Jump to content

Implausibility of Materialism


Recommended Posts

Guest Jeckyl
Posted

"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.

  • Replies 994
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Jeckyl
Posted

"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.

Guest someone2
Posted

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?

Guest Denis Loubet
Posted

"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

Guest someone2
Posted

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?

Guest Jeckyl
Posted

"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

Guest Jeckyl
Posted

"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.

Guest Jeckyl
Posted

"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?

Guest Jeckyl
Posted

"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.

Posted

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

Guest someone2
Posted

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.

Guest someone2
Posted

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)

Guest someone2
Posted

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.

Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl
Posted

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

Guest someone2
Posted

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?

Guest ttamborselli@gmail.com
Posted

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

Guest someone2
Posted

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?

Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl
Posted

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

Guest someone3
Posted

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.

Guest Denis Loubet
Posted

"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

Guest someone3
Posted

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?

Guest Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist m
Posted

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?

Guest someone3
Posted

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?

Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl
Posted

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

Guest ttamborselli@gmail.com
Posted

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...