Guest Jeckyl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180885290.209544.160110@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Either way, it doesn't affect the point made. If you had all knowledge > regarding the way any mechanism worked, its behaviour could be > explained (retrospectively if necessary) Explained .. possibly .. but not predicted. > with the assumption that it had no subjective experiences. You have presented no valid grounds for that assumption. If subjective experiences are part of the initial conditions, then you need to take them into account. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180885920.927207.186290@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 3 Jun, 13:50, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> following: >> >> Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >> did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a >> biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >> did, which isn't plausible. > > Anyway, need to pop out now, when I get back, I'll take a look at > whether any of you have manage to understand, and accept despite your > egos Its nothing todo with egos .. Your sentence... "Therefore if we were simply a biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective experiences because of their existance." .... makes no sense .. or at best needs clarification. 1) what is the "their" you a meaning in "their existance" .. biological mechanism, talking, experiences? 2) are you saying that "they" exists or that they don't exist .. and how does that stop us talking about subjective experiences? 3) how does "their existence" being the cause of us not being able to talk require us being simple biological mechanisms. Please.. try to be more clear. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 18:03, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 3 Jun, 17:31, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 17:20, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:53:43 -0700, someone2 > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > >On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > > >> >following: > > > > >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > > >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > > >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > > >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > > >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > > >> >did, which isn't plausible. > > > > >> I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from > > > >> the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an > > > >> argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with > > > >> "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. > > > > >The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it > > > >doesn't, > > > > It simply doesn't. How do you think that it does? > > > > Let's reduce it to an actual syllogism for illustration purposes: > > > > P1: "A mechanism can have its behavior explained without invoking > > > consciousness" > > > > Okay so far? Am I fairly encapsulating your first premise? > > > > P2: (on which you're already de-railing, since it is a subset of P1as > > > you phrased it, but doesn't logically follow from it) "Whether or not > > > a mechanism is conscious has no effect on its behavior". This is > > > unsupported, to say the least; you haven't demonstrated that > > > consciousness has no effect on behavior, just assumed it. > > > > C: Sentence three is word salad, but the next sentence gives the idea > > > that you're implying that because of P1 and P2, that there must be > > > some kind of "Ghost In The Machine", which simply doesn't follow. > > > > >and what part of sentance three are you having problems in > > > >comprehending? > > > > What the Hell you were trying to say in English. The words all mean > > > something, but their combination is nonsensical. > > > If having subjective experiences did affect behaviour (your objection > > to P2), then how could behaviour be explained without taking it into > > account (P1)? > > Noticing you have gone a bit quite, has it dawned on you that it did > follow, and that you were deceived in what you were led to believe, or > do you think it is simply a question of you requiring more time before > the answer will come to you? > Would an atheist scientist or philosopher care to try to help raven1 out here, or can you see where you too were deceived? Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > conscious (had no subjective experiences). No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of its behavior would necessarily include that consciousness. > Which means that whether it > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would necessarily include the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. > Therefore if we were simply a > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > did, which isn't plausible. Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, it's not surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > following: > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of its behavior > would necessarily include that consciousness. > > > Which means that whether it > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. > > Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would necessarily include > the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. > > > Therefore if we were simply a > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > did, which isn't plausible. > > Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, it's not > surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply followed the laws of physics was conscious, why couldn't I explain it simply in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics with the assumption that it wasn't? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180888302.413726.236820@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > If having subjective experiences did affect behaviour (your objection > to P2), then how could behaviour be explained without taking it into > account (P1)? So P1 is incorrect, and you argument collapses Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180891542.225420.150960@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > Would an atheist scientist or philosopher care to try to help raven1 > out here, or can you see where you too were deceived? What deception is it you are talking about .. your post was not coherent enough to be deceptive. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180889738.993902.65140@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > You can run and live in denial if you like, but you won't be > experiencing the physical forever, and you'll regret letting your ego > stand in the way of you seeing the truth. Are you saying the egos don't exist anyway? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> > following: >> >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). >> >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of its behavior >> would necessarily include that consciousness. >> >> > Which means that whether it >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. >> >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would necessarily >> include >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. >> >> > Therefore if we were simply a >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >> > did, which isn't plausible. >> >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, it's not >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. >> > > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply followed > the laws of physics was conscious, why couldn't I explain it simply in > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics with the > assumption that it wasn't? You're assuming the 'laws' of physics are complete. Quote
Guest Ash Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 someone2 wrote: > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > did, which isn't plausible. > Yes, perfectly. It means you are an idiot Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 19:12, Ash <ash.ama...@virgin.net> wrote: > someone2 wrote: > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > following: > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > did, which isn't plausible. > > Yes, perfectly. It means you are an idiot Well one of us is making a stupid choice. Your abandonment of reason, indicates it is you. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 18:31, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1180888302.413726.236820@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > If having subjective experiences did affect behaviour (your objection > > to P2), then how could behaviour be explained without taking it into > > account (P1)? > > So P1 is incorrect, and you argument collapses How so? (by the way, since there is only me responding, I will only respond to you in this section, rather than having seperate converstations with you throughout this single thread) Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 18:14, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > following: > > It depend on how well you explain it > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > There's you first mistake, assuming that consciousness if outside the laws > of physics. > > Secondly you assume that the laws of physics controlls reality .. that is > not the cse .. the "laws" of physics attempt to model and explain reality. > That something happens which is outside the scope of those model and > explanations does not make that something impossible, nor does it invalidate > the "laws" > > So the rest of your arguments and conclusions can be ignored, as they are > based upon faulty premises. I have answered you elsewhere, and perhaps you can explain there how the physical world we experience is not governed by rules. Quote
Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 jun, 16:01, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 3 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 14:50, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > > following: > > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > > did, which isn't plausible. > > > Pardon? > > "Which means that wheter it did or didn't" > > did or didn't what? > > > If a cameraman goes out with soldiers to make pictures of the war, > > the behaviour of the soldiers during intense combat can be explained > > without references to the camera. > > Thus - according to you it - would be a coincidence if the camera > > would have recorded what actually happened? > > > Funny way of reasoning:) > > > In "consciousness explained" Dennet actually describes conciousness as > > the narative our brain stores of what has happened. So comparing it > > whith the camera is not a silly thing to do. Of course unlike the > > camera our consiousness does not consist of raw data, but is also > > build up from conclusions our mind has been making during or after the > > facts that are described happened. This is very usefull for our > > actions during the events (supposing someone is aiming to kill you > > provedes a better guidline for soldiers) that merely concluding that > > certain sounds present themselves to our ears), but somewhat spoiling > > our memory as far as reliability is concerned. (someone might be > > playing a tape of bullets flying around instead of really shooting). > > > If you have any real problems with materialism, > > you may present them to me, > > I know of no problems so far, > > and am willing the learn wether one is serious enough to ponder about. > > Your analogy was poor. The soldiers behaviour isn't affected by > whether unknown to them the cameraman was filming. So if they were > talking about the cameraman filming, it would only be a coincidence > that there was a cameraman filming. > > You couldn't be talking about anything you experience, and about your > subjective experiences, because you actually had subjective > experiences was the point. It would only be a coincidence that you had > the subjective experiences that you were discussing. It would also > have to be a deception that your behaviour was influenced by anything > you subjectively experienced, so on top of it being a coincidence, it > wouldn't even fit with our actual experience.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - You evidently seem to think that soldiers bother to talk to the cameraman when bullets are flying. I do not think that is the case. But any analogy is poor. Let's suppose there is no cameramen but only a hidden camera inside a helmet, of which even the soldier wearing the helmet is oblivious. The effect of the camera would be minimal, yet the story it's picture would tell would not be false. Why could I not be talking about my experiences Why can't a camera work? You give me no serious reason for this impromptu statement. Again if ourt consience (as Dennett suggest) is only a narrative that doesn't mean it is totally coincidental if the narrative is somewhat correct. Experiences lead to actions - even by robots - if these actions are that monitored than the narrative made by the monitor too is a result of those experiences. Futrhermore materialsm doesn't mean consious experciences do not influence our decissions. In my example the camera would not influence the decissions of the soldiers, but if the rewind and look at the pictures, they may find some information about the position of the enemy and plan their future actions accordingly. Likewise a robot may learn from it's experciences by using a background program that is modifying the foreground program to work more efficiently, by analizing the data collected by a monitoring unit. Of course at present it may be more efficient to have the analyzing done by a human, as humans are already equipped with the hardware and software to do that job. In my viwed You haven't said anything that makes "materialism" implausible. (actually I am wondering what you are saying if anything at all) There is a lot though that makes dualism implausible. especially Ockham's razor knife. Peter van Velzen Atheist and Materialist June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 20:03, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > On 3 jun, 16:01, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > wrote: > > > > On 3 jun, 14:50, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > > > following: > > > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > > > did, which isn't plausible. > > > > Pardon? > > > "Which means that wheter it did or didn't" > > > did or didn't what? > > > > If a cameraman goes out with soldiers to make pictures of the war, > > > the behaviour of the soldiers during intense combat can be explained > > > without references to the camera. > > > Thus - according to you it - would be a coincidence if the camera > > > would have recorded what actually happened? > > > > Funny way of reasoning:) > > > > In "consciousness explained" Dennet actually describes conciousness as > > > the narative our brain stores of what has happened. So comparing it > > > whith the camera is not a silly thing to do. Of course unlike the > > > camera our consiousness does not consist of raw data, but is also > > > build up from conclusions our mind has been making during or after the > > > facts that are described happened. This is very usefull for our > > > actions during the events (supposing someone is aiming to kill you > > > provedes a better guidline for soldiers) that merely concluding that > > > certain sounds present themselves to our ears), but somewhat spoiling > > > our memory as far as reliability is concerned. (someone might be > > > playing a tape of bullets flying around instead of really shooting). > > > > If you have any real problems with materialism, > > > you may present them to me, > > > I know of no problems so far, > > > and am willing the learn wether one is serious enough to ponder about. > > > Your analogy was poor. The soldiers behaviour isn't affected by > > whether unknown to them the cameraman was filming. So if they were > > talking about the cameraman filming, it would only be a coincidence > > that there was a cameraman filming. > > > You couldn't be talking about anything you experience, and about your > > subjective experiences, because you actually had subjective > > experiences was the point. It would only be a coincidence that you had > > the subjective experiences that you were discussing. It would also > > have to be a deception that your behaviour was influenced by anything > > you subjectively experienced, so on top of it being a coincidence, it > > wouldn't even fit with our actual experience.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > > You evidently seem to think that soldiers bother to talk to the > cameraman when bullets are flying. I do not think that is the case. > But any analogy is poor. > Let's suppose there is no cameramen but only a hidden camera inside a > helmet, of which even the soldier wearing the helmet is oblivious. > The effect of the camera would be minimal, > yet the story it's picture would tell would not be false. > > Why could I not be talking about my experiences > Why can't a camera work? > You give me no serious reason for this impromptu statement. > > Again if ourt consience (as Dennett suggest) is only a narrative > that doesn't mean it is totally coincidental if the narrative is > somewhat correct. > Experiences lead to actions - even by robots - > if these actions are that monitored > than the narrative made by the monitor too is a result of those > experiences. > > Futrhermore materialsm doesn't mean consious experciences do not > influence our decissions. In my example the camera would not influence > the decissions of the soldiers, but if the rewind and look at the > pictures, they may find some information about the position of the > enemy and plan their future actions accordingly. > > Likewise a robot may learn from it's experciences by using a > background program that is modifying the foreground program to work > more efficiently, by analizing the data collected by a monitoring > unit. > > Of course at present it may be more efficient to have the analyzing > done by a human, as humans are already equipped with the hardware and > software to do that job. > > In my viwed You haven't said anything that makes "materialism" > implausible. > (actually I am wondering what you are saying if anything at all) > There is a lot though that makes dualism implausible. > especially Ockham's razor knife. > The camera in the helmet is analogous to having subjective experiences right? Do you understand that if the soldiers were talking about having a camera in their helmet (which doesn't affect their behaviour), then it would only be a coincidence that there was a camera in their helmet? Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the mechanism had no subjective experiences? Quote
Guest ttamborselli@gmail.com Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 5:50 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: A backhanded insult from the get go. If we understand it then we're OK, but if we can't understand it then, well, the implied "we're dumb" is built right in. Talk about poisoning the well. > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Plenty of mechanisms like this: gravity, quantum mechanics, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force. Or did you have something else in mind? Were you thinking of the human body? Plenty of non-subjective experience/non-conscious actions within the human body like blood flow, brain chemicals interacting, stomach digestion, breathing, pupil dilation, & etc. Or did you have something else in mind? Why not actually come out and say what you mean rather than say "any mechanism?" What mechanism are you talking about? Be specific. >Which means that whether it > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Assertion that subjective experiences (or lack thereof) affect the laws of physics. Could you provide a specific example of this? Or are we talking about the general "any mechanism?" >Therefore if we were simply a > biological mechanism, Good start. >we couldn't be talking about our subjective > experiences because of their existance. Bad landing. Nope. Word salad, as previously mentioned. But we are biological mechanisms. And we do talk to each other about our subjective experiences. So your position is wrong. Straight from the beginning. >It would have to be a > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > did, which isn't plausible. Followed up by more crap. "I don't believe it could happen so it couldn't happen" - is that the gist of it? But it does, so you're delusional. In the end, nothing specific. "Any mechanism ..." Assertions and more assertions. You're attempting to tie philosophy with science. And badly at that. Try again. /BC Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 20:28, ttamborse...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 3, 5:50 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > following: > > A backhanded insult from the get go. If we understand it then we're > OK, but if we can't understand it then, well, the implied "we're dumb" > is built right in. Talk about poisoning the well. > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > Plenty of mechanisms like this: gravity, quantum mechanics, the strong > nuclear force, the weak nuclear force. Or did you have something else > in mind? Were you thinking of the human body? Plenty of non-subjective > experience/non-conscious actions within the human body like blood > flow, brain chemicals interacting, stomach digestion, breathing, pupil > dilation, & etc. Or did you have something else in mind? > > Why not actually come out and say what you mean rather than say "any > mechanism?" What mechanism are you talking about? Be specific. > > >Which means that whether it > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. > > Assertion that subjective experiences (or lack thereof) affect the > laws of physics. Could you provide a specific example of this? Or are > we talking about the general "any mechanism?" > > >Therefore if we were simply a > > biological mechanism, > > Good start. > > >we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > experiences because of their existance. > > Bad landing. Nope. Word salad, as previously mentioned. But we are > biological mechanisms. And we do talk to each other about our > subjective experiences. So your position is wrong. Straight from the > beginning. > > >It would have to be a > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > did, which isn't plausible. > > Followed up by more crap. "I don't believe it could happen so it > couldn't happen" - is that the gist of it? But it does, so you're > delusional. > > In the end, nothing specific. "Any mechanism ..." Assertions and more > assertions. You're attempting to tie philosophy with science. And > badly at that. > > Try again. > As I said, any mechanism that followed the laws of physics, so yes we are talking about the general. Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the laws of physics could have its behaviour explained with in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption that it had no subjective experiences? Quote
Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 jun, 21:09, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 3 Jun, 20:03, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 16:01, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 3 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > wrote: > > > > > On 3 jun, 14:50, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > > > > following: > > > > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > > > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > > > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > > > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > > > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > > > > did, which isn't plausible. > > > > > Pardon? > > > > "Which means that wheter it did or didn't" > > > > did or didn't what? > > > > > If a cameraman goes out with soldiers to make pictures of the war, > > > > the behaviour of the soldiers during intense combat can be explained > > > > without references to the camera. > > > > Thus - according to you it - would be a coincidence if the camera > > > > would have recorded what actually happened? > > > > > Funny way of reasoning:) > > > > > In "consciousness explained" Dennet actually describes conciousness as > > > > the narative our brain stores of what has happened. So comparing it > > > > whith the camera is not a silly thing to do. Of course unlike the > > > > camera our consiousness does not consist of raw data, but is also > > > > build up from conclusions our mind has been making during or after the > > > > facts that are described happened. This is very usefull for our > > > > actions during the events (supposing someone is aiming to kill you > > > > provedes a better guidline for soldiers) that merely concluding that > > > > certain sounds present themselves to our ears), but somewhat spoiling > > > > our memory as far as reliability is concerned. (someone might be > > > > playing a tape of bullets flying around instead of really shooting). > > > > > If you have any real problems with materialism, > > > > you may present them to me, > > > > I know of no problems so far, > > > > and am willing the learn wether one is serious enough to ponder about. > > > > Your analogy was poor. The soldiers behaviour isn't affected by > > > whether unknown to them the cameraman was filming. So if they were > > > talking about the cameraman filming, it would only be a coincidence > > > that there was a cameraman filming. > > > > You couldn't be talking about anything you experience, and about your > > > subjective experiences, because you actually had subjective > > > experiences was the point. It would only be a coincidence that you had > > > the subjective experiences that you were discussing. It would also > > > have to be a deception that your behaviour was influenced by anything > > > you subjectively experienced, so on top of it being a coincidence, it > > > wouldn't even fit with our actual experience.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > > > You evidently seem to think that soldiers bother to talk to the > > cameraman when bullets are flying. I do not think that is the case. > > But any analogy is poor. > > Let's suppose there is no cameramen but only a hidden camera inside a > > helmet, of which even the soldier wearing the helmet is oblivious. > > The effect of the camera would be minimal, > > yet the story it's picture would tell would not be false. > > > Why could I not be talking about my experiences > > Why can't a camera work? > > You give me no serious reason for this impromptu statement. > > > Again if ourt consience (as Dennett suggest) is only a narrative > > that doesn't mean it is totally coincidental if the narrative is > > somewhat correct. > > Experiences lead to actions - even by robots - > > if these actions are that monitored > > than the narrative made by the monitor too is a result of those > > experiences. > > > Futrhermore materialsm doesn't mean consious experciences do not > > influence our decissions. In my example the camera would not influence > > the decissions of the soldiers, but if the rewind and look at the > > pictures, they may find some information about the position of the > > enemy and plan their future actions accordingly. > > > Likewise a robot may learn from it's experciences by using a > > background program that is modifying the foreground program to work > > more efficiently, by analizing the data collected by a monitoring > > unit. > > > Of course at present it may be more efficient to have the analyzing > > done by a human, as humans are already equipped with the hardware and > > software to do that job. > > > In my viwed You haven't said anything that makes "materialism" > > implausible. > > (actually I am wondering what you are saying if anything at all) > > There is a lot though that makes dualism implausible. > > especially Ockham's razor knife. > > The camera in the helmet is analogous to having subjective experiences > right? Do you understand that if the soldiers were talking about > having a camera in their helmet (which doesn't affect their > behaviour), then it would only be a coincidence that there was a > camera in their helmet? > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > mechanism had no subjective experiences?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - The first paragraph I understand what I do not understand what connection that would have towards the plausibility of materialism. However the second paragraph is known to be untrue. People do not only have subjective experiences but they act on them. There are people who think they have been abcucted by aliens and act accordingly. There are people who think they have heard the voice of God and act accordingly. There is ample evidence to suggest that some of these subjective experiences are objectively false.(as some maintain that god declares Islam to be the only true religion while others declare God says it is not) The fact that spirits do not exist does not mean people do not act upon their delusions. If we disagree on this then apperantly one of us is delusional and acts accordingly. That doesn't mean there is anything else than brains that acting differently. (I can't say better or worse, for if one of us is wrong about this particular subject, it may well be that the other is decidingly thinking better about all other subjects) Think about it and let me know Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 21:11, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > On 3 jun, 21:09, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 20:03, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > wrote: > > > > On 3 jun, 16:01, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > On 3 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 3 jun, 14:50, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > > > > > following: > > > > > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > > > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > > > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > > > > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > > > > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > > > > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > > > > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > > > > > did, which isn't plausible. > > > > > > Pardon? > > > > > "Which means that wheter it did or didn't" > > > > > did or didn't what? > > > > > > If a cameraman goes out with soldiers to make pictures of the war, > > > > > the behaviour of the soldiers during intense combat can be explained > > > > > without references to the camera. > > > > > Thus - according to you it - would be a coincidence if the camera > > > > > would have recorded what actually happened? > > > > > > Funny way of reasoning:) > > > > > > In "consciousness explained" Dennet actually describes conciousness as > > > > > the narative our brain stores of what has happened. So comparing it > > > > > whith the camera is not a silly thing to do. Of course unlike the > > > > > camera our consiousness does not consist of raw data, but is also > > > > > build up from conclusions our mind has been making during or after the > > > > > facts that are described happened. This is very usefull for our > > > > > actions during the events (supposing someone is aiming to kill you > > > > > provedes a better guidline for soldiers) that merely concluding that > > > > > certain sounds present themselves to our ears), but somewhat spoiling > > > > > our memory as far as reliability is concerned. (someone might be > > > > > playing a tape of bullets flying around instead of really shooting). > > > > > > If you have any real problems with materialism, > > > > > you may present them to me, > > > > > I know of no problems so far, > > > > > and am willing the learn wether one is serious enough to ponder about. > > > > > Your analogy was poor. The soldiers behaviour isn't affected by > > > > whether unknown to them the cameraman was filming. So if they were > > > > talking about the cameraman filming, it would only be a coincidence > > > > that there was a cameraman filming. > > > > > You couldn't be talking about anything you experience, and about your > > > > subjective experiences, because you actually had subjective > > > > experiences was the point. It would only be a coincidence that you had > > > > the subjective experiences that you were discussing. It would also > > > > have to be a deception that your behaviour was influenced by anything > > > > you subjectively experienced, so on top of it being a coincidence, it > > > > wouldn't even fit with our actual experience.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > > > > You evidently seem to think that soldiers bother to talk to the > > > cameraman when bullets are flying. I do not think that is the case. > > > But any analogy is poor. > > > Let's suppose there is no cameramen but only a hidden camera inside a > > > helmet, of which even the soldier wearing the helmet is oblivious. > > > The effect of the camera would be minimal, > > > yet the story it's picture would tell would not be false. > > > > Why could I not be talking about my experiences > > > Why can't a camera work? > > > You give me no serious reason for this impromptu statement. > > > > Again if ourt consience (as Dennett suggest) is only a narrative > > > that doesn't mean it is totally coincidental if the narrative is > > > somewhat correct. > > > Experiences lead to actions - even by robots - > > > if these actions are that monitored > > > than the narrative made by the monitor too is a result of those > > > experiences. > > > > Futrhermore materialsm doesn't mean consious experciences do not > > > influence our decissions. In my example the camera would not influence > > > the decissions of the soldiers, but if the rewind and look at the > > > pictures, they may find some information about the position of the > > > enemy and plan their future actions accordingly. > > > > Likewise a robot may learn from it's experciences by using a > > > background program that is modifying the foreground program to work > > > more efficiently, by analizing the data collected by a monitoring > > > unit. > > > > Of course at present it may be more efficient to have the analyzing > > > done by a human, as humans are already equipped with the hardware and > > > software to do that job. > > > > In my viwed You haven't said anything that makes "materialism" > > > implausible. > > > (actually I am wondering what you are saying if anything at all) > > > There is a lot though that makes dualism implausible. > > > especially Ockham's razor knife. > > > The camera in the helmet is analogous to having subjective experiences > > right? Do you understand that if the soldiers were talking about > > having a camera in their helmet (which doesn't affect their > > behaviour), then it would only be a coincidence that there was a > > camera in their helmet? > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > The first paragraph I understand > what I do not understand what connection that would have towards > the plausibility of materialism. > > However the second paragraph is known to be untrue. > People do not only have subjective experiences but they act on them. > There are people who think they have been abcucted by aliens and act > accordingly. > There are people who think they have heard the voice of God and act > accordingly. > There is ample evidence to suggest that some of these subjective > experiences are objectively false.(as some maintain that god declares > Islam to be the only true religion while others declare God says it is > not) > > The fact that spirits do not exist does not mean people do not act > upon their delusions. > If we disagree on this then apperantly one of us is delusional and > acts accordingly. > That doesn't mean there is anything else than brains that acting > differently. > (I can't say better or worse, for if one of us is wrong about this > particular subject, it may well be that the other is decidingly > thinking better about all other subjects) > > Think about it > and let me know > What you say is known, is simply your belief. What you are glossing over is that your belief is implausible. You state that you believe the following to be untrue: ------------ Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the mechanism had no subjective experiences? ------------ Could you explain why a mechanism following the known laws of physics couldn't be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics? Or is it that you think there is a reason that you would be unable to do so with the assumption that the mechanism had no subjective experiences? If so, please explain why I couldn't explain its behaviour in in terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics (which don't reference any subjective experiences the physical might or might not be having), with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective experiences. Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> > following: >> >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). >> >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of its behavior >> would necessarily include that consciousness. >> >> > Which means that whether it >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. >> >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would necessarily >> include >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. >> >> > Therefore if we were simply a >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >> > did, which isn't plausible. >> >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, it's not >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. >> > > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply followed > the laws of physics was conscious, Who said you had to? > why couldn't I explain it simply in > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics with the > assumption that it wasn't? If you fully describe the behavior of the mechanism in terms of a physical mechanism following the laws of physics, then you are describing all the events that contribute to that behavior. If the mechanism is conscious, the consciousness will be included in the description of events in terms of physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness is physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness is just our word that labels a particular VARIETY of physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 21:38, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >> > following: > > >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of its behavior > >> would necessarily include that consciousness. > > >> > Which means that whether it > >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. > > >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would necessarily > >> include > >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. > > >> > Therefore if we were simply a > >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >> > did, which isn't plausible. > > >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, it's not > >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. > > > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply followed > > the laws of physics was conscious, > > Who said you had to? > > > why couldn't I explain it simply in > > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics with the > > assumption that it wasn't? > > If you fully describe the behavior of the mechanism in terms of a physical > mechanism following the laws of physics, then you are describing all the > events that contribute to that behavior. If the mechanism is conscious, the > consciousness will be included in the description of events in terms of > physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness is > physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness is just our > word that labels a particular VARIETY of physical mechanisms following the > laws of physics. > While I you can believe that the mechanism is responsible for our subjective experiences, you avoided explaining why I couldn't explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption that there were no subjective experiences, or could I? Quote
Guest Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist m Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 1:50 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > did, which isn't plausible. Can I have Caesar dressing with that word salad? Quote
Guest someone3 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun, 22:19, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" <nonreplya...@heathens.org.uk> wrote: > On Jun 3, 1:50 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > following: > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > did, which isn't plausible. > > Can I have Caesar dressing with that word salad? If you can't understand it, why don't you point out which bit you are having trouble comprehending? Quote
Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 jun, 22:23, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 3 Jun, 21:11, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 21:09, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 3 Jun, 20:03, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > wrote: > > > > > On 3 jun, 16:01, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 14:50, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > > > > > > following: > > > > > > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > > > > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > > > > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > > > > > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > > > > > > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > > > > > > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > > > > > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > > > > > > did, which isn't plausible. > > > > > > > Pardon? > > > > > > "Which means that wheter it did or didn't" > > > > > > did or didn't what? > > > > > > > If a cameraman goes out with soldiers to make pictures of the war, > > > > > > the behaviour of the soldiers during intense combat can be explained > > > > > > without references to the camera. > > > > > > Thus - according to you it - would be a coincidence if the camera > > > > > > would have recorded what actually happened? > > > > > > > Funny way of reasoning:) > > > > > > > In "consciousness explained" Dennet actually describes conciousness as > > > > > > the narative our brain stores of what has happened. So comparing it > > > > > > whith the camera is not a silly thing to do. Of course unlike the > > > > > > camera our consiousness does not consist of raw data, but is also > > > > > > build up from conclusions our mind has been making during or after the > > > > > > facts that are described happened. This is very usefull for our > > > > > > actions during the events (supposing someone is aiming to kill you > > > > > > provedes a better guidline for soldiers) that merely concluding that > > > > > > certain sounds present themselves to our ears), but somewhat spoiling > > > > > > our memory as far as reliability is concerned. (someone might be > > > > > > playing a tape of bullets flying around instead of really shooting). > > > > > > > If you have any real problems with materialism, > > > > > > you may present them to me, > > > > > > I know of no problems so far, > > > > > > and am willing the learn wether one is serious enough to ponder about. > > > > > > Your analogy was poor. The soldiers behaviour isn't affected by > > > > > whether unknown to them the cameraman was filming. So if they were > > > > > talking about the cameraman filming, it would only be a coincidence > > > > > that there was a cameraman filming. > > > > > > You couldn't be talking about anything you experience, and about your > > > > > subjective experiences, because you actually had subjective > > > > > experiences was the point. It would only be a coincidence that you had > > > > > the subjective experiences that you were discussing. It would also > > > > > have to be a deception that your behaviour was influenced by anything > > > > > you subjectively experienced, so on top of it being a coincidence, it > > > > > wouldn't even fit with our actual experience.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > > > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > > > > > You evidently seem to think that soldiers bother to talk to the > > > > cameraman when bullets are flying. I do not think that is the case. > > > > But any analogy is poor. > > > > Let's suppose there is no cameramen but only a hidden camera inside a > > > > helmet, of which even the soldier wearing the helmet is oblivious. > > > > The effect of the camera would be minimal, > > > > yet the story it's picture would tell would not be false. > > > > > Why could I not be talking about my experiences > > > > Why can't a camera work? > > > > You give me no serious reason for this impromptu statement. > > > > > Again if ourt consience (as Dennett suggest) is only a narrative > > > > that doesn't mean it is totally coincidental if the narrative is > > > > somewhat correct. > > > > Experiences lead to actions - even by robots - > > > > if these actions are that monitored > > > > than the narrative made by the monitor too is a result of those > > > > experiences. > > > > > Futrhermore materialsm doesn't mean consious experciences do not > > > > influence our decissions. In my example the camera would not influence > > > > the decissions of the soldiers, but if the rewind and look at the > > > > pictures, they may find some information about the position of the > > > > enemy and plan their future actions accordingly. > > > > > Likewise a robot may learn from it's experciences by using a > > > > background program that is modifying the foreground program to work > > > > more efficiently, by analizing the data collected by a monitoring > > > > unit. > > > > > Of course at present it may be more efficient to have the analyzing > > > > done by a human, as humans are already equipped with the hardware and > > > > software to do that job. > > > > > In my viwed You haven't said anything that makes "materialism" > > > > implausible. > > > > (actually I am wondering what you are saying if anything at all) > > > > There is a lot though that makes dualism implausible. > > > > especially Ockham's razor knife. > > > > The camera in the helmet is analogous to having subjective experiences > > > right? Do you understand that if the soldiers were talking about > > > having a camera in their helmet (which doesn't affect their > > > behaviour), then it would only be a coincidence that there was a > > > camera in their helmet? > > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > > The first paragraph I understand > > what I do not understand what connection that would have towards > > the plausibility of materialism. > > > However the second paragraph is known to be untrue. > > People do not only have subjective experiences but they act on them. > > There are people who think they have been abcucted by aliens and act > > accordingly. > > There are people who think they have heard the voice of God and act > > accordingly. > > There is ample evidence to suggest that some of these subjective > > experiences are objectively false.(as some maintain that god declares > > Islam to be the only true religion while others declare God says it is > > not) > > > The fact that spirits do not exist does not mean people do not act > > upon their delusions. > > If we disagree on this then apperantly one of us is delusional and > > acts accordingly. > > That doesn't mean there is anything else than brains that acting > > differently. > > (I can't say better or worse, for if one of us is wrong about this > > particular subject, it may well be that the other is decidingly > > thinking better about all other subjects) > > > Think about it > > and let me know > > What you say is known, is simply your belief. What you are glossing > over is that your belief is implausible. > > You state that you believe the following to be untrue: > ------------ > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > ------------ > > Could you explain why a mechanism following the known laws of physics > couldn't be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the > known laws of physics? > > Or is it that you think there is a reason that you would be unable to > do so with the assumption that the mechanism had no subjective > experiences? If so, please explain why I couldn't explain its > behaviour in in terms of the physical mechanism following the known > laws of physics (which don't reference any subjective experiences the > physical might or might not be having), with the assumption that it > didn't have any subjective experiences.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - I am not sure that human actions can be easily explained without the assumption of subjective experiences. Of course one can refer to what happens in our brains synapsis and disregard anything in the real or imagined world that this synaps event deals with but that is certainly not easy and actually evading the question whether the subjective experience has any importance. Fact is that subjective experiences do influence our behavior even if both the experience and the behaviour contain nothing more than someone saying "I experience X". That does not mean that someone who says to have been abducted by aliens was abducted by aliens, but it does mean that this person acts differently than some who does not claim so. Fact is also that these subjecive experiences as such have little influence during the experience they are describing. The clue to Dennetts vision towards consciousness is that he does not imply that the subjective experience is anything more than that: Saying what we think has happened.. Of course someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens may also react differently towards a plain flying over in the nightsky. If consiousness/subjective experience is narrative and contained in our memory it always is about the past, while as everything it can only influence the future. It does however (totally!) determine the way we view the past. Still puzzled as how this has any reference towards materialism. In case anyone misunderstands: Mine are the following views: 1. Subjective experience has no influence on the real experience it it desrcibing (unless the experience takes enough time for nr.2 to have effect) 2. Subjective experience has a lot of influence on future behaviour. 3. Subjective experience is practically the only source for the way we view our past. 3. Subjective experience need not always to be conscious even though consciousness is little more than the subjective experience we momentarily remember. (I do not want to get flamed by psychologists) Peter van Velzen Atheist and materialist June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest ttamborselli@gmail.com Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 12:33 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 3 Jun, 20:28, ttamborse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Jun 3, 5:50 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > > following: > > > A backhanded insult from the get go. If we understand it then we're > > OK, but if we can't understand it then, well, the implied "we're dumb" > > is built right in. Talk about poisoning the well. > > > > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > > Plenty of mechanisms like this: gravity, quantum mechanics, the strong > > nuclear force, the weak nuclear force. Or did you have something else > > in mind? Were you thinking of the human body? Plenty of non-subjective > > experience/non-conscious actions within the human body like blood > > flow, brain chemicals interacting, stomach digestion, breathing, pupil > > dilation, & etc. Or did you have something else in mind? > > > Why not actually come out and say what you mean rather than say "any > > mechanism?" What mechanism are you talking about? Be specific. > > > >Which means that whether it > > > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. > > > Assertion that subjective experiences (or lack thereof) affect the > > laws of physics. Could you provide a specific example of this? Or are > > we talking about the general "any mechanism?" > > > >Therefore if we were simply a > > > biological mechanism, > > > Good start. > > > >we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > > experiences because of their existance. > > > Bad landing. Nope. Word salad, as previously mentioned. But we are > > biological mechanisms. And we do talk to each other about our > > subjective experiences. So your position is wrong. Straight from the > > beginning. > > > >It would have to be a > > > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > > did, which isn't plausible. > > > Followed up by more crap. "I don't believe it could happen so it > > couldn't happen" - is that the gist of it? But it does, so you're > > delusional. > > > In the end, nothing specific. "Any mechanism ..." Assertions and more > > assertions. You're attempting to tie philosophy with science. And > > badly at that. > > > Try again. > > As I said, any mechanism that followed the laws of physics, so yes we > are talking about the general. > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the laws of physics > could have its behaviour explained with in terms of the physical > mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption that it > had no subjective experiences? The operative word you use is "could." Yes, sure. Any mechanism "could" operate without subjective experience. But that doesn't mean that all do. Since there are subjective experiences (fact) and we are present in a material world(fact), then your implication that we shouldn't have subjective experiences is obviously crap. No coI asked for a specific example. You didn't give it. Why not? I asked several other questions. I provided several examples. No response on any of those. Only that you want a general comment about "any mechanism" following the laws of physics. Me: 2 You: 0 Try again. /BC 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.