the same trivial examples in which the change of B made no > >> >> difference to the behavior B(M), and you expect us to fall for > >> >> your switcheroo when you change Humans from having subjective > >> >> experience to NOT having subjective experience. > > >> > I had said: > >> > ------------------- > > >> > Example 1: > >> > ---------- > > >> > 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. > > >> > ------------------- > > >> > To which you replied: > >> > ------------------- > >> > You changed B. > >> > ------------------- > > >> > LOL, where did I, and also I'm not sure what you mean by B as > >> > opposed to B(M)? > > >> You removed the serial number. You now have two different cars. One > >> with and one without serial numbers. The lack of a serial number has > >> no effect on the operation of a car. That is a given. You are trying > >> to make it a given that the lack of subjective experience has no > >> effect on behavior. That is NOT a given. That is what you are > >> trying to prove, Glenn, and I'm not going to let you get away with > >> assuming your conclusion. > > >> > As for my predictions, I see you went for (a). > > >> I see that you still tried to get away with your Stupid Logic. > > > No Fred, there is no adding or removing the serial number, there is > > just one car, of which you have no knowledge of whether it had a > > serial number or not. P was the same in both (1) and (2) within each > > example (though I see you snipped the other examples). > > Now you're switching between knowledge of the fact and the fact itself. > I snipped for size, Glenn, something that you don't seem to be capable > of doing either. The thread is still right there in the archives. > > > Can you now understand it, or more importantly can you face it? > > I'm waiting for you to face the fact that your "logic" is nothing but > fallacies and hot air. > > > You are more than welcome to attempt to give an example where it > > wouldn't be true, my predictions are that you will either: > > > a) you won't give an example > > I've given examples, all of which fit your rules the way you play them. > But you play by different rules than you expect me to play by. > > > b) you will change B(M) or P between (1) and (2) of your example. > > B(M) necessarily changes when you make B "behaving as if having > subjective experience". > > > c) you will give an example which does have knowledge of P in (1), > > even if it is worded deceptively so as not to be immediately obvious. > > It is not possible for an external observer to have knowledge of another > person's subjective experience. That is the definition of "subjective > experience". That is true whether the other person is a human being with > a meat brain or a computer with an electronic brain. > > That in no way precludes a complete explanation of the behavior of a > brain according to the laws of physics. > > > d) you will give an example which highlights what I have been saying. > > e) understand it > > > last time you went for (a), I've added the (e) option for you now, but > > you'd have to get over your ego first. > > I choose (f) Glenn will continue to repeat his fallacies, insisting that > they are not fallacies. > The deception in your last reply was easy to spot Fred. I had addressed the point you were making when I said: ---------- No Fred, there is no adding or removing the serial number, there is just one car, of which you have no knowledge of whether it had a serial number or not. P was the same in both (1) and (2) within each example (though I see you snipped the other examples). ---------- Your reply was a simple distraction away from the reply, and a deceptive one at that: ---------- Now you're switching between knowledge of the fact and the fact itself. I snipped for size, Glenn, something that you don't seem to be capable of doing either. The thread is still right there in the archives. ---------- I wasn't switching between knowledge of the fact and the fact itself, regarding the snipping I simply had said you had snipped which was a fact, I hadn't said you had disingeniously snipped because you are a deceptive little coward, for example. It had addressed the point that I hadn't changed P within my examples. You have still failed to give one example which didn't have deceptions in it Fred, in that the reasoning wasn't appropriately used, therefore didn't show the reasoning to be incorrect. Tet I have given three which adhered to how the reasoning applies. Again you refused to give an example. If you could give one you would, you wouldn't waste your time trying to hide behind deception. The point is you can't, but you can't face it either because of your ego. You appear to me pathetic. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun, 17:13, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:1181558571.566915.292060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > 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? > > As long as P is not "being dipped in catnip". > It doesn't matter what P is, but remember, M must be the same in (1) and (2), B(M) must be the same in (1) and (2), and P must the same in (1) and (2). So give me an example where you think the reasoning doesn't hold. If you could show just one, I would be incorrect. Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181683182.108501.293290@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Jun, 16:59, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181643629.665515.215790@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 12 Jun, 02:00, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1181607322.623131.144640@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 12 Jun, 00:56, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:1181603668.494011.312460@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 12 Jun, 00:09, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:1181598999.112030.3470@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 22:34, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181593524.600437.247290@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 20:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181583039.890628.118980@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 18:23, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181581549.652693.254210@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 16:43, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181517234.889369.239710@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So you determine if you're right about something >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> based >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> on >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> but >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> arbitrary feelings? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That explains a lot. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, it's influenced by subjective experience. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lets see if we can apply this stupidity to something >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> affects >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Can you apply it to reflexes? Oops, no, there's a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> difference >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you have reflexes compared to you not having >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reflexes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apply >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> your little formula to reflexes, what makes you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apply >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm a biological mechanism simply following the laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjectively experience, therefore I conclude that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> biological >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mechanisms >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> following the laws of can subjectively experience. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > therefore what reason would the biological >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assertion >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were made) have for considering such a thing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > uninfluenced >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > by >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > having >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective experiences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This one doesn't. This one observes that it's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experiences >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> influence its behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You were wrong get used to it. Stop being so >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > pathetic >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > about >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You're not stating my position. Why would your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> criticizism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> position >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> do not hold show that I am wrong? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If you changed the property to one that behaviour >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > couldn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained without knowledge of, then (1) wouldn't be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > true. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Which means you can't apply your formula to reflexes, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> right? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So why do you think you can apply it to consciousness? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behaviors >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious and unconscious things, in real life, is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> pretty >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> different. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The unconscious ones lie inert while the conscious ones >> >> >> >> >> >> >> run >> >> >> >> >> >> >> about. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> According >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to (1) of your formula, you can't apply it to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You have already admitted that though you could know >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the robot (and therefore be able to explain its >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wouldn't have knowledge of whether it has subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not. I asked you before: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is this an argument about my state of ignorance >> >> >> >> >> >> >> concerning >> >> >> >> >> >> >> if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> something >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious or not? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That has fuck-all to do with anything. My state of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ignorance >> >> >> >> >> >> >> has >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> do with whether something is conscious or not, or what >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> source >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousnsess is. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To which you replied: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I fucking understand that you twit. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The question is can you face the truth, or are you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > going >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > continue >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to grasp at straws, hoping that they will enable you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > avoid >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > instead of making you look more and more pathetic. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The truth would be that if it acts like it's conscious, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'll >> >> >> >> >> >> >> call >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. That's my prerogative. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The point was outlined in the reason, you are unable to >> >> >> >> >> >> > face: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So with the robot, since it's behaviour can be explained >> >> >> >> >> >> > without >> >> >> >> >> >> > requiring knowledge of whether it is conscious or not, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ok, you asked for it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> B(M) is not same for conscious vs unconscious robots. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So your formula does not apply. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you have a robot that you say is not conscious, yet in >> >> >> >> >> >> all >> >> >> >> >> >> respects >> >> >> >> >> >> acts >> >> >> >> >> >> as if it is, then there is consciousness involved. The >> >> >> >> >> >> mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't >> >> >> >> >> >> matter. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Consider, if the robot is just a clever tape recorder >> >> >> >> >> >> specifically >> >> >> >> >> >> programmed to answer my likely questions, then some >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> entity >> >> >> >> >> >> had >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> program it and record the responses. THAT'S the conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> entity >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm >> >> >> >> >> >> talking >> >> >> >> >> >> to via the robot. The robot is only the middle-man between >> >> >> >> >> >> me >> >> >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> >> another >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness. I may confuse the robot for the conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> entity, >> >> >> >> >> >> but >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't mean I'm not talking to another consciousness. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's the same with any elaborate Eliza program you might >> >> >> >> >> >> want >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> construct. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm talking to the programmer through the robot, even >> >> >> >> >> >> though >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> programmer >> >> >> >> >> >> may be long dead. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And if you arrive at the robot through no artifice, >> >> >> >> >> >> meaning >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> >> >> constructed by unconscious nature with no intent, then by >> >> >> >> >> >> what >> >> >> >> >> >> authority >> >> >> >> >> >> do >> >> >> >> >> >> you declare it non-conscious if it acts like it is? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > whether it is >> >> >> >> >> >> > or not couldn't be influencing its behaviour, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> But since it is influencing its behavior, your formula >> >> >> >> >> >> does >> >> >> >> >> >> not >> >> >> >> >> >> apply. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > no more than it could >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence ours, if we were simply a biological mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> > following >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws of physics... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...with consciousness as part of that biological mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> influencing >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It is implausible that we are, for reasons given to >> >> >> >> >> >> > you before. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And your formula is as inapplicable as before. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You can choose to be totally illogical if you like, and >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> > not >> >> >> >> >> >> > face >> >> >> >> >> >> > reason. Though you won't be experiencing the physical >> >> >> >> >> >> > world >> >> >> >> >> >> > forever, >> >> >> >> >> >> > and you'll regret your choice. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And if you're wrong, which is always possible, your >> >> >> >> >> >> continued >> >> >> >> >> >> insistence >> >> >> >> >> >> that this is the case is nothing more than your arrogant >> >> >> >> >> >> self-absorption >> >> >> >> >> >> talking. >> >> >> >> >> >> > The formula doesn't require a comparitive entity. It can be >> >> >> >> >> > used >> >> >> >> >> > in >> >> >> >> >> > regards to any physical entity. >> >> >> >> >> >> Any physical entity? >> >> >> >> >> >> Let's try it: >> >> >> >> >> >> M = A man >> >> >> >> >> B(M) = Walking around >> >> >> >> >> P = Legs >> >> >> >> >> >> How the fuck do you: >> >> >> >> >> >> "1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without >> >> >> >> >> requiring >> >> >> >> >> knowledge >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> whether it has P or not." >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't know about you, but if I'm going to explain how a guy >> >> >> >> >> walks >> >> >> >> >> around, >> >> >> >> >> I'm gonna have to know if he has legs 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." >> >> >> >> >> >> I would think legs have something to do with walking around, >> >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >> don't >> >> >> >> >> think it's gonna be the same with or without them. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please explain how your formula applies. With the values I've >> >> >> >> >> plugged >> >> >> >> >> in, >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> doesn't make any sense. >> >> >> >> >> >> > You keep trying to talk about two >> >> >> >> >> > different mechanisms, and say well they act differently, >> >> >> >> >> > but >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> > like talking about a car and a toaster, and saying well the >> >> >> >> >> > car >> >> >> >> >> > has >> >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> >> >> > numberplate, and they act differently so the number plate >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> > influential. You need to face that the formula is true, and >> >> >> >> >> > can >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> > shown to be so, when you stop trying to make B(M) or P >> >> >> >> >> > different >> >> >> >> >> > between (1) and (2). Basically it cuts through the >> >> >> >> >> > deception >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> > were fooled by. >> >> >> >> >> >> Apply your formula to the entities I provided above. >> >> >> >> >> > Er... you really are having trouble understanding this aren't >> >> >> >> > you. >> >> >> >> >> Either that, or you're really bad at making others understand >> >> >> >> you. >> >> >> >> >> > Is >> >> >> >> > it the complexity of it, or is it that for it to be correct >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> > mean >> >> >> >> > that you were wrong, and your ego won't let you face that you >> >> >> >> > were >> >> >> >> > wrong? >> >> >> >> >> Gosh, no thought whatsoever that maybe the problem lies with >> >> >> >> you. >> >> >> >> >> > In your example (1) would not be true, you couldn't explain >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > man >> >> >> >> > walking around, without knowledge of whether he had legs or >> >> >> >> > not. >> >> >> >> >> So your formula CANNOT be applied to "any physical entity". >> >> >> >> >> Were you lying when you said it could? "The formula doesn't >> >> >> >> require >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> comparitive entity. It can be used in regards to any physical >> >> >> >> entity." >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps you're suggesting that legs aren't physical. Or could >> >> >> >> this >> >> >> >> be >> >> >> >> another example of your mastery of the language that makes it so >> >> >> >> easy >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> >> others to understand you? >> >> >> >> > Yes it can be applied to any physical entity. The point is that >> >> >> > only >> >> >> > when (1) is true, (2) is true. Obviously where (1) is false as in >> >> >> > your >> >> >> > example then (2) would also be false. The point was never that >> >> >> > (1) >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > always true. Can you understand it now? You can ask for >> >> >> > clarification >> >> >> > on it if you like, after all it would be silly of you to be >> >> >> > stating >> >> >> > that it wasn't true, if it was just a case of you not >> >> >> > understanding >> >> >> > it. >> >> >> >> I see now, you relegated the IF THEN statement to a tiny sentence >> >> >> at >> >> >> the >> >> >> end, without a number, that didn't appear to be part of the >> >> >> formula. >> >> >> Understood now. >> >> >> >> Excellent. Just like the leg example, since the behavior of a >> >> >> person >> >> >> walking >> >> >> around cannot be explained by the laws of physics without knowledge >> >> >> of >> >> >> whether he's conscious or not, (2) is not true. >> >> >> >> I mean, to explain the behavior of a person walking around, I have >> >> >> to >> >> >> know >> >> >> if the person is conscious or unconscious. I know how conscious and >> >> >> unconscious people behave, and it's not similar at all. >> >> >> >> Cool! We're done! >> >> >> > Not quite. The point in contention is that we are not simply a >> >> > biological mechanism following the laws of physics, because if we >> >> > were >> >> > then it wouldn't be influential. >> >> >> You have a strange definition of influential. Are you saying there >> >> would >> >> be >> >> no such thing as influence if the universe were clockwork? >> >> >> Tell me how legs are not influential to walking around. >> >> >> Then tell me why consciousness is not influential to walking around. >> >> >> You require them both to walk around. >> >> >> > So if you were contesting this, then with knowledge of how the >> >> > biological mechanism operated, its behaviour could be explained >> >> > simply >> >> > in terms of the biological mechanism following the laws of physics. >> >> >> Like how a man with no legs can't walk around. >> >> >> Like how a man who's unconscious can't walk around. >> >> >> > Which would require no knowledge of whether it were subjectively >> >> > experiencing or not, any more than it would be required to explain >> >> > the >> >> > way a robot were behaving. >> >> >> I've changed my mind. You need to know if the person is conscious or >> >> not >> >> to >> >> explain his behavior. >> >> >> See, I'm not as dogmatic as you think I am. It you that is as dogmatic >> >> as >> >> you think I am. >> >> >> > So (1) would be true, >> >> >> No. It fails (1) for the same reason the leg example failed. You need >> >> to >> >> know if the person is conscious or unconscious. >> >> >> > and so would (2). >> >> >> Nope. (1) fails so (2) is not true! Your formula is actually working >> >> pretty >> >> well now. >> >> >> > It >> >> > is an implausible story though, but for it not to be true, would >> >> > require the assumption that we were simply a biological mechanism >> >> > strictly following the laws of physics. >> >> >> That's what your formula seems to be supporting. >> >> >> > Just to remind you, you acknowledged that subjective experiences are >> >> > a >> >> > property in their own right, >> >> >> Just like legs. >> >> >> > and that the property may be present in a >> >> > robot or not, >> >> >> Just like legs. >> >> >> > in that you can have knowledge of the other properties >> >> > such as the mechanism, but not of whether the property of subjective >> >> > experiences had emerged, was acknowledge by you in response to where >> >> > I >> >> > said: >> >> >> How does that work with the legs/no legs scenario? >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> If I can't see the guy, I can't see if he has any legs. Check. >> >> >> > To which you replied: >> >> > ------------ >> >> > I fucking understand that you twit. >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> > Don't you reflect yourself on the straws you grasp at, or is it that >> >> > you are just desperate to avoid facing you were wrong? >> >> >> M = A man >> >> B(M) = Walking around >> >> P = Consciousness >> >> >> (1) fails utterly. (For the same reason as the legs example.) >> >> (2) Isn't true. (Presence of consciousness affects B(M)) >> >> >> I agree. >> >> > When you say: >> > ------ >> > I've changed my mind. You need to know if the person is conscious or >> > not to >> > explain his behavior. >> > ------ >> >> > Do you mean whether the person has subjective experiences or not? >> >> Oh, so NOW you feel you have to draw some distinction between the two >> terms >> that up until now you've been using interchangably. Gee, I wonder why? >> >> I meant exactly what I wrote. Consciousness. Will you agree there's a >> difference between the behavior of a conscious person and the behavior of >> an >> unconscious person? >> > > Well I was just checking as you seem to be using it in the sense that > refers to a behaviour such as in the context of "I walked in, and > there he was in the middle of the room unconscious". Obviously it > wouldn't make sense to use it in this context as you have stated that > the behaviour was that he was walking around. Why didn't you bring up this objection with the legs example? The context is precisely the same. Without legs he can't be walking around either. This is, in fact, precisely the context in which I'm using Consciousness. > In the context of it being meant as whether the man had any conscious > experiences or not, Do you think conscious experiences are unnecessary for consciousness? I think they're required, pretty much by definition. > I refer you two what I said earlier regarding the > point that the reasoning shows we are not simply a biological > mechanism following the laws of physics, because if we were then it > wouldn't be influential: > > --------- > So if you were contesting this, then with knowledge of how the > biological mechanism operated, its behaviour could be explained simply > in terms of the biological mechanism following the laws of physics. > --------- > > In other words like a robot without knowledge of whether it had > subjective experiences or not. > > Your reply was: > --------- > Like how a man with no legs can't walk around. > > Like how a man who's unconscious can't walk around. > --------- > > Which you can see while it was a reply, it wasn't one that addressed > the point I had made. It's too bad you couldn't make the conceptual leap. The comparisons are pretty clear. "Can I explain how a person walks around without knowledge of whether he has legs or not?" conceptually maps to, "Can I explain how a person walks around without knowledge of whether he's conscious or not." perfectly. Your formula handles it perfectly, (1) fails utterly making (2) not true. Just like it did with the leg example. For some reason, you're offering objections to the consciousness example that you're not offereing to the leg example. I'd like to know why. > Can you comprehend that if we were simply a > biological mechanism following the laws of physics, then any behaviour > could be explained without knowledge of whether it was subjectively > experiencing/was conscious or not, perhaps by an alien robot for > example, just as the behaviour of the alien robot could be explained > by us without knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing/ > was conscious or not. WTF? ALIEN ROBOT??? What depths of your colon did you pull THAT out of? We are biological mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness is an operational part of that mechanism. Thus, if you explain the behavior, you are including the operation of consciousness -- if it's present -- in your explanation, whether you like it or not. Just like if you explain how a guy's walking around, you are including the fact that he must have legs in your explanation, whether you like it or not, whether you mention it or not. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1181685844.308030.63760@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > You have still failed to give one example which didn't have deceptions > in it Fred, in that the reasoning wasn't appropriately used, therefore > didn't show the reasoning to be incorrect. Tet I have given three > which adhered to how the reasoning applies. Those three examples of yours are deceptive, since your "reasoning" does not apply to the case of "subjective experience". > Again you refused to give > an example. If you could give one you would, you wouldn't waste your > time trying to hide behind deception. The point is you can't, but you > can't face it either because of your ego. You appear to me pathetic. > You're a troll. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181415885.741369.130790@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Jun, 08:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181352490.810453.248960@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 8 Jun, 17:24, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1181307535.236792.214630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 8 Jun, 04:59, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:1181267542.569449.176200@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 20:48, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:1181237528.194193.258590@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 07:55, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181195570.815424.258260@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 06:19, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181176912.356609.204180@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181170991.844972.128670@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 18:52, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181119352.279318.274890@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 09:10, "Denis Loubet" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <dlou...@io.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [snipped older correspondance] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It seems you can't read. There were >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > initially >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > two >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > universes, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > robot in each, and it remained so. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Now you're just lying. Anyone can see that you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> first >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> brought >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> up >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> universe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> argument on the 4th at 11:25 AM. Robots >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> weren't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mentioned >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> until >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 3 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> exchanges >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> later with your 5:47 AM post on the 5th. And >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> didn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mention >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> second >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robot until 2 exchanges later on the 5th at >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 7:05 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> PM. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Go on, read your posts. I'll wait. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Can I expect an apology, or at least an >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> admission >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> made >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mistake? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It also seems you are unable to follow the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > points >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > being >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > made, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > avoided the questions. For example where I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To which I pointed out (though tidied up a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > bit >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > here >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > for >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > clarity), >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I made a robot that acted as though it has >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you thought it did, but actually after you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > made >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > decision, I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained to you that it behaved the way it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > did >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > simply >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > because >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physical mechanism following the known laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > then >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > on >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > what >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > basis would you continue to think that it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > was >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > acting >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > way >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > did >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > because it had subjective experiences? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To which you replied: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I would have to be assured that the physical >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > operation >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > robot, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following known laws of physics, didn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > actually >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > constitute >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > consciousness. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes? And? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > continue >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > think >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why do you have a question mark at the end of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> declarative >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sentence? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would continue to think it was acting in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> response >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experiences because apparently that's what it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> looks >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> like >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> doing. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> show >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> me >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's acting in what I would consider a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> non-conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> manner. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You also were seemingly unable to comprehend >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > even >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > regard it as having subjective experiences, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > still >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaving >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as it would be expected to without the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > was. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Only if the non-conscious version was designed >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mimic >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> version. Note that the conscious version >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wouldn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> need >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> bit >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> programming. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Regarding the post on the 4th (and I don't know >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > why >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > couldn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > cut and pasted these instead of me having to do >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > stated: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hey, they're YOUR posts. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > object >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > there >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > was >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > an >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > alternative >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > universe, which followed the same known laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > but >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > there >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were no subjective experiences associated with >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > act >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same. The objection that if it followed the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, then it would automatically be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjectively >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experienced, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics don't reference subjective experiences, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > thus >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > both >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same laws of physics as known to us, but with >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > one >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > having >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences and one not, without the need for >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > any >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of physics to be altered. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Here mechanisms are mentioned being in each >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > universe, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > but >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > are >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > correct, in that I didn't specifically mention >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > robots. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So, are you willing to admit that I CAN read? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Though for each >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism, it would be existing twice, once in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > each >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > universe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (thus >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "...both following the same laws of physics as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > us, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > but >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > with >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > one having subjective experiences and one >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not"). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On the post on the 5th: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > look >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > at >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > reasonably. It isn't as though it couldn't be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > done, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > for >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > example >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > robot behaved as though it might have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > i.e. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > talked about them etc, you could surely >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > conceive >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > either >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (a) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > did have, or (b) it didn't have. In one >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > universe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > could >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > conceive >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it having subjective experiences, in the other >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > didn't. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > either though it would be acting just the same, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > both >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > simply just be a mechanism following the known >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same would apply to humans if you were to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > consider >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > them >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > simply >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > biological mechanisms following the known laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > even >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > run from logic and reason, when it goes against >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > unfounded >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > bias. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > There are two universe, and a robot is in each, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > obviously >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > robot isn't existing in both simultaneously. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That's not obvious at all. The entire quote can >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> interpreted >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> referencing one robot being compared in two >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> different >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> universes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps a command of the language is more >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> important >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> than >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> seem >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it is. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I'm not sure if this is what you are referring >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > time >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > stamps >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I see are different) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, that's exactly the post I'm referencing. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Regarding the thought experiment, the robots >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > both >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the same known laws of physics. So perhaps >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > could >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > explain >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > why >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > suggest they would act differently. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Again, there are two robots. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, that's the FIRST time you unambiguously refer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> two >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robots. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If it was different bits you were referring to, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > then >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > suggest >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you cut and paste them yourself, so there can >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > no >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > confusion. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, you're using the correct quotes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Anyway, back to the real issue, regarding where >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, I suppose an admission of a slight mistake >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> opposed >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> an >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apology >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> for unjustly slandering my reading ability is all >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> expect >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> from >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> one >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dishonest as you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > continue >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > think >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You replied >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Why do you have a question mark at the end of a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > declarative >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > sentence? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I would continue to think it was acting in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > response >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences because apparently that's what it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > looks >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > like >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > doing. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > And your word alone isn't enough to dissuade >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > me. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > show me that it's acting in what I would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > consider >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > non-conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > manner. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So you would base your belief that it was >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > acting >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > response >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective experiences, even though it was >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaving >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > exactly >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would be expected to, without the added >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > was >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjectively experiencing? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No. In your scenario you've already got me >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> agreeing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> basis for that conclusion is that it's behaving >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> way >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> take >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> congruent with subjective experience. It's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> responding >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> context >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> my >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> questions and such, for example. Then, in your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> scenario, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> tell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> me >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> not conscious. The reason I do not immediately >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> agree >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> with >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robot is, I presume, still acting like it's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Until >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> show >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> me >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that it's not conscious, I'll continue to act >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> under >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> assumption >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> my >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conclusion that it is conscious is correct and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> disbelieve >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That's what I meant by: "I would continue to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> was >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> acting >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> response >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to subjective experiences because apparently >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> what >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> looks >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> like >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> doing." I can't imagine how you misinterpreted >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If so, what influence would you consider the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be having, given that it is behaving as it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > expected >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > without the assumption that it had any >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Given that your interpretation of my response was >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> incorrect, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> this >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> question >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is meaningless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you had two robots, one with a brain capable >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experience, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and one with a sophisticated tape-recorder that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> played >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> back >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> responses >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> designed to fool me into thinking it's conscious, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> they >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> supposedly >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behave the same, and I would mistakenly grant >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> both >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> were >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Both >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> would be acting according to physical law to get >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> same >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> effect, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> but >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> workings would be very different. For the tape >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> recorder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robot >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> succeed, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> has to have the right phrases recorded to fool >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> me, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> just >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> like >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robot has to have subjective experiences or I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> won't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I've snipped the older correspondence, though not >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > sure >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I've >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > made >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > such >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a good job of it, it would be easier if we >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > responded >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > at >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > end >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > what each other post, but I guess you'd object, so >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > there >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > are a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > few >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > imbedded pieces of text still remaining from the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > older >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > stuff. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That's fine. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Assuming you aren't trying to be disingenious, you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > seem >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > got >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > lost on the scenario. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No. Did I say that was your scenario? No? Then >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> there's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> no >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reason >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've presented my own scenario since yours doesn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> seem >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> going >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> anywhere. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This one-sided interrogation gets a little tiresome, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> so >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> thought >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> try >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> provide my own illustrative scenario. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Figures you would ignore it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > No where are you told it isn't conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Whether it is or isn't is unknown. You know that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > follows >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known laws of physics, and you know that it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaved >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > something >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > might have thought as conscious, if for example >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > been >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > communicating with it over the internet. Yes I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > just >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > added >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > clarification, but you appeared to be confused >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > claiming >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > incorrectly >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that you were told it wasn't conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > As it follows the known laws of physics, its >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > can >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained without the added assumption that it has >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > any >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The subjective experience is part of the physical >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ALL >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physical. What is your damn problem? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as any mechanism following the laws of physics >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > require >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > no >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > such claims to explain behaviour >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Except the mechanisms that do. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (restating to help you follow, this >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > doesn't mean that it couldn't have subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Irrelevant. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws of physics to be having subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > what >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would you consider the subjective experiences to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > having, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > given >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it is behaving as it would be expected to without >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it had any subjective experiences? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The fucking subjective experiences are part of the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physical >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> activity >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that's following the fucking laws of physics. It >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> get >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> any >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ARE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> matter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> following >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> from >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> other >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physical activity, no matter how much you fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> want >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why can't you fucking understand that? How many >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> times >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> do I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> respond the same fucking question with the same >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> answer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> before >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking get it? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (Is the question clear enough for you, or is there >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > any >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > clarification >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you require about what is being asked?) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think I understand you perfectly, but you simply >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> refuse >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> listen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> my >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> replies. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here's another vain analogy to try to get through to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> two >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> identical computers that run a program. But one >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> program >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> has a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subroutine >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> called Subjective Experience that drastically >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> affects >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> output, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> other doesn't. Both act according to the laws of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> expect >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> them to behave the same given that one program has a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subroutine >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> other doesn't? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I wouldn't. Why do you? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I had stated trying to help you as you seemed lost by >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > stating >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (emphasis for clarity): >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > NO WHERE ARE YOU TOLD IT ISN'T CONSCIOUS. WHETHER IT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > IS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > OR >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ISN'T >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > IS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > UNKNOWN. You know that it follows the known laws of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > know that it behaved as something you might have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > thought >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > conscious, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if for example you had been communicating with it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > over >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > internet. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Yes I have just added that clarification, but you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > appeared >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > confused claiming incorrectly >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that you were told it wasn't conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To which you replied >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes...?And...? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You did falsely claim though that in my scenario that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > told >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wasn't conscious, the text is still above, you state: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Even if you made a simple mistake and thought I was >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > referencing a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > scenario put forward by you, the claim you made was >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > still >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > blantantly >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > false. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Did you, or did you not, say: "To which I pointed out >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (though >> >> >> >> >> >> >> tidied >> >> >> >> >> >> >> up a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> bit here for clarity), that I made a robot that acted >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> though >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> has >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective experiences, and you thought it did, but >> >> >> >> >> >> >> actually >> >> >> >> >> >> >> after >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> had >> >> >> >> >> >> >> made your decision, I explained to you that it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behaved >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> way >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> did >> >> >> >> >> >> >> simply because of the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physical mechanism following the known laws of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> then >> >> >> >> >> >> >> on >> >> >> >> >> >> >> what >> >> >> >> >> >> >> basis would you continue to think that it was acting >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> way >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> did >> >> >> >> >> >> >> because >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it had subjective experiences?" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Blatantly false my ass. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Also with regards to the question: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ----------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > what >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would you consider the subjective experiences to be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > having, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > given >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it had any subjective experiences? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ----------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You replied: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ----------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The fucking subjective experiences are part of the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physical >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > activity that's following the fucking laws of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > doesn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fucking get any fucking simpler than that. Subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ARE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > matter following the fucking laws of physics. You >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > can't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > separate it from other fucking physical activity, no >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > matter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > how >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > much >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you fucking want to. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > do >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fucking respond the same fucking question with the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > answer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > before you fucking get it? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Everything follows the fucking laws of physics! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > self-proclaimed >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not fucking saying it's conscious, I'm saying if it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> was, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> its >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness is matter obeying physical law. The >> >> >> >> >> >> >> status >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robot in the scenario is irrelevant to my reply. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Can you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > thing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > know, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the mechanism, but whether it has subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > isn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known to you, so there is a natural seperation in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > knowledge, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > can deny it if you like, but its a fact. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I fucking understand that you twit. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Given that, perhaps you'd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > care to try again, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > your world perspective through reason that you know >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > will >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > come >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > dummy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > out >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > pram): >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm throwing the dummy out of the pram as a deliberate >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experiment >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> see >> >> >> >> >> >> >> if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you respond differently. Any variation would be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> welcome. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sadly it didn't work. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > given >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaving as it would be expected to without the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > any subjective experiences? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Since any subjective experience would be physical >> >> >> >> >> >> >> matter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> following >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experiences, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> then those experiences would be the mechanism following >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> known >> >> >> >> >> >> >> laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics. Since gravity can affect it's behavior, then >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experience, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as just another example of physical matter following >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> could affect its behavior too. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I note you did not respond to my computer example. Are >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> afraid >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> resultant crumbling of your world perspective through >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reason >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> know >> >> >> >> >> >> >> will come if you do? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Good grief. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > With regards to where I referenced your blantantly false >> >> >> >> >> >> > accusation >> >> >> >> >> >> > that I claimed the mechanism wasn't conscious: >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- >> >> >> >> >> >> > Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You highlighted a piece where I had said: >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- >> >> >> >> >> >> > ..., I explained to you that it behaved the way it did >> >> >> >> >> >> > simply >> >> >> >> >> >> > because >> >> >> >> >> >> > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Are you suggesting that because the behaviour was >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained >> >> >> >> >> >> > in >> >> >> >> >> >> > terms >> >> >> >> >> >> > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> > this suggested to you that it couldn't be conscious? How >> >> >> >> >> >> > so, >> >> >> >> >> >> > considering you think "Everything follows the fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics", and can therefore be explained in terms of the >> >> >> >> >> >> > physical >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, which >> >> >> >> >> >> > presumably >> >> >> >> >> >> > includes >> >> >> >> >> >> > things that are conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ah. I misread your quote and I apologise. I somehow >> >> >> >> >> >> inserted >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> idea >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> the explanation in the scenario asserted that the robot >> >> >> >> >> >> wasn't >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious, >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> those exact words. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> See? I can admit mistakes, and apologise. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You, on the other hand... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In response to the question: >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- >> >> >> >> >> >> > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> > known >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws >> >> >> >> >> >> > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence >> >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> >> > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, >> >> >> >> >> >> > given >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaving as it would be expected to without the >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> > had >> >> >> >> >> >> > any subjective experiences? >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You replied: >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- >> >> >> >> >> >> > Since any subjective experience would be physical matter >> >> >> >> >> >> > following >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences, then those experiences would be the >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> > following >> >> >> >> >> >> > the known laws of physics. Since gravity can affect it's >> >> >> >> >> >> > behavior, >> >> >> >> >> >> > then subjective experience, as just another example of >> >> >> >> >> >> > physical >> >> >> >> >> >> > matter >> >> >> >> >> >> > following the laws of physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> > could affect its behavior too. >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The question isn't meaningless, though I'll put it >> >> >> >> >> >> > another >> >> >> >> >> >> > way >> >> >> >> >> >> > for >> >> >> >> >> >> > you, as a series of statements, and you can state >> >> >> >> >> >> > whether >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> > agree >> >> >> >> >> >> > with the statements, and where if you disagree, the >> >> >> >> >> >> > statements >> >> >> >> >> >> > are >> >> >> >> >> >> > false. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At least this is different! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > A) The mechanism might or might not be subjectively >> >> >> >> >> >> > experienced, >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> > don't know (you agreed this above). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You meant to say the mechanism might or might not >> >> >> >> >> >> subjectively >> >> >> >> >> >> experience >> >> >> >> >> >> things, not be subjectively experienced. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Agreed. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > B) The mechanisms behaviour is explainable in terms of >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> > following the laws of physics, without requiring >> >> >> >> >> >> > knowledge >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> > whether >> >> >> >> >> >> > it is subjectively experienced. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Agreed. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > C) Whether the mechanism were being subjectively >> >> >> >> >> >> > experienced >> >> >> >> >> >> > or >> >> >> >> >> >> > not, >> >> >> >> >> >> > doesn't influence the behaviour, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes it does. Of course it does. Subjective experience is a >> >> >> >> >> >> physical >> >> >> >> >> >> process >> >> >> >> >> >> that affects behavior. A mechanism that has it should act >> >> >> >> >> >> differently >> >> >> >> >> >> from >> >> >> >> >> >> one that doesn't. Just like a mechanism that has wheels >> >> >> >> >> >> will >> >> >> >> >> >> move >> >> >> >> >> >> differently from one with legs. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > else the explanation for the >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It isn't the same in either case. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If the mechanism subjectively experiences things, it's >> >> >> >> >> >> built >> >> >> >> >> >> one >> >> >> >> >> >> way, >> >> >> >> >> >> if >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't subjectively experience things, it's built another >> >> >> >> >> >> way. >> >> >> >> >> >> Explaining >> >> >> >> >> >> how mechanisms that are different might behave differently >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> no >> >> >> >> >> >> way >> >> >> >> >> >> contradicts the fact that both are operating according to >> >> >> >> >> >> physical >> >> >> >> >> >> law. >> >> >> >> >> >> > So in © how can you claim that is could be behaving the >> >> >> >> >> > way >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> > because it is subjectively experiencing, when it might >> >> >> >> >> > not >> >> >> >> >> > be? >> >> >> >> >> >> I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it >> >> >> >> >> does." >> >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being >> >> >> >> >> subjectively >> >> >> >> >> experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> DOES >> >> >> >> >> affect >> >> >> >> >> behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things >> >> >> >> >> subjectively >> >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> >> not, >> >> >> >> >> not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. >> >> >> >> >> >> The context of a reply is important. >> >> >> >> >> >> > To try to help you with the mistake you are making, an >> >> >> >> >> > analogy >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> > be that there is a ball, which may be black or white, and >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> > question >> >> >> >> >> > was whether if it was black or white would influence the >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour. >> >> >> >> >> >> > A) The ball might be black or white, you don't know. >> >> >> >> >> > B) The way the ball bounces is explained by the laws of >> >> >> >> >> > physics >> >> >> >> >> > without requiring knowledge of whether it is black or >> >> >> >> >> > white. >> >> >> >> >> > C) Whether the ball were black or white doesn't affect >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour, >> >> >> >> >> > else >> >> >> >> >> > the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. >> >> >> >> >> >> If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is >> >> >> >> >> white >> >> >> >> >> then >> >> >> >> >> it's made of margarine. >> >> >> >> >> >> Both follow the laws of physics. >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you expect them to act the same? >> >> >> >> >> >> > Do you think it is correct to reason that a black ball is >> >> >> >> >> > different >> >> >> >> >> > from a white ball, and that if it was white, it was >> >> >> >> >> > because >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> > was >> >> >> >> >> > white that it bounced the way it did? Do you see, you can't >> >> >> >> >> > claim >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> > it bounced the way it did because it was white, when it >> >> >> >> >> > might >> >> >> >> >> > not >> >> >> >> >> > be. >> >> >> >> >> >> I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. >> >> >> >> >> >> Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "If the >> >> >> >> >> mechanism >> >> >> >> >> subjectively experiences things, it's built one way, if it >> >> >> >> >> doesn't >> >> >> >> >> subjectively experience things, it's built another way. >> >> >> >> >> Explaining >> >> >> >> >> how >> >> >> >> >> mechanisms that are different might behave differently in no >> >> >> >> >> way >> >> >> >> >> contradicts >> >> >> >> >> the fact that both are operating according to physical law." >> >> >> >> >> > (I've posted a response similar to this, but it doesn't seem >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> > have >> >> >> >> > come through, so I have retyped it out (which was annoying), >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> > reposted. There might be slight differences, but essentially >> >> >> >> > they >> >> >> >> > are >> >> >> >> > the same, you can answer either one) >> >> >> >> >> > I'll put the issue over another way taking your point into >> >> >> >> > account. >> >> >> >> >> > Hypothetically, supposing in the future space travels of >> >> >> >> > humanity >> >> >> >> > they >> >> >> >> > came across a planet with a similar atmosphere to ours, on >> >> >> >> > which >> >> >> >> > there >> >> >> >> > were found to be orbs. There were two types of orbs, though >> >> >> >> > both >> >> >> >> > had >> >> >> >> > an outer shell of a 10cm thickness. Though one type was of a >> >> >> >> > substance >> >> >> >> > which reflected light (white orbs), and the other was of a >> >> >> >> > type >> >> >> >> > with >> >> >> >> > absorbed light (black orbs). Both the light reflective (white) >> >> >> >> > substance and the light absorbing (black) substance were of >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > same >> >> >> >> > density, and both types of orb were filled with helium. The >> >> >> >> > white >> >> >> >> > orbs >> >> >> >> > were 10m in diameter, while the black orbs where 1km in >> >> >> >> > diameter. >> >> >> >> > The >> >> >> >> > black orbs were found higher in the atmosphere, and this was >> >> >> >> > explained >> >> >> >> > by the laws of physics, and the explanation had no reference >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> > whether the orbs were black or white, but to do with the >> >> >> >> > average >> >> >> >> > density of the orb. >> >> >> >> >> Why? >> >> >> >> >> > There were two groups of people. One was the colour >> >> >> >> > influentialists, >> >> >> >> > who claimed that colour of the orbs influenced the behaviour, >> >> >> >> > as >> >> >> >> > black >> >> >> >> > orbs behaved differently from white orbs, and that if they >> >> >> >> > were >> >> >> >> > white, >> >> >> >> > they had one type of outer shell, and that if they were black, >> >> >> >> > they >> >> >> >> > had another type of outer shell. The other group were the >> >> >> >> > colour >> >> >> >> > non- >> >> >> >> > influentialists who pointed out that the explanation of where >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > orbs >> >> >> >> > were found in the atmosphere didn't mention whether the orbs >> >> >> >> > were >> >> >> >> > black or white, and would remain the same in either case. >> >> >> >> >> > Now supposing another similar planet were to be spotted where >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> > was >> >> >> >> > suspected that helium filled orbs with either light reflective >> >> >> >> > or >> >> >> >> > light absorbing shells may again be found. The colour non- >> >> >> >> > influentialists pointed out to the colour influentialists >> >> >> >> > regarding >> >> >> >> > the position of any such orb in the atmosphere: >> >> >> >> >> > A) The orb might be black or white, you don't know. >> >> >> >> >> Sigh. Very well. >> >> >> >> >> > B) The height it is found at in the atmosphere is explained by >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > laws of physics. >> >> >> >> >> Sigh. Just as one would expect. >> >> >> >> >> > C) Whether the orb is black or white doesn't affect the >> >> >> >> > behaviour >> >> >> >> > doesn't influence the behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > same in either case. >> >> >> >> >> No. Clearly, since the albedo of the orbs are completely >> >> >> >> different, >> >> >> >> one >> >> >> >> reflecting light and the other absorbing it, there should exist >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> marked >> >> >> >> difference in temperature, and thus density of the gas inside, >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> thus >> >> >> >> bouancy. Add to this the immensely greater heat-gathering >> >> >> >> surface >> >> >> >> area >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> the black orbs and you should expect radically different >> >> >> >> behaviors. >> >> >> >> >> > Do you think that the reasoning of the colour >> >> >> >> > non-influentialists >> >> >> >> > was >> >> >> >> > logical, or do you think that the reasoning of the colour >> >> >> >> > influentialists was? >> >> >> >> >> The non-color influentalists are a bunch of idiots who know >> >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> >> about >> >> >> >> physics. >> >> >> >> > Well supposing it was explained to you that the orbs formed under >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > planet surface and seemed to have been released in plate >> >> >> > movements. >> >> >> > The density of the helium inside both was the same, the slight >> >> >> > heat >> >> >> > difference only resulted in a slight difference in internal >> >> >> > pressure, >> >> >> > not density, and thus not bouancy. >> >> >> >> No. You made your elaborate foot and placed it square in your >> >> >> dishonest >> >> >> mouth. And I'm going to laugh at your pathetic and transparent >> >> >> attempt >> >> >> at >> >> >> an >> >> >> ad-hoc rescue of your own scenario. A scenario that shows that you >> >> >> are >> >> >> obviously wrong, and clearly demonstrates that you have been wrong >> >> >> all >> >> >> along, and with this pitiable attempt at a fix, shows that you >> >> >> fully >> >> >> intend >> >> >> to remain wrong in the future. You are a testament to willful >> >> >> ignorance. >> >> >> >> Anyone with a scrap of intellectual integrity would at LEAST follow >> >> >> where >> >> >> their OWN examples lead. But not you. If you don't find YOUR OWN >> >> >> arguments >> >> >> convincing, why on earth do you think they'll convince anyone else? >> >> >> >> You have no concept of logic, and as your scenario shows, you are >> >> >> completely >> >> >> ignorant of the physical laws you pretend knowledge of. I can't >> >> >> even >> >> >> imagine >> >> >> what you thought your latest rationalization was supposed to >> >> >> accomplish. >> >> >> You're a complete and total idiot. >> >> >> >> I am going to treat your scenario as your admission that you are >> >> >> wrong, >> >> >> because that's what it is. You have successfully torpedoed your own >> >> >> argument. You tried to show one thing, but ended up showing >> >> >> something >> >> >> exactly the opposite. If you were honest, you would admit that, so >> >> >> I'm >> >> >> actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though your >> >> >> ad-hoc >> >> >> nonsense shows that you don't deserve it. >> >> >> >> Don't bother replaying unless you're admitting that your point is >> >> >> dead. >> >> >> > You'll notice that there was never a mention of the helium density >> >> > being different within the orbs. >> >> > You just invented that to avoid the >> >> > issue. >> >> >> I see now that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You remain, >> >> as >> >> always, a dishonest twat. >> >> >> Very well, in the spirit of compassion for the retarded, I shall >> >> respond. >> >> >> (I'm SUCH a softy.) >> >> >> The helium density in the orbs is a direct result of the temperature >> >> of >> >> the >> >> heluim which is a direct result of the absorption of heat from the sun >> >> by >> >> the orbs. The black orbs, according to the laws of physics that YOU >> >> INSIST >> >> THEY ADHERE TO, absorb more heat and thus will be hotter than the >> >> white >> >> orbs >> >> BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, and so their helium density will be different, >> >> as >> >> will their behavior. Think I'm making this shit up? Examine >> >> this:http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Toys-that-fly/solar-airs.... >> >> I >> >> would direct you at the wikipedia articles on boyancy and albedo and >> >> such, >> >> but they would only confuse you. I figure a toy is something you might >> >> have >> >> a chance to understand. >> >> >> Listening to you try to discuss scientific and philosophical issues is >> >> like >> >> watching a monkey wear clothes, it's amusing at first but quickly gets >> >> stale. >> >> > You really are disingenious. You snipped the post, and above it had >> > already been explained to you: >> >> I snipped text that addressed neither the problems with your scenario, >> nor >> your abject defeat. >> >> You said I should trim. >> >> > Well supposing it was explained to you that the orbs formed under the >> > planet surface and seemed to have been released in plate movements. >> > The density of the helium inside both was the same, the slight heat >> > difference only resulted in a slight difference in internal pressure, >> > not density, and thus not bouancy. >> >> That's all irrelevant since you already presented your scenario and it >> proved the opposite of what you wanted it to. Thus I win. Attempting to >> offer a feeble ad-hoc patch is just embarrassing. Especially one that >> doesn't even address any of the basic problems with your scenario. >> >> > That I even had to write that, just so that you could face the >> > scenario is enough to make me embarrassed for you. That you didn't and >> > tried to avoid it, and are doing so again is pathetic. >> >> I faced your scenario, it was an elegant disproof of your point. Well >> done. >> Nothing more need be said. >> >> Except that you're an utter moron. >> > > Well if the helium is at the same density within both, as explained > above, then on what basis do you support the colour influentialists? Because the laws of physics decree that the helium density will not the same. The color non-influentialists are a bunch of raving fucktards who know nothing about physics. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun, 23:14, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181683182.108501.293290@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > On 12 Jun, 16:59, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181643629.665515.215790@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 12 Jun, 02:00, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1181607322.623131.144640@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 12 Jun, 00:56, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:1181603668.494011.312460@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 12 Jun, 00:09, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:1181598999.112030.3470@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 22:34, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >>news:1181593524.600437.247290@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 20:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181583039.890628.118980@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 18:23, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181581549.652693.254210@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 16:43, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181517234.889369.239710@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So you determine if you're right about something > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> based > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> on > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nothing > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> but > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> arbitrary feelings? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That explains a lot. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, it's influenced by subjective experience. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lets see if we can apply this stupidity to something > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> affects > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Can you apply it to reflexes? Oops, no, there's a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> difference > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you have reflexes compared to you not having > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reflexes. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apply > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> your little formula to reflexes, what makes you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apply > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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, > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm a biological mechanism simply following the laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjectively experience, therefore I conclude that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> biological > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mechanisms > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> following the laws of can subjectively experience. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > therefore what reason would the biological > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assertion > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were made) have for considering such a thing > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > uninfluenced > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > by > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > having > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective experiences. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This one doesn't. This one observes that it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experiences > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> influence its behavior. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You were wrong get used to it. Stop being so > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > pathetic > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > about > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You're not stating my position. Why would your > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> criticizism > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> position > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> do not hold show that I am wrong? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If you changed the property to one that behaviour > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > couldn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained without knowledge of, then (1) wouldn't be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > true. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Which means you can't apply your formula to reflexes, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> right? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So why do you think you can apply it to consciousness? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behaviors > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious and unconscious things, in real life, is > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> pretty > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> different. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The unconscious ones lie inert while the conscious ones > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> run > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> about. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> According > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to (1) of your formula, you can't apply it to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You have already admitted that though you could know > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the robot (and therefore be able to explain its > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour) > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wouldn't have knowledge of whether it has subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not. I asked you before: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is this an argument about my state of ignorance > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> concerning > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> something > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious or not? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That has fuck-all to do with anything. My state of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ignorance > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> has > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nothing > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> do with whether something is conscious or not, or what > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> source > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousnsess is. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To which you replied: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I fucking understand that you twit. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The question is can you face the truth, or are you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > going > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > continue > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to grasp at straws, hoping that they will enable you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > avoid > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > instead of making you look more and more pathetic. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The truth would be that if it acts like it's conscious, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'll > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> call > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. That's my prerogative. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > The point was outlined in the reason, you are unable to > >> >> >> >> >> >> > face: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > So with the robot, since it's behaviour can be explained > >> >> >> >> >> >> > without > >> >> >> >> >> >> > requiring knowledge of whether it is conscious or not, > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Ok, you asked for it. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> B(M) is not same for conscious vs unconscious robots. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> So your formula does not apply. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> If you have a robot that you say is not conscious, yet in > >> >> >> >> >> >> all > >> >> >> >> >> >> respects > >> >> >> >> >> >> acts > >> >> >> >> >> >> as if it is, then there is consciousness involved. The > >> >> >> >> >> >> mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> matter. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Consider, if the robot is just a clever tape recorder > >> >> >> >> >> >> specifically > >> >> >> >> >> >> programmed to answer my likely questions, then some > >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious > >> >> >> >> >> >> entity > >> >> >> >> >> >> had > >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> program it and record the responses. THAT'S the conscious > >> >> >> >> >> >> entity > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm > >> >> >> >> >> >> talking > >> >> >> >> >> >> to via the robot. The robot is only the middle-man between > >> >> >> >> >> >> me > >> >> >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> >> another > >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness. I may confuse the robot for the conscious > >> >> >> >> >> >> entity, > >> >> >> >> >> >> but > >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't mean I'm not talking to another consciousness. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> It's the same with any elaborate Eliza program you might > >> >> >> >> >> >> want > >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> construct. > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm talking to the programmer through the robot, even > >> >> >> >> >> >> though > >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> programmer > >> >> >> >> >> >> may be long dead. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> And if you arrive at the robot through no artifice, > >> >> >> >> >> >> meaning > >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> >> constructed by unconscious nature with no intent, then by > >> >> >> >> >> >> what > >> >> >> >> >> >> authority > >> >> >> >> >> >> do > >> >> >> >> >> >> you declare it non-conscious if it acts like it is? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > whether it is > >> >> >> >> >> >> > or not couldn't be influencing its behaviour, > > >> >> >> >> >> >> But since it is influencing its behavior, your formula > >> >> >> >> >> >> does > >> >> >> >> >> >> not > >> >> >> >> >> >> apply. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > no more than it could > >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence ours, if we were simply a biological mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> > following > >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws of physics... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ...with consciousness as part of that biological mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> influencing > >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > It is implausible that we are, for reasons given to > >> >> >> >> >> >> > you before. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> And your formula is as inapplicable as before. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > You can choose to be totally illogical if you like, and > >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> > not > >> >> >> >> >> >> > face > >> >> >> >> >> >> > reason. Though you won't be experiencing the physical > >> >> >> >> >> >> > world > >> >> >> >> >> >> > forever, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > and you'll regret your choice. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> And if you're wrong, which is always possible, your > >> >> >> >> >> >> continued > >> >> >> >> >> >> insistence > >> >> >> >> >> >> that this is the case is nothing more than your arrogant > >> >> >> >> >> >> self-absorption > >> >> >> >> >> >> talking. > > >> >> >> >> >> > The formula doesn't require a comparitive entity. It can be > >> >> >> >> >> > used > >> >> >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> >> >> > regards to any physical entity. > > >> >> >> >> >> Any physical entity? > > >> >> >> >> >> Let's try it: > > >> >> >> >> >> M = A man > >> >> >> >> >> B(M) = Walking around > >> >> >> >> >> P = Legs > > >> >> >> >> >> How the fuck do you: > > >> >> >> >> >> "1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without > >> >> >> >> >> requiring > >> >> >> >> >> knowledge > >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> whether it has P or not." > > >> >> >> >> >> I don't know about you, but if I'm going to explain how a guy > >> >> >> >> >> walks > >> >> >> >> >> around, > >> >> >> >> >> I'm gonna have to know if he has legs 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." > > >> >> >> >> >> I would think legs have something to do with walking around, > >> >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> >> don't > >> >> >> >> >> think it's gonna be the same with or without them. > > >> >> >> >> >> Please explain how your formula applies. With the values I've > >> >> >> >> >> plugged > >> >> >> >> >> in, > >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> doesn't make any sense. > > >> >> >> >> >> > You keep trying to talk about two > >> >> >> >> >> > different mechanisms, and say well they act differently, > >> >> >> >> >> > but > >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> >> > like talking about a car and a toaster, and saying well the > >> >> >> >> >> > car > >> >> >> >> >> > has > >> >> >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> >> >> > numberplate, and they act differently so the number plate > >> >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> >> > influential. You need to face that the formula is true, and > >> >> >> >> >> > can > >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> > shown to be so, when you stop trying to make B(M) or P > >> >> >> >> >> > different > >> >> >> >> >> > between (1) and (2). Basically it cuts through the > >> >> >> >> >> > deception > >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> > were fooled by. > > >> >> >> >> >> Apply your formula to the entities I provided above. > > >> >> >> >> > Er... you really are having trouble understanding this aren't > >> >> >> >> > you. > > >> >> >> >> Either that, or you're really bad at making others understand > >> >> >> >> you. > > >> >> >> >> > Is > >> >> >> >> > it the complexity of it, or is it that for it to be correct > >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> > mean > >> >> >> >> > that you were wrong, and your ego won't let you face that you > >> >> >> >> > were > >> >> >> >> > wrong? > > >> >> >> >> Gosh, no thought whatsoever that maybe the problem lies with > >> >> >> >> you. > > >> >> >> >> > In your example (1) would not be true, you couldn't explain > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > man > >> >> >> >> > walking around, without knowledge of whether he had legs or > >> >> >> >> > not. > > >> >> >> >> So your formula CANNOT be applied to "any physical entity". > > >> >> >> >> Were you lying when you said it could? "The formula doesn't > >> >> >> >> require > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> comparitive entity. It can be used in regards to any physical > >> >> >> >> entity." > > >> >> >> >> Perhaps you're suggesting that legs aren't physical. Or could > >> >> >> >> this > >> >> >> >> be > >> >> >> >> another example of your mastery of the language that makes it so > >> >> >> >> easy > >> >> >> >> for > >> >> >> >> others to understand you? > > >> >> >> > Yes it can be applied to any physical entity. The point is that > >> >> >> > only > >> >> >> > when (1) is true, (2) is true. Obviously where (1) is false as in > >> >> >> > your > >> >> >> > example then (2) would also be false. The point was never that > >> >> >> > (1) > >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> > always true. Can you understand it now? You can ask for > >> >> >> > clarification > >> >> >> > on it if you like, after all it would be silly of you to be > >> >> >> > stating > >> >> >> > that it wasn't true, if it was just a case of you not > >> >> >> > understanding > >> >> >> > it. > > >> >> >> I see now, you relegated the IF THEN statement to a tiny sentence > >> >> >> at > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> end, without a number, that didn't appear to be part of the > >> >> >> formula. > >> >> >> Understood now. > > >> >> >> Excellent. Just like the leg example, since the behavior of a > >> >> >> person > >> >> >> walking > >> >> >> around cannot be explained by the laws of physics without knowledge > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> whether he's conscious or not, (2) is not true. > > >> >> >> I mean, to explain the behavior of a person walking around, I have > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> know > >> >> >> if the person is conscious or unconscious. I know how conscious and > >> >> >> unconscious people behave, and it's not similar at all. > > >> >> >> Cool! We're done! > > >> >> > Not quite. The point in contention is that we are not simply a > >> >> > biological mechanism following the laws of physics, because if we > >> >> > were > >> >> > then it wouldn't be influential. > > >> >> You have a strange definition of influential. Are you saying there > >> >> would > >> >> be > >> >> no such thing as influence if the universe were clockwork? > > >> >> Tell me how legs are not influential to walking around. > > >> >> Then tell me why consciousness is not influential to walking around. > > >> >> You require them both to walk around. > > >> >> > So if you were contesting this, then with knowledge of how the > >> >> > biological mechanism operated, its behaviour could be explained > >> >> > simply > >> >> > in terms of the biological mechanism following the laws of physics. > > >> >> Like how a man with no legs can't walk around. > > >> >> Like how a man who's unconscious can't walk around. > > >> >> > Which would require no knowledge of whether it were subjectively > >> >> > experiencing or not, any more than it would be required to explain > >> >> > the > >> >> > way a robot were behaving. > > >> >> I've changed my mind. You need to know if the person is conscious or > >> >> not > >> >> to > >> >> explain his behavior. > > >> >> See, I'm not as dogmatic as you think I am. It you that is as dogmatic > >> >> as > >> >> you think I am. > > >> >> > So (1) would be true, > > >> >> No. It fails (1) for the same reason the leg example failed. You need > >> >> to > >> >> know if the person is conscious or unconscious. > > >> >> > and so would (2). > > >> >> Nope. (1) fails so (2) is not true! Your formula is actually working > >> >> pretty > >> >> well now. > > >> >> > It > >> >> > is an implausible story though, but for it not to be true, would > >> >> > require the assumption that we were simply a biological mechanism > >> >> > strictly following the laws of physics. > > >> >> That's what your formula seems to be supporting. > > >> >> > Just to remind you, you acknowledged that subjective experiences are > >> >> > a > >> >> > property in their own right, > > >> >> Just like legs. > > >> >> > and that the property may be present in a > >> >> > robot or not, > > >> >> Just like legs. > > >> >> > in that you can have knowledge of the other properties > >> >> > such as the mechanism, but not of whether the property of subjective > >> >> > experiences had emerged, was acknowledge by you in response to where > >> >> > I > >> >> > said: > > >> >> How does that work with the legs/no legs scenario? > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> If I can't see the guy, I can't see if he has any legs. Check. > > >> >> > To which you replied: > >> >> > ------------ > >> >> > I fucking understand that you twit. > >> >> > ------------ > > >> >> > Don't you reflect yourself on the straws you grasp at, or is it that > >> >> > you are just desperate to avoid facing you were wrong? > > >> >> M = A man > >> >> B(M) = Walking around > >> >> P = Consciousness > > >> >> (1) fails utterly. (For the same reason as the legs example.) > >> >> (2) Isn't true. (Presence of consciousness affects B(M)) > > >> >> I agree. > > >> > When you say: > >> > ------ > >> > I've changed my mind. You need to know if the person is conscious or > >> > not to > >> > explain his behavior. > >> > ------ > > >> > Do you mean whether the person has subjective experiences or not? > > >> Oh, so NOW you feel you have to draw some distinction between the two > >> terms > >> that up until now you've been using interchangably. Gee, I wonder why? > > >> I meant exactly what I wrote. Consciousness. Will you agree there's a > >> difference between the behavior of a conscious person and the behavior of > >> an > >> unconscious person? > > > Well I was just checking as you seem to be using it in the sense that > > refers to a behaviour such as in the context of "I walked in, and > > there he was in the middle of the room unconscious". Obviously it > > wouldn't make sense to use it in this context as you have stated that > > the behaviour was that he was walking around. > > Why didn't you bring up this objection with the legs example? The context is > precisely the same. Without legs he can't be walking around either. > > This is, in fact, precisely the context in which I'm using Consciousness. > > > In the context of it being meant as whether the man had any conscious > > experiences or not, > > Do you think conscious experiences are unnecessary for consciousness? I > think they're required, pretty much by definition. > > > I refer you two what I said earlier regarding the > > point that the reasoning shows we are not simply a biological > > mechanism following the laws of physics, because if we were then it > > wouldn't be influential: > > > --------- > > So if you were contesting this, then with knowledge of how the > > biological mechanism operated, its behaviour could be explained simply > > in terms of the biological mechanism following the laws of physics. > > --------- > > > In other words like a robot without knowledge of whether it had > > subjective experiences or not. > > > Your reply was: > > --------- > > Like how a man with no legs can't walk around. > > > Like how a man who's unconscious can't walk around. > > --------- > > > Which you can see while it was a reply, it wasn't one that addressed > > the point I had made. > > It's too bad you couldn't make the conceptual leap. The comparisons are > pretty clear. > > "Can I explain how a person walks around without knowledge of whether he has > legs or not?" conceptually maps to, "Can I explain how a person walks around > without knowledge of whether he's conscious or not." perfectly. > > Your formula handles it perfectly, (1) fails utterly making (2) not true. > > Just like it did with the leg example. > > For some reason, you're offering objections to the consciousness example > that you're not offereing to the leg example. I'd like to know why. > > > Can you comprehend that if we were simply a > > biological mechanism following the laws of physics, then any behaviour > > could be explained without knowledge of whether it was subjectively > > experiencing/was conscious or not, perhaps by an alien robot for > > example, just as the behaviour of the alien robot could be explained > > by us without knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing/ > > was conscious or not. > > WTF? ALIEN ROBOT??? What depths of your colon did you pull THAT out > of? > > We are biological mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness is > an operational part of that mechanism. Thus, if you explain the behavior, > you are including the operation of consciousness -- if it's present -- in > your explanation, whether you like it or not. > > Just like if you explain how a guy's walking around, you are including the > fact that he must have legs in your explanation, whether you like it or not, > whether you mention it or not. > The alien robot was just a device to help you see the point. Unfortunately the point went 'over your head' as the expression goes. You chose to mock the idea of the alien robot, rather than face the issue. I wonder whether you would have had such problems if the reasoning had been in favour of atheism? You couldn't explain the guy walking around without knowledge of the property of whether he had legs or not. You could explain the behaviour, of any robot without knowledge of whether it had subjective experiences or not. As in response to: ------------ 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. ------------ you replied: ------------ I fucking understand that you twit. ------------ Maybe you'd care to explain why the human biological mechanism would be different to a robot in this regard (which was the point I was getting at with the alien robot). Though I suspect everything will go over your head again, as your ego gets in the way, as you can't face that you were wrong. Not sure you understand how unreasoned and pathetic your responses appear. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun, 23:17, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181415885.741369.130790@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > On 9 Jun, 08:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181352490.810453.248960@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 8 Jun, 17:24, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1181307535.236792.214630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 8 Jun, 04:59, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:1181267542.569449.176200@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 20:48, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:1181237528.194193.258590@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 17:06, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >>news:1181228437.648038.234610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 07:55, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181195570.815424.258260@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 06:19, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181176912.356609.204180@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 01:11, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181170991.844972.128670@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 18:52, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181119352.279318.274890@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 6 Jun, 09:10, "Denis Loubet" > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <dlou...@io.com> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [snipped older correspondance] > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It seems you can't read. There were > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > initially > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > two > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > universes, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > robot in each, and it remained so. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Now you're just lying. Anyone can see that you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> first > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> brought > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> up > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> universe > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> argument on the 4th at 11:25 AM. Robots > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> weren't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mentioned > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> until > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 3 > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> exchanges > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> later with your 5:47 AM post on the 5th. And > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> didn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mention > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> second > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robot until 2 exchanges later on the 5th at > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 7:05 > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> PM. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Go on, read your posts. I'll wait. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Can I expect an apology, or at least an > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> admission > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> made > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mistake? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It also seems you are unable to follow the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > points > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > being > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > made, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > avoided the questions. For example where I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > said: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To which I pointed out (though tidied up a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > bit > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > here > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > for > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > clarity), > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I made a robot that acted as though it has > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you thought it did, but actually after you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > made > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > your > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > decision, I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained to you that it behaved the way it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > did > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > simply > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > because > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physical mechanism following the known laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > then > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > on > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > what > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > basis would you continue to think that it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > was > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > acting > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > way > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > did > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > because it had subjective experiences? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To which you replied: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I would have to be assured that the physical > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > operation > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > robot, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following known laws of physics, didn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > actually > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > constitute > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > consciousness. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes? And? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > continue > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > think > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why do you have a question mark at the end of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> declarative > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sentence? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would continue to think it was acting in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> response > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experiences because apparently that's what it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> looks > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> like > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> doing. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> your word alone isn't enough to dissuade me. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> show > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> me > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's acting in what I would consider a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> non-conscious > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> manner. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You also were seemingly unable to comprehend > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > even > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > regard it as having subjective experiences, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > still > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaving > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as it would be expected to without the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > was. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Only if the non-conscious version was designed > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mimic > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> version. Note that the conscious version > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wouldn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> need > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> bit > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> programming. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Regarding the post on the 4th (and I don't know > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > why > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > couldn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > cut and pasted these instead of me having to do > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it) > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > stated: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hey, they're YOUR posts. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > object > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > there > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > was > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > an > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > alternative > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > universe, which followed the same known laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > but > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > there > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were no subjective experiences associated with > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > act > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same. The objection that if it followed the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, then it would automatically be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjectively > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experienced, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics don't reference subjective experiences, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > thus > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > both > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same laws of physics as known to us, but with > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > one > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > having > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences and one not, without the need for > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > any > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of physics to be altered. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Here mechanisms are mentioned being in each > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > universe, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > but > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > are > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > correct, in that I didn't specifically mention > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > robots. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So, are you willing to admit that I CAN read? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Though for each > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism, it would be existing twice, once in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > each > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > universe > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (thus > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "...both following the same laws of physics as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > us, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > but > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > with > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > one having subjective experiences and one > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not"). > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On the post on the 5th: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > look > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > at > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > reasonably. It isn't as though it couldn't be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > done, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > for > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > example > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > robot behaved as though it might have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > i.e. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > talked about them etc, you could surely > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > conceive > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > either > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (a) > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > did have, or (b) it didn't have. In one > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > universe > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > could > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > conceive > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it having subjective experiences, in the other > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > didn't. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > either though it would be acting just the same, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > both > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > simply just be a mechanism following the known > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same would apply to humans if you were to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > consider > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > them > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > simply > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > biological mechanisms following the known laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > even > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > run from logic and reason, when it goes against > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > your > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > unfounded > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > bias. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > There are two universe, and a robot is in each, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > obviously > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > robot isn't existing in both simultaneously. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That's not obvious at all. The entire quote can > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> interpreted > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> referencing one robot being compared in two > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> different > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> universes. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps a command of the language is more > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> important > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> than > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> seem > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it is. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I'm not sure if this is what you are referring > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > time > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > stamps > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I see are different) > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, that's exactly the post I'm referencing. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Regarding the thought experiment, the robots > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > both > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the same known laws of physics. So perhaps > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > could > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > explain > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > why > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > suggest they would act differently. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Again, there are two robots. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, that's the FIRST time you unambiguously refer > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> two > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robots. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If it was different bits you were referring to, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > then > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > suggest > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you cut and paste them yourself, so there can > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > no > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > confusion. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, you're using the correct quotes. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Anyway, back to the real issue, regarding where > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > said: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, I suppose an admission of a slight mistake > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> opposed > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> an > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apology > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> for unjustly slandering my reading ability is all > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> expect > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> from > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> one > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dishonest as you. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Avoiding totally stating on what basis would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > continue > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > think > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that it was acting the way it did because it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You replied > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Why do you have a question mark at the end of a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > declarative > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > sentence? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I would continue to think it was acting in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > response > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences because apparently that's what it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > looks > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > like > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > doing. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > And your word alone isn't enough to dissuade > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > me. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > show me that it's acting in what I would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > consider > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > non-conscious > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > manner. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So you would base your belief that it was > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > acting > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > response > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective experiences, even though it was > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaving > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > exactly > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would be expected to, without the added > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > was > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjectively experiencing? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No. In your scenario you've already got me > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> agreeing > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> basis for that conclusion is that it's behaving > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> way > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> take > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> congruent with subjective experience. It's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> responding > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> context > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> my > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> questions and such, for example. Then, in your > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> scenario, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> tell > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> me > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> not conscious. The reason I do not immediately > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> agree > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> with > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robot is, I presume, still acting like it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Until > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> show > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> me > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that it's not conscious, I'll continue to act > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> under > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> assumption > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> my > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conclusion that it is conscious is correct and > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> disbelieve > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That's what I meant by: "I would continue to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> was > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> acting > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> response > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to subjective experiences because apparently > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> what > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> looks > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> like > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> doing." I can't imagine how you misinterpreted > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If so, what influence would you consider the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be having, given that it is behaving as it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > expected > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > without the assumption that it had any > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Given that your interpretation of my response was > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> incorrect, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> this > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> question > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is meaningless. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you had two robots, one with a brain capable > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experience, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and one with a sophisticated tape-recorder that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> played > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> back > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> responses > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> designed to fool me into thinking it's conscious, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> they > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> supposedly > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behave the same, and I would mistakenly grant > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> both > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> were > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Both > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> would be acting according to physical law to get > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> same > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> effect, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> but > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> workings would be very different. For the tape > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> recorder > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robot > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> succeed, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> has to have the right phrases recorded to fool > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> me, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> just > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> like > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robot has to have subjective experiences or I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> won't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I've snipped the older correspondence, though not > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > sure > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I've > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > made > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > such > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a good job of it, it would be easier if we > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > responded > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > at > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > end > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > what each other post, but I guess you'd object, so > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > there > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > are a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > few > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > imbedded pieces of text still remaining from the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > older > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > stuff. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That's fine. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Assuming you aren't trying to be disingenious, you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > seem > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > got > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > lost on the scenario. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No. Did I say that was your scenario? No? Then > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> there's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> no > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reason > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've presented my own scenario since yours doesn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> seem > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> going > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> anywhere. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This one-sided interrogation gets a little tiresome, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> so > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> thought > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> try > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> provide my own illustrative scenario. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Figures you would ignore it. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > No where are you told it isn't conscious. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Whether it is or isn't is unknown. You know that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > follows > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known laws of physics, and you know that it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaved > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > something > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > might have thought as conscious, if for example > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > been > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > communicating with it over the internet. Yes I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > just > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > added > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > clarification, but you appeared to be confused > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > claiming > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > incorrectly > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that you were told it wasn't conscious. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > As it follows the known laws of physics, its > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > can > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained without the added assumption that it has > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > any > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences, > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The subjective experience is part of the physical > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ALL > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physical. What is your damn problem? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as any mechanism following the laws of physics > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > require > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > no > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > such claims to explain behaviour > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Except the mechanisms that do. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (restating to help you follow, this > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > doesn't mean that it couldn't have subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences). > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Irrelevant. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws of physics to be having subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > what > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would you consider the subjective experiences to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > having, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > given > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it is behaving as it would be expected to without > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it had any subjective experiences? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The fucking subjective experiences are part of the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> activity > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that's following the fucking laws of physics. It > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> get > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> any > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking simpler than that. Subjective experiences > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ARE > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> matter > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> following > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking laws of physics. You can't fucking separate > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> from > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> other > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physical activity, no matter how much you fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> want > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why can't you fucking understand that? How many > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> times > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> do I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> respond the same fucking question with the same > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> answer > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> before > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking get it? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (Is the question clear enough for you, or is there > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > any > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > clarification > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you require about what is being asked?) > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think I understand you perfectly, but you simply > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> refuse > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> listen > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> my > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> replies. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here's another vain analogy to try to get through to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> two > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> identical computers that run a program. But one > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> program > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> has a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subroutine > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> called Subjective Experience that drastically > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> affects > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> output, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> other doesn't. Both act according to the laws of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> expect > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> them to behave the same given that one program has a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subroutine > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> other doesn't? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I wouldn't. Why do you? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I had stated trying to help you as you seemed lost by > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > stating > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (emphasis for clarity): > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > NO WHERE ARE YOU TOLD IT ISN'T CONSCIOUS. WHETHER IT > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > IS > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > OR > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ISN'T > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > IS > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > UNKNOWN. You know that it follows the known laws of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > know that it behaved as something you might have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > thought > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > conscious, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if for example you had been communicating with it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > over > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > internet. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Yes I have just added that clarification, but you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > appeared > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > confused claiming incorrectly > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that you were told it wasn't conscious. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To which you replied > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > That's fine. It wasn't your scenario. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes...?And...? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You did falsely claim though that in my scenario that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > told > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wasn't conscious, the text is still above, you state: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > conscious. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Even if you made a simple mistake and thought I was > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > referencing a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > scenario put forward by you, the claim you made was > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > still > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > blantantly > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > false. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Did you, or did you not, say: "To which I pointed out > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (though > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> tidied > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> up a > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> bit here for clarity), that I made a robot that acted > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> though > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> has > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective experiences, and you thought it did, but > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> actually > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> after > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> had > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> made your decision, I explained to you that it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behaved > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> way > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> did > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> simply because of the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physical mechanism following the known laws of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> then > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> on > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> what > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> basis would you continue to think that it was acting > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> way > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> did > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> because > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it had subjective experiences?" > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Blatantly false my ass. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Also with regards to the question: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ----------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So if you were to regard the robotic mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws of physics to be having subjective experiences, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > what > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would you consider the subjective experiences to be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > having, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > given > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it is behaving as it would be expected to without the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it had any subjective experiences? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ----------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You replied: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ----------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The fucking subjective experiences are part of the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physical > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > activity that's following the fucking laws of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > doesn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fucking get any fucking simpler than that. Subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ARE > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > matter following the fucking laws of physics. You > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > can't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > separate it from other fucking physical activity, no > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > matter > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > how > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > much > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you fucking want to. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Why can't you fucking understand that? How many times > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > do > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fucking respond the same fucking question with the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > same > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > answer > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > before you fucking get it? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Well you know the mechanism of the robot follows the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Everything follows the fucking laws of physics! > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and you know it how it behaves, how did you gain your > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > self-proclaimed > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > infalibility of whether it had subjective experiences > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not fucking saying it's conscious, I'm saying if it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> was, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> its > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness is matter obeying physical law. The > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> status > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> robot in the scenario is irrelevant to my reply. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Can you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > see that there is a seperation in your knowledge, one > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > thing > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > know, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the mechanism, but whether it has subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > isn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known to you, so there is a natural seperation in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > your > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > knowledge, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > can deny it if you like, but its a fact. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I fucking understand that you twit. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Given that, perhaps you'd > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > care to try again, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and face answering (and the resultant crumbling of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > your world perspective through reason that you know > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > will > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > come > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > do, which I suspect is why you are throwing your > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > dummy > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > out > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > your > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > pram): > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm throwing the dummy out of the pram as a deliberate > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experiment > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> see > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> if > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you respond differently. Any variation would be > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> welcome. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sadly it didn't work. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > known > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > given > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaving as it would be expected to without the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > had > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > any subjective experiences? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Since any subjective experience would be physical > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> matter > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> following > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experiences, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> then those experiences would be the mechanism following > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> known > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics. Since gravity can affect it's behavior, then > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experience, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as just another example of physical matter following > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> could affect its behavior too. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I note you did not respond to my computer example. Are > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> afraid > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> resultant crumbling of your world perspective through > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reason > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> know > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> will come if you do? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Good grief. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > With regards to where I referenced your blantantly false > >> >> >> >> >> >> > accusation > >> >> >> >> >> >> > that I claimed the mechanism wasn't conscious: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Then, in your scenario, you tell me it's not conscious. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > You highlighted a piece where I had said: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ..., I explained to you that it behaved the way it did > >> >> >> >> >> >> > simply > >> >> >> >> >> >> > because > >> >> >> >> >> >> > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of > >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ... > >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Are you suggesting that because the behaviour was > >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained > >> >> >> >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> >> >> >> > terms > >> >> >> >> >> >> > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of > >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> > this suggested to you that it couldn't be conscious? How > >> >> >> >> >> >> > so, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > considering you think "Everything follows the fucking > >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics", and can therefore be explained in terms of the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > physical > >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, which > >> >> >> >> >> >> > presumably > >> >> >> >> >> >> > includes > >> >> >> >> >> >> > things that are conscious. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Ah. I misread your quote and I apologise. I somehow > >> >> >> >> >> >> inserted > >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> idea > >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> the explanation in the scenario asserted that the robot > >> >> >> >> >> >> wasn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious, > >> >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> those exact words. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> See? I can admit mistakes, and apologise. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> You, on the other hand... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > In response to the question: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> > If you were to regard the robotic mechanism following > >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > known > >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws > >> >> >> >> >> >> > of physics to be having subjective experiences, what > >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence > >> >> >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> >> >> > you consider the subjective experiences to be having, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > given > >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaving as it would be expected to without the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > assumption > >> >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> >> > had > >> >> >> >> >> >> > any subjective experiences? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > You replied: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > --------- > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Since any subjective experience would be physical matter > >> >> >> >> >> >> > following > >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws of physics, your question is meaningless. If it had > >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences, then those experiences would be the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> > following > >> >> >> >> >> >> > the known laws of physics. Since gravity can affect it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> > behavior, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > then subjective experience, as just another example of > >> >> >> >> >> >> > physical > >> >> >> >> >> >> > matter > >> >> >> >> >> >> > following the laws of physics, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > could affect its behavior too. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > The question isn't meaningless, though I'll put it > >> >> >> >> >> >> > another > >> >> >> >> >> >> > way > >> >> >> >> >> >> > for > >> >> >> >> >> >> > you, as a series of statements, and you can state > >> >> >> >> >> >> > whether > >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> > agree > >> >> >> >> >> >> > with the statements, and where if you disagree, the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > statements > >> >> >> >> >> >> > are > >> >> >> >> >> >> > false. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> At least this is different! > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > A) The mechanism might or might not be subjectively > >> >> >> >> >> >> > experienced, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> >> > don't know (you agreed this above). > > >> >> >> >> >> >> You meant to say the mechanism might or might not > >> >> >> >> >> >> subjectively > >> >> >> >> >> >> experience > >> >> >> >> >> >> things, not be subjectively experienced. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Agreed. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > B) The mechanisms behaviour is explainable in terms of > >> >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> >> > following the laws of physics, without requiring > >> >> >> >> >> >> > knowledge > >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> > whether > >> >> >> >> >> >> > it is subjectively experienced. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Agreed. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > C) Whether the mechanism were being subjectively > >> >> >> >> >> >> > experienced > >> >> >> >> >> >> > or > >> >> >> >> >> >> > not, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > doesn't influence the behaviour, > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes it does. Of course it does. Subjective experience is a > >> >> >> >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> >> >> >> process > >> >> >> >> >> >> that affects behavior. A mechanism that has it should act > >> >> >> >> >> >> differently > >> >> >> >> >> >> from > >> >> >> >> >> >> one that doesn't. Just like a mechanism that has wheels > >> >> >> >> >> >> will > >> >> >> >> >> >> move > >> >> >> >> >> >> differently from one with legs. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > else the explanation for the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> It isn't the same in either case. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> If the mechanism subjectively experiences things, it's > >> >> >> >> >> >> built > >> >> >> >> >> >> one > >> >> >> >> >> >> way, > >> >> >> >> >> >> if > >> >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't subjectively experience things, it's built another > >> >> >> >> >> >> way. > >> >> >> >> >> >> Explaining > >> >> >> >> >> >> how mechanisms that are different might behave differently > >> >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> no > >> >> >> >> >> >> way > >> >> >> >> >> >> contradicts the fact that both are operating according to > >> >> >> >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> >> >> >> law. > > >> >> >> >> >> > So in © how can you claim that is could be behaving the > >> >> >> >> >> > way > >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> >> > because it is subjectively experiencing, when it might > >> >> >> >> >> > not > >> >> >> >> >> > be? > > >> >> >> >> >> I didn't say it is. The phrase "Yes it does. Of course it > >> >> >> >> >> does." > >> >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> response to your assertion: "Whether the mechanism were being > >> >> >> >> >> subjectively > >> >> >> >> >> experienced or not, doesn't influence the behaviour" Meaning > >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> DOES > >> >> >> >> >> affect > >> >> >> >> >> behavior whether the mechanism is experiencing things > >> >> >> >> >> subjectively > >> >> >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> >> not, > >> >> >> >> >> not that it IS experiencing things subjectively. > > >> >> >> >> >> The context of a reply is important. > > >> >> >> >> >> > To try to help you with the mistake you are making, an > >> >> >> >> >> > analogy > >> >> >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> >> >> > be that there is a ball, which may be black or white, and > >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> > question > >> >> >> >> >> > was whether if it was black or white would influence the > >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour. > > >> >> >> >> >> > A) The ball might be black or white, you don't know. > >> >> >> >> >> > B) The way the ball bounces is explained by the laws of > >> >> >> >> >> > physics > >> >> >> >> >> > without requiring knowledge of whether it is black or > >> >> >> >> >> > white. > >> >> >> >> >> > C) Whether the ball were black or white doesn't affect > >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour, > >> >> >> >> >> > else > >> >> >> >> >> > the behaviour couldn't be the same in either case. > > >> >> >> >> >> If the ball is black, then it's made of ebony. If the ball is > >> >> >> >> >> white > >> >> >> >> >> then > >> >> >> >> >> it's made of margarine. > > >> >> >> >> >> Both follow the laws of physics. > > >> >> >> >> >> Do you expect them to act the same? > > >> >> >> >> >> > Do you think it is correct to reason that a black ball is > >> >> >> >> >> > different > >> >> >> >> >> > from a white ball, and that if it was white, it was > >> >> >> >> >> > because > >> >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> >> > was > >> >> >> >> >> > white that it bounced the way it did? Do you see, you can't > >> >> >> >> >> > claim > >> >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> >> > it bounced the way it did because it was white, when it > >> >> >> >> >> > might > >> >> >> >> >> > not > >> >> >> >> >> > be. > > >> >> >> >> >> I can claim that one is easier to see in a black room. > > >> >> >> >> >> Now address this point, unless you're too afraid to: "If the > >> >> >> >> >> mechanism > >> >> >> >> >> subjectively experiences things, it's built one way, if it > >> >> >> >> >> doesn't > >> >> >> >> >> subjectively experience things, it's built another way. > >> >> >> >> >> Explaining > >> >> >> >> >> how > >> >> >> >> >> mechanisms that are different might behave differently in no > >> >> >> >> >> way > >> >> >> >> >> contradicts > >> >> >> >> >> the fact that both are operating according to physical law." > > >> >> >> >> > (I've posted a response similar to this, but it doesn't seem > >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> > have > >> >> >> >> > come through, so I have retyped it out (which was annoying), > >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> > reposted. There might be slight differences, but essentially > >> >> >> >> > they > >> >> >> >> > are > >> >> >> >> > the same, you can answer either one) > > >> >> >> >> > I'll put the issue over another way taking your point into > >> >> >> >> > account. > > >> >> >> >> > Hypothetically, supposing in the future space travels of > >> >> >> >> > humanity > >> >> >> >> > they > >> >> >> >> > came across a planet with a similar atmosphere to ours, on > >> >> >> >> > which > >> >> >> >> > there > >> >> >> >> > were found to be orbs. There were two types of orbs, though > >> >> >> >> > both > >> >> >> >> > had > >> >> >> >> > an outer shell of a 10cm thickness. Though one type was of a > >> >> >> >> > substance > >> >> >> >> > which reflected light (white orbs), and the other was of a > >> >> >> >> > type > >> >> >> >> > with > >> >> >> >> > absorbed light (black orbs). Both the light reflective (white) > >> >> >> >> > substance and the light absorbing (black) substance were of > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > same > >> >> >> >> > density, and both types of orb were filled with helium. The > >> >> >> >> > white > >> >> >> >> > orbs > >> >> >> >> > were 10m in diameter, while the black orbs where 1km in > >> >> >> >> > diameter. > >> >> >> >> > The > >> >> >> >> > black orbs were found higher in the atmosphere, and this was > >> >> >> >> > explained > >> >> >> >> > by the laws of physics, and the explanation had no reference > >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> > whether the orbs were black or white, but to do with the > >> >> >> >> > average > >> >> >> >> > density of the orb. > > >> >> >> >> Why? > > >> >> >> >> > There were two groups of people. One was the colour > >> >> >> >> > influentialists, > >> >> >> >> > who claimed that colour of the orbs influenced the behaviour, > >> >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> >> > black > >> >> >> >> > orbs behaved differently from white orbs, and that if they > >> >> >> >> > were > >> >> >> >> > white, > >> >> >> >> > they had one type of outer shell, and that if they were black, > >> >> >> >> > they > >> >> >> >> > had another type of outer shell. The other group were the > >> >> >> >> > colour > >> >> >> >> > non- > >> >> >> >> > influentialists who pointed out that the explanation of where > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > orbs > >> >> >> >> > were found in the atmosphere didn't mention whether the orbs > >> >> >> >> > were > >> >> >> >> > black or white, and would remain the same in either case. > > >> >> >> >> > Now supposing another similar planet were to be spotted where > >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> > was > >> >> >> >> > suspected that helium filled orbs with either light reflective > >> >> >> >> > or > >> >> >> >> > light absorbing shells may again be found. The colour non- > >> >> >> >> > influentialists pointed out to the colour influentialists > >> >> >> >> > regarding > >> >> >> >> > the position of any such orb in the atmosphere: > > >> >> >> >> > A) The orb might be black or white, you don't know. > > >> >> >> >> Sigh. Very well. > > >> >> >> >> > B) The height it is found at in the atmosphere is explained by > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > laws of physics. > > >> >> >> >> Sigh. Just as one would expect. > > >> >> >> >> > C) Whether the orb is black or white doesn't affect the > >> >> >> >> > behaviour > >> >> >> >> > doesn't influence the behaviour, else the behaviour couldn't > >> >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > same in either case. > > >> >> >> >> No. Clearly, since the albedo of the orbs are completely > >> >> >> >> different, > >> >> >> >> one > >> >> >> >> reflecting light and the other absorbing it, there should exist > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> marked > >> >> >> >> difference in temperature, and thus density of the gas inside, > >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> thus > >> >> >> >> bouancy. Add to this the immensely greater heat-gathering > >> >> >> >> surface > >> >> >> >> area > >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> the black orbs and you should expect radically different > >> >> >> >> behaviors. > > >> >> >> >> > Do you think that the reasoning of the colour > >> >> >> >> > non-influentialists > >> >> >> >> > was > >> >> >> >> > logical, or do you think that the reasoning of the colour > >> >> >> >> > influentialists was? > > >> >> >> >> The non-color influentalists are a bunch of idiots who know > >> >> >> >> nothing > >> >> >> >> about > >> >> >> >> physics. > > >> >> >> > Well supposing it was explained to you that the orbs formed under > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > planet surface and seemed to have been released in plate > >> >> >> > movements. > >> >> >> > The density of the helium inside both was the same, the slight > >> >> >> > heat > >> >> >> > difference only resulted in a slight difference in internal > >> >> >> > pressure, > >> >> >> > not density, and thus not bouancy. > > >> >> >> No. You made your elaborate foot and placed it square in your > >> >> >> dishonest > >> >> >> mouth. And I'm going to laugh at your pathetic and transparent > >> >> >> attempt > >> >> >> at > >> >> >> an > >> >> >> ad-hoc rescue of your own scenario. A scenario that shows that you > >> >> >> are > >> >> >> obviously wrong, and clearly demonstrates that you have been wrong > >> >> >> all > >> >> >> along, and with this pitiable attempt at a fix, shows that you > >> >> >> fully > >> >> >> intend > >> >> >> to remain wrong in the future. You are a testament to willful > >> >> >> ignorance. > > >> >> >> Anyone with a scrap of intellectual integrity would at LEAST follow > >> >> >> where > >> >> >> their OWN examples lead. But not you. If you don't find YOUR OWN > >> >> >> arguments > >> >> >> convincing, why on earth do you think they'll convince anyone else? > > >> >> >> You have no concept of logic, and as your scenario shows, you are > >> >> >> completely > >> >> >> ignorant of the physical laws you pretend knowledge of. I can't > >> >> >> even > >> >> >> imagine > >> >> >> what you thought your latest rationalization was supposed to > >> >> >> accomplish. > >> >> >> You're a complete and total idiot. > > >> >> >> I am going to treat your scenario as your admission that you are > >> >> >> wrong, > >> >> >> because that's what it is. You have successfully torpedoed your own > >> >> >> argument. You tried to show one thing, but ended up showing > >> >> >> something > >> >> >> exactly the opposite. If you were honest, you would admit that, so > >> >> >> I'm > >> >> >> actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though your > >> >> >> ad-hoc > >> >> >> nonsense shows that you don't deserve it. > > >> >> >> Don't bother replaying unless you're admitting that your point is > >> >> >> dead. > > >> >> > You'll notice that there was never a mention of the helium density > >> >> > being different within the orbs. > >> >> > You just invented that to avoid the > >> >> > issue. > > >> >> I see now that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You remain, > >> >> as > >> >> always, a dishonest twat. > > >> >> Very well, in the spirit of compassion for the retarded, I shall > >> >> respond. > > >> >> (I'm SUCH a softy.) > > >> >> The helium density in the orbs is a direct result of the temperature > >> >> of > >> >> the > >> >> heluim which is a direct result of the absorption of heat from the sun > >> >> by > >> >> the orbs. The black orbs, according to the laws of physics that YOU > >> >> INSIST > >> >> THEY ADHERE TO, absorb more heat and thus will be hotter than the > >> >> white > >> >> orbs > >> >> BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, and so their helium density will be different, > >> >> as > >> >> will their behavior. Think I'm making this shit up? Examine > >> >> this:http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Toys-that-fly/solar-airs.... > >> >> I > >> >> would direct you at the wikipedia articles on boyancy and albedo and > >> >> such, > >> >> but they would only confuse you. I figure a toy is something you might > >> >> have > >> >> a chance to understand. > > >> >> Listening to you try to discuss scientific and philosophical issues is > >> >> like > >> >> watching a monkey wear clothes, it's amusing at first but quickly gets > >> >> stale. > > >> > You really are disingenious. You snipped the post, and above it had > >> > already been explained to you: > > >> I snipped text that addressed neither the problems with your scenario, > >> nor > >> your abject defeat. > > >> You said I should trim. > > >> > Well supposing it was explained to you that the orbs formed under the > >> > planet surface and seemed to have been released in plate movements. > >> > The density of the helium inside both was the same, the slight heat > >> > difference only resulted in a slight difference in internal pressure, > >> > not density, and thus not bouancy. > > >> That's all irrelevant since you already presented your scenario and it > >> proved the opposite of what you wanted it to. Thus I win. Attempting to > >> offer a feeble ad-hoc patch is just embarrassing. Especially one that > >> doesn't even address any of the basic problems with your scenario. > > >> > That I even had to write that, just so that you could face the > >> > scenario is enough to make me embarrassed for you. That you didn't and > >> > tried to avoid it, and are doing so again is pathetic. > > >> I faced your scenario, it was an elegant disproof of your point. Well > >> done. > >> Nothing more need be said. > > >> Except that you're an utter moron. > > > Well if the helium is at the same density within both, as explained > > above, then on what basis do you support the colour influentialists? > > Because the laws of physics decree that the helium density will not the > same. > > The color non-influentialists are a bunch of raving fucktards who know > nothing about physics. > As it was pointed out to you, if the helium density was the same when they were formed under the planet surface, the temperature difference once they were above and exposed to light, wouldn't cause as difference in density (as this would have required helium to of actually escaped), it would just have caused a difference in internal pressure. It seems that you are just grasping at straws to avoid reason. Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181688451.564321.144300@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Jun, 23:14, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181683182.108501.293290@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 12 Jun, 16:59, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1181643629.665515.215790@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 12 Jun, 02:00, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:1181607322.623131.144640@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 12 Jun, 00:56, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:1181603668.494011.312460@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On 12 Jun, 00:09, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181598999.112030.3470@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 22:34, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181593524.600437.247290@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 20:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181583039.890628.118980@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 18:23, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181581549.652693.254210@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 11 Jun, 16:43, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1181517234.889369.239710@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So you determine if you're right about something >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> based >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> on >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> but >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> arbitrary feelings? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That explains a lot. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, it's influenced by subjective experience. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lets see if we can apply this stupidity to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> something >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> affects >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Can you apply it to reflexes? Oops, no, there's a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> difference >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you have reflexes compared to you not having >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reflexes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apply >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> your little formula to reflexes, what makes you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> can >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apply >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm a biological mechanism simply following the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> laws >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> physics >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjectively experience, therefore I conclude >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> biological >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mechanisms >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> following the laws of can subjectively >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experience. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > therefore what reason would the biological >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assertion >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were made) have for considering such a thing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > uninfluenced >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > by >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > having >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective experiences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This one doesn't. This one observes that it's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> experiences >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> influence its behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You were wrong get used to it. Stop being so >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > pathetic >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > about >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You're not stating my position. Why would your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> criticizism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> position >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> do not hold show that I am wrong? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If you changed the property to one that behaviour >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > couldn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained without knowledge of, then (1) wouldn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > true. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Which means you can't apply your formula to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reflexes, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> right? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So why do you think you can apply it to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behaviors >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious and unconscious things, in real life, is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> pretty >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fucking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> different. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The unconscious ones lie inert while the conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ones >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> run >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> about. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> According >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to (1) of your formula, you can't apply it to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You have already admitted that though you could >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > know >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the robot (and therefore be able to explain its >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wouldn't have knowledge of whether it has >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not. I asked you before: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is this an argument about my state of ignorance >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> concerning >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> if >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> something >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious or not? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That has fuck-all to do with anything. My state of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ignorance >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> has >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> do with whether something is conscious or not, or >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> what >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> source >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousnsess is. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To which you replied: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I fucking understand that you twit. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The question is can you face the truth, or are you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > going >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > continue >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to grasp at straws, hoping that they will enable >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > avoid >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > instead of making you look more and more pathetic. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The truth would be that if it acts like it's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'll >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> call >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious. That's my prerogative. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The point was outlined in the reason, you are unable >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > face: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So with the robot, since it's behaviour can be >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > explained >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > without >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > requiring knowledge of whether it is conscious or >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ok, you asked for it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> B(M) is not same for conscious vs unconscious robots. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So your formula does not apply. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you have a robot that you say is not conscious, yet >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> all >> >> >> >> >> >> >> respects >> >> >> >> >> >> >> acts >> >> >> >> >> >> >> as if it is, then there is consciousness involved. The >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't >> >> >> >> >> >> >> matter. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Consider, if the robot is just a clever tape recorder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> specifically >> >> >> >> >> >> >> programmed to answer my likely questions, then some >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> >> entity >> >> >> >> >> >> >> had >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> program it and record the responses. THAT'S the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> >> entity >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> talking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to via the robot. The robot is only the middle-man >> >> >> >> >> >> >> between >> >> >> >> >> >> >> me >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> another >> >> >> >> >> >> >> consciousness. I may confuse the robot for the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> conscious >> >> >> >> >> >> >> entity, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> but >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't mean I'm not talking to another consciousness. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's the same with any elaborate Eliza program you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> might >> >> >> >> >> >> >> want >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> construct. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm talking to the programmer through the robot, even >> >> >> >> >> >> >> though >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> programmer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> may be long dead. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And if you arrive at the robot through no artifice, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> meaning >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> constructed by unconscious nature with no intent, then >> >> >> >> >> >> >> by >> >> >> >> >> >> >> what >> >> >> >> >> >> >> authority >> >> >> >> >> >> >> do >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you declare it non-conscious if it acts like it is? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > whether it is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or not couldn't be influencing its behaviour, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> But since it is influencing its behavior, your formula >> >> >> >> >> >> >> does >> >> >> >> >> >> >> not >> >> >> >> >> >> >> apply. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > no more than it could >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > influence ours, if we were simply a biological >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > following >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > laws of physics... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...with consciousness as part of that biological >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mechanism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> influencing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It is implausible that we are, for reasons given to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > you before. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And your formula is as inapplicable as before. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You can choose to be totally illogical if you like, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > face >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > reason. Though you won't be experiencing the physical >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > world >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > forever, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and you'll regret your choice. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And if you're wrong, which is always possible, your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> continued >> >> >> >> >> >> >> insistence >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that this is the case is nothing more than your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> arrogant >> >> >> >> >> >> >> self-absorption >> >> >> >> >> >> >> talking. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The formula doesn't require a comparitive entity. It can >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> > used >> >> >> >> >> >> > in >> >> >> >> >> >> > regards to any physical entity. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Any physical entity? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Let's try it: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> M = A man >> >> >> >> >> >> B(M) = Walking around >> >> >> >> >> >> P = Legs >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How the fuck do you: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without >> >> >> >> >> >> requiring >> >> >> >> >> >> knowledge >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> whether it has P or not." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't know about you, but if I'm going to explain how a >> >> >> >> >> >> guy >> >> >> >> >> >> walks >> >> >> >> >> >> around, >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm gonna have to know if he has legs 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." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would think legs have something to do with walking >> >> >> >> >> >> around, >> >> >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >> >> don't >> >> >> >> >> >> think it's gonna be the same with or without them. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please explain how your formula applies. With the values >> >> >> >> >> >> I've >> >> >> >> >> >> plugged >> >> >> >> >> >> in, >> >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't make any sense. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You keep trying to talk about two >> >> >> >> >> >> > different mechanisms, and say well they act differently, >> >> >> >> >> >> > but >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> >> > like talking about a car and a toaster, and saying well >> >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >> > car >> >> >> >> >> >> > has >> >> >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> >> >> >> > numberplate, and they act differently so the number >> >> >> >> >> >> > plate >> >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> >> > influential. You need to face that the formula is true, >> >> >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> >> >> > can >> >> >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> >> >> > shown to be so, when you stop trying to make B(M) or P >> >> >> >> >> >> > different >> >> >> >> >> >> > between (1) and (2). Basically it cuts through the >> >> >> >> >> >> > deception >> >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> >> > were fooled by. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Apply your formula to the entities I provided above. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Er... you really are having trouble understanding this >> >> >> >> >> > aren't >> >> >> >> >> > you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Either that, or you're really bad at making others understand >> >> >> >> >> you. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Is >> >> >> >> >> > it the complexity of it, or is it that for it to be correct >> >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> >> > mean >> >> >> >> >> > that you were wrong, and your ego won't let you face that >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> > were >> >> >> >> >> > wrong? >> >> >> >> >> >> Gosh, no thought whatsoever that maybe the problem lies with >> >> >> >> >> you. >> >> >> >> >> >> > In your example (1) would not be true, you couldn't explain >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> > man >> >> >> >> >> > walking around, without knowledge of whether he had legs or >> >> >> >> >> > not. >> >> >> >> >> >> So your formula CANNOT be applied to "any physical entity". >> >> >> >> >> >> Were you lying when you said it could? "The formula doesn't >> >> >> >> >> require >> >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> >> comparitive entity. It can be used in regards to any physical >> >> >> >> >> entity." >> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps you're suggesting that legs aren't physical. Or could >> >> >> >> >> this >> >> >> >> >> be >> >> >> >> >> another example of your mastery of the language that makes it >> >> >> >> >> so >> >> >> >> >> easy >> >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> >> >> others to understand you? >> >> >> >> >> > Yes it can be applied to any physical entity. The point is >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> > only >> >> >> >> > when (1) is true, (2) is true. Obviously where (1) is false as >> >> >> >> > in >> >> >> >> > your >> >> >> >> > example then (2) would also be false. The point was never that >> >> >> >> > (1) >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> > always true. Can you understand it now? You can ask for >> >> >> >> > clarification >> >> >> >> > on it if you like, after all it would be silly of you to be >> >> >> >> > stating >> >> >> >> > that it wasn't true, if it was just a case of you not >> >> >> >> > understanding >> >> >> >> > it. >> >> >> >> >> I see now, you relegated the IF THEN statement to a tiny >> >> >> >> sentence >> >> >> >> at >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> end, without a number, that didn't appear to be part of the >> >> >> >> formula. >> >> >> >> Understood now. >> >> >> >> >> Excellent. Just like the leg example, since the behavior of a >> >> >> >> person >> >> >> >> walking >> >> >> >> around cannot be explained by the laws of physics without >> >> >> >> knowledge >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> whether he's conscious or not, (2) is not true. >> >> >> >> >> I mean, to explain the behavior of a person walking around, I >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> know >> >> >> >> if the person is conscious or unconscious. I know how conscious >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> unconscious people behave, and it's not similar at all. >> >> >> >> >> Cool! We're done! >> >> >> >> > Not quite. The point in contention is that we are not simply a >> >> >> > biological mechanism following the laws of physics, because if we >> >> >> > were >> >> >> > then it wouldn't be influential. >> >> >> >> You have a strange definition of influential. Are you saying there >> >> >> would >> >> >> be >> >> >> no such thing as influence if the universe were clockwork? >> >> >> >> Tell me how legs are not influential to walking around. >> >> >> >> Then tell me why consciousness is not influential to walking >> >> >> around. >> >> >> >> You require them both to walk around. >> >> >> >> > So if you were contesting this, then with knowledge of how the >> >> >> > biological mechanism operated, its behaviour could be explained >> >> >> > simply >> >> >> > in terms of the biological mechanism following the laws of >> >> >> > physics. >> >> >> >> Like how a man with no legs can't walk around. >> >> >> >> Like how a man who's unconscious can't walk around. >> >> >> >> > Which would require no knowledge of whether it were subjectively >> >> >> > experiencing or not, any more than it would be required to >> >> >> > explain >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > way a robot were behaving. >> >> >> >> I've changed my mind. You need to know if the person is conscious >> >> >> or >> >> >> not >> >> >> to >> >> >> explain his behavior. >> >> >> >> See, I'm not as dogmatic as you think I am. It you that is as >> >> >> dogmatic >> >> >> as >> >> >> you think I am. >> >> >> >> > So (1) would be true, >> >> >> >> No. It fails (1) for the same reason the leg example failed. You >> >> >> need >> >> >> to >> >> >> know if the person is conscious or unconscious. >> >> >> >> > and so would (2). >> >> >> >> Nope. (1) fails so (2) is not true! Your formula is actually >> >> >> working >> >> >> pretty >> >> >> well now. >> >> >> >> > It >> >> >> > is an implausible story though, but for it not to be true, would >> >> >> > require the assumption that we were simply a biological mechanism >> >> >> > strictly following the laws of physics. >> >> >> >> That's what your formula seems to be supporting. >> >> >> >> > Just to remind you, you acknowledged that subjective experiences >> >> >> > are >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > property in their own right, >> >> >> >> Just like legs. >> >> >> >> > and that the property may be present in a >> >> >> > robot or not, >> >> >> >> Just like legs. >> >> >> >> > in that you can have knowledge of the other properties >> >> >> > such as the mechanism, but not of whether the property of >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> > experiences had emerged, was acknowledge by you in response to >> >> >> > where >> >> >> > I >> >> >> > said: >> >> >> >> How does that work with the legs/no legs scenario? >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> If I can't see the guy, I can't see if he has any legs. Check. >> >> >> >> > To which you replied: >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> > I fucking understand that you twit. >> >> >> > ------------ >> >> >> >> > Don't you reflect yourself on the straws you grasp at, or is it >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > you are just desperate to avoid facing you were wrong? >> >> >> >> M = A man >> >> >> B(M) = Walking around >> >> >> P = Consciousness >> >> >> >> (1) fails utterly. (For the same reason as the legs example.) >> >> >> (2) Isn't true. (Presence of consciousness affects B(M)) >> >> >> >> I agree. >> >> >> > When you say: >> >> > ------ >> >> > I've changed my mind. You need to know if the person is conscious or >> >> > not to >> >> > explain his behavior. >> >> > ------ >> >> >> > Do you mean whether the person has subjective experiences or not? >> >> >> Oh, so NOW you feel you have to draw some distinction between the two >> >> terms >> >> that up until now you've been using interchangably. Gee, I wonder why? >> >> >> I meant exactly what I wrote. Consciousness. Will you agree there's a >> >> difference between the behavior of a conscious person and the behavior >> >> of >> >> an >> >> unconscious person? >> >> > Well I was just checking as you seem to be using it in the sense that >> > refers to a behaviour such as in the context of "I walked in, and >> > there he was in the middle of the room unconscious". Obviously it >> > wouldn't make sense to use it in this context as you have stated that >> > the behaviour was that he was walking around. >> >> Why didn't you bring up this objection with the legs example? The context >> is >> precisely the same. Without legs he can't be walking around either. >> >> This is, in fact, precisely the context in which I'm using Consciousness. >> >> > In the context of it being meant as whether the man had any conscious >> > experiences or not, >> >> Do you think conscious experiences are unnecessary for consciousness? I >> think they're required, pretty much by definition. >> >> > I refer you two what I said earlier regarding the >> > point that the reasoning shows we are not simply a biological >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, because if we were then it >> > wouldn't be influential: >> >> > --------- >> > So if you were contesting this, then with knowledge of how the >> > biological mechanism operated, its behaviour could be explained simply >> > in terms of the biological mechanism following the laws of physics. >> > --------- >> >> > In other words like a robot without knowledge of whether it had >> > subjective experiences or not. >> >> > Your reply was: >> > --------- >> > Like how a man with no legs can't walk around. >> >> > Like how a man who's unconscious can't walk around. >> > --------- >> >> > Which you can see while it was a reply, it wasn't one that addressed >> > the point I had made. >> >> It's too bad you couldn't make the conceptual leap. The comparisons are >> pretty clear. >> >> "Can I explain how a person walks around without knowledge of whether he >> has >> legs or not?" conceptually maps to, "Can I explain how a person walks >> around >> without knowledge of whether he's conscious or not." perfectly. >> >> Your formula handles it perfectly, (1) fails utterly making (2) not true. >> >> Just like it did with the leg example. >> >> For some reason, you're offering objections to the consciousness example >> that you're not offereing to the leg example. I'd like to know why. >> >> > Can you comprehend that if we were simply a >> > biological mechanism following the laws of physics, then any behaviour >> > could be explained without knowledge of whether it was subjectively >> > experiencing/was conscious or not, perhaps by an alien robot for >> > example, just as the behaviour of the alien robot could be explained >> > by us without knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing/ >> > was conscious or not. >> >> WTF? ALIEN ROBOT??? What depths of your colon did you pull THAT out >> of? >> >> We are biological mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness >> is >> an operational part of that mechanism. Thus, if you explain the behavior, >> you are including the operation of consciousness -- if it's present -- in >> your explanation, whether you like it or not. >> >> Just like if you explain how a guy's walking around, you are including >> the >> fact that he must have legs in your explanation, whether you like it or >> not, >> whether you mention it or not. >> > > The alien robot was just a device to help you see the point. > Unfortunately the point went 'over your head' as the expression goes. No, I get the purpose. I just find it amusing that you can't help but pull more idiotic shit straight out of your ass. > You chose to mock the idea of the alien robot, rather than face the > issue. I wonder whether you would have had such problems if the > reasoning had been in favour of atheism? I faced it fine. I even explained why, "if you explain the behavior, you are including the operation of consciousness -- if it's present -- in your explanation, whether you like it or not." But that apparently went "over your head" as the expression goes. You chose to deliberately ignore that idea, rather than face the issue. I wonder whether you would have had such problems if the reasoning had been in favour of your childish god concept. > You couldn't explain the guy walking around without knowledge of the > property of whether he had legs or not. And you can't explain the guy walking around without knowledge of his state of consciousness. > You could explain the behaviour, of any robot without knowledge of > whether it had subjective experiences or not. As in response to: And the point you continue to run screaming from is that if it had subjective experiences, then that would be part of the explanation whether you knew it or not. If I know nothing about gravity, I can still describe the behavior of a dropped ball in terms of the laws of physics I am left with. I can say it's moving at 32 feet per second per second towards the center of the earth without knowledge of gravity. I've described its behavior without knowledge of gravity, yet in doing so, I also necessarily described the behavior-modifying ability of gravity. In the same way, I can describe the behavior of the robot by the laws of physics, and it will include the behavior modifying ability of consciousness in exactly the same way. Snip -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181643479.706311.14240@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > It's not simply a reformulation. > > (1) is about knowledge of the property, and explanation. > (2) is about whether the property is influential. > > If (1) wasn't true for humans, then humans can't be simply a > biological mechanism following the laws of physics (else their > behaviour could be explained in terms of the mechanism following the > laws of physics), which is the point I am getting at. Please .. make one single concise post that puts forward your whole argument (if indeed you have one) .. are you up to the challenge? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181644056.497230.71090@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > I had said: > ------------------- > > Example 1: > ---------- > > 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. > > ------------------- > > To which you replied: > ------------------- > You changed B. > ------------------- > > LOL, where did I, and also I'm not sure what you mean by B as opposed > to B(M)? > > As for my predictions, I see you went for (a). Please .. make one single concise post that puts forward your whole argument (if indeed you have one) .. are you up to the challenge? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181660806.879163.32060@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > No Fred, there is no adding or removing the serial number, there is > just one car, of which you have no knowledge of whether it had a > serial number or not. P was the same in both (1) and (2) within each > example (though I see you snipped the other examples). > > Can you now understand it, or more importantly can you face it? > > You are more than welcome to attempt to give an example where it > wouldn't be true, my predictions are that you will either: > > a) you won't give an example > b) you will change B(M) or P between (1) and (2) of your example. > c) you will give an example which does have knowledge of P in (1), > even if it is worded deceptively so as not to be immediately obvious. > d) you will give an example which highlights what I have been saying. > e) understand it > > last time you went for (a), I've added the (e) option for you now, but > you'd have to get over your ego first. Please .. make one single concise post that puts forward your whole argument (if indeed you have one) .. are you up to the challenge? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181644332.673740.169420@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > (1) is about properties that you have no knowledge of and aren't > required to explain the behaviour. Like whether M was a robot, B(M) > was acting in a fashion that you might consider it to have subjective > experiences, and P was whether it did have subjective experiences or > not. > > (2) shows that in the above example of the robot, that whether it had > subjective expeirences or not couldn't be influencing its behaviour. > > Can you understand what the implications would be if we were simply a > biological mechanism explainable by the laws of physics, and why this > is implausible? Please .. make one single concise post that puts forward your whole argument (if indeed you have one) .. are you up to the challenge? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181661014.830113.225500@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > Jeff understands it, whereas you still don't understand that where: > > 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. > > and 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. > > As you don't understand it, you don't think it is shown, but you will > never until the day you are no longer being presented with the > physical world be able to give an example where it isn't true. Please .. make one single concise post that puts forward your whole argument (if indeed you have one) .. are you up to the challenge? Quote
Guest Richo Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 1:10 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 12 Jun, 13:49, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 12, 7:36 am, jien...@aol.com wrote: > > > > On Jun 11, 5:08 pm, Matt Silberstein > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:29:05 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > <1181593745.206175.160...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > >On 11 Jun, 20:47, Matt Silberstein > > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:29:57 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > > > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > >> <1181590197.482419.50...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > >> [snip] > > > > > >> >Anyway, did you manage to understand 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 > > > > > >> I disagree that (2) is true if (1) is true. I could identify a class > > > > >> of phenomena, C, of which P is one possible member. But that is a > > > > >> minor point. My major point is in (1). I disagree that (1) reasonably > > > > >> captures a physical understanding of human behavior and subjective > > > > >> experience (SE). All of the physical analysis I see take the existence > > > > >> of SE as a given and work to explain that existence. So, while I think > > > > >> your argument here is wrong, I think the argument itself does not > > > > >> meaningfully relate to a physicalist (not scientism) theory of the > > > > >> mind. > > > > > >It is always true, and you have just avoided even attempting to point > > > > >out why it isn't. Yes you are right that subjective experiences do > > > > >influence our behaviour, else what reason would we have to consider > > > > >whether a robot is? Once you take away your assertion (which is shown > > > > >to be implausible) that we are simply a biological mechanism following > > > > >the laws of physics, then you would have no reason to think that any > > > > >physical mechanism following the laws of physics had subjective > > > > >experiences. > > > > > Ok, Jientho, Glenn is just assuming the conclusion here. You have not > > > > shown it implausible that we are "just" biological mechanisms. > > > > He has shown that if we are such mechanisms fully explained by the > > > laws of physics, then any subjective experiences we have are non- > > > influential of our behavior -- they (SE) are simply side-effects, > > > outputs, coincidental. > > > He has not "shown" it - he has asserted it in various forms including > > in the form of a question. > > People are just seeing straight through such tactics. > > > > And their "effects" on the physical world are > > > illusory -- our subjective selves are just observers here. Serious > > > materialists have made much the same point. > > > "Serious materialists" - speaking of rhetorical tricks! > > Too much sparing with Skeptic old friend - you have lost some of your > > old edge. > > Jeff understands it, whereas you still don't understand that where: > > 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. > > and 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. > What is your evidence that I don't understand this? ( I am not claiming that I do or do not understand it - I have never actually commented on it.) > As you don't understand it <snip> What is your evidence that I don't understand it? Have I ever commented upon it? You are making unsupported assertions AGAIN. Mark. Quote
Guest Richo Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 1:26 am, jien...@aol.com wrote: > On Jun 12, 8:49 am, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 12, 7:36 am, jien...@aol.com wrote: > > > > On Jun 11, 5:08 pm, Matt Silberstein > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:29:05 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > <1181593745.206175.160...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > >On 11 Jun, 20:47, Matt Silberstein > > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:29:57 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > > > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > >> <1181590197.482419.50...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > >> [snip] > > > > > >> >Anyway, did you manage to understand 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 > > > > > >> I disagree that (2) is true if (1) is true. I could identify a class > > > > >> of phenomena, C, of which P is one possible member. But that is a > > > > >> minor point. My major point is in (1). I disagree that (1) reasonably > > > > >> captures a physical understanding of human behavior and subjective > > > > >> experience (SE). All of the physical analysis I see take the existence > > > > >> of SE as a given and work to explain that existence. So, while I think > > > > >> your argument here is wrong, I think the argument itself does not > > > > >> meaningfully relate to a physicalist (not scientism) theory of the > > > > >> mind. > > > > > >It is always true, and you have just avoided even attempting to point > > > > >out why it isn't. Yes you are right that subjective experiences do > > > > >influence our behaviour, else what reason would we have to consider > > > > >whether a robot is? Once you take away your assertion (which is shown > > > > >to be implausible) that we are simply a biological mechanism following > > > > >the laws of physics, then you would have no reason to think that any > > > > >physical mechanism following the laws of physics had subjective > > > > >experiences. > > > > > Ok, Jientho, Glenn is just assuming the conclusion here. You have not > > > > shown it implausible that we are "just" biological mechanisms. > > > > He has shown that if we are such mechanisms fully explained by the > > > laws of physics, then any subjective experiences we have are non- > > > influential of our behavior -- they (SE) are simply side-effects, > > > outputs, coincidental. > > > He has not "shown" it - he has asserted it in various forms including > > in the form of a question. > > He has elaborated an argument at least. > Are we talking about the same thing? He seems to be talking about his rearrangements of sentences now. I have no interest in that. > > People are just seeing straight through such tactics. > > People are missing the argument. Looking at the latest series of posts he is now arguing about whether his assertion (1) is equivalent to assertion (2) and has further asserted (again without evidence ! Which I find deliciously ironic ) that I dont understand that assertion (1) being true is equivalent of assertion (2) being true etc etc. I am not interested in talking about that. Is that "the argument" you are talking of? Is that what you believe he has "shown"? If so then my response is I am not interested - it a distraction/ diversion /red herring. > Either missing the forest for the > trees, or else being severely blinkered by prior hidden assumptions. > My assumption has been all along that no one knows - not Someone, not myself nor anyone else - whether or not his assertion is true. My intuition/belief is that it is false - but I cannot show it is false. I have been watching closely and neither "side" has shown their position to be the correct one. I agree with Matt that this may well be an empirical question - and those that solve it (if it is ever is solved) will obviously not be the philosophers who have declared it impossible. Sometimes "doers" trump thinkers. Perhaps that will be true of cognitive science - I am hopeful - I am in wait and see mode. I do violently object to declaring the venture impossible - from a buch of people who have never tried. And so do some serious thinkers like Douglas Hofstadter, Daniel Dennet, Steven Pinker etc etc. The Dark Side ("Its magic" "Its impossible to understand - don't even try") has Roger Penrose (Emperors New Mind) on their side but his very long books still come down to "argument from ignorance" and "argument from incredulity". > > > And their "effects" on the physical world are > > > illusory -- our subjective selves are just observers here. Serious > > > materialists have made much the same point. > > > "Serious materialists" - speaking of rhetorical tricks! > > There certainly isn't much seriousness (carefulness) being shown in > here (alt.atheism). And I meant to refer to the "heavyweights" doing > the "heavy lifting" (publishing) in the field (pardon the mixed > metaphors :-). Why do you think this is a trick? (I didn't mean "all > serious materialists" and I didn't mean it exclusively.) > I doubt Daniel Dennett will roll over the moment he lays eyes on Someone's eloquence. "Give up Professor Dennett Someone has "shown" its impossible!" Now that is implausible. > > Too much spar[r]ing with S[k]eptic old friend - you have lost some of your > > old edge. > > Heh. Argument _ad_hominem_ won't help your case. :-) (To other > readers, do not flame me on this "inside" joke.) > Damn! Nearly got away with it! >8-) > Did you notice that I have finally <plonk>ed dear <cough> old Septic? > Only my fourth <plonk>ee. (And I never open my "killfile", just so > you know.) > Wow! I think it's a positive move - there are occasionally some Usenet discussions with some real meat to them and there are some intelligent people to violently disagree with. 8-) Which is much more fun that beating up on simple Skeptic. Mark. 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.