Guest someone2 Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On 20 Jun, 00:08, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1182269736.210144.41070@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > What do you even mean by experiences encoded into the mechanism? > > Our memories of our experiences are stored within the brain .. they are > encoded into the mechanism of the brain. > > > Don't you understand, that whether a robot had conscious experiences > > or not it couldn't affect its behaviour? > > That is incorrect. > > > This has been shown by the reasoning you ignore. > > I have not ignored it .. it has simply not been shown > > > Also stop using the expression 'word salad' on > > anything you can't understand. > > Why don't you just say, I can't > > understand <the bit you can't understand>, and ask for clarification. > > Stop writing word salad and READ what you write BEFORE you post. The > problem is not with my ability to comprehend.. it is with your ability to > communicate. So the configuration of the neurons, causes the experience of memories? Could you put forward for clarity, if it isn't too much effort, where you think the following isn't reasoned: M refers to the physical entity in question. B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. P refers to the a property in question. Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), and P is the same in (1) and (2). 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has P or not. 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. If (1) is true, then (2) is true. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:hfdg73h68kqnkvltlb303m7tibkfa63ku5@4ax.com... >>M refers to the physical entity in question. >>B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. >>P refers to the a property in question. >> >>Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), >>and P is the same in (1) and (2). >> >>1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring >>knowledge of whether it has P or not. >> >>2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the >>explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. >> >>If (1) is true, then (2) is true. > > The above seems to be an awkward wording of parsimony. So I can > explain rainfall without mentioning God so, by your logic, God does > not influence rainfall. I can explain the operations of a cell without > mentioning God, so God does not influence the operation of a cell. > What has not been established, what I have denied, is whether or not > we can explain humans without needing to discuss subjective > experience. I assert that a physical explanation of people will > mention and explain subjective experience. That is an empirical > issue, not a logical one. It is something about the world that we find > out by looking. Indeed if M = the universe B(M) = physical reality P = god Then we have the following both true: 1) Physical reality is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether god exists. 2) Presence of god or lack of, does not influence/affect physical reality, else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without god. So from that we can see the implausibility of god. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:44:13 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1182293053.268914.294130@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: [snip] >The point you seem to be missing, is that you couldn't in reality > explain rainfall, which is something that doesn't actually lie >outside something that is consciously experienced. So you are really making some sort of solipsist argument. Or, at least, a serious denial of the external world. >Though given your >assumption of reality, you would think you could, and with your >assumption of reality, applying the reasoning (as you would regard (1) >to be true), you would reason that God could not be influential in >rainfall. Obviously though if (1) were in fact false, then so would >(2) be. It wouldn't be a problem with the reasoning, it would be a >problem with your assertion in (1). >I assume you mean by "a robot that appear human", that its behaviour >gave you reason to think that it might be having subjective >experiences, and that not that it necessarily looked like a human. It is behavior we are talking about. >I'm >not sure why you are disagreeing with it being explainable in terms of >the components following the known laws of physics, is it because you >don't think they would be? I did not disagree with that. Try to follow all the steps: I disagree that we can provide a natural explanation for this human-seeming robot except that we all provide a natural explanation for its subjective experience. I assert, based in part on lots of reading and work in this area, that when we explain the robot we will also explain the subjective experience. You might want to actually read up on this subject. >[Personally I'd rather you responded as people might in an exchange of >letters, rather than breaking up the context of various sentances and >paragraphs, but I don't suppose you will. I understand most people on >usenet intersperse, but then most converstations never get anywhere.] Your system is far worse. You repeat multiple steps of a conversation and somehow present repetition as though it were a new claim. It is much harder to follow your system. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 20 Jun, 01:13, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in > messagenews:hfdg73h68kqnkvltlb303m7tibkfa63ku5@4ax.com... > > > > > > >>M refers to the physical entity in question. > >>B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. > >>P refers to the a property in question. > > >>Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), > >>and P is the same in (1) and (2). > > >>1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > >>knowledge of whether it has P or not. > > >>2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the > >>explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. > > >>If (1) is true, then (2) is true. > > > The above seems to be an awkward wording of parsimony. So I can > > explain rainfall without mentioning God so, by your logic, God does > > not influence rainfall. I can explain the operations of a cell without > > mentioning God, so God does not influence the operation of a cell. > > What has not been established, what I have denied, is whether or not > > we can explain humans without needing to discuss subjective > > experience. I assert that a physical explanation of people will > > mention and explain subjective experience. That is an empirical > > issue, not a logical one. It is something about the world that we find > > out by looking. > > Indeed if > M = the universe > B(M) = physical reality > P = god > > Then we have the following both true: > > 1) Physical reality is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > knowledge of whether god exists. > 2) Presence of god or lack of, does not influence/affect physical reality, > else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without god. > > So from that we can see the implausibility of god. Your post was a use of the following reasoning: ---------------- M refers to the physical entity in question. B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. P refers to the a property in question. Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), and P is the same in (1) and (2). 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has P or not. 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. If (1) is true, then (2) is true. ---------------- You seem to be using the reasoning, is that because you understood the reasoning, and could see that the reasoning was true, or did you think the reasoning was nonsense, and thus what you posted was nonsense? If you thought the mode of reasoning was nonsense then if you aren't intending to do so in response to the last reply I gave to you, you could do it here. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 20 Jun, 01:21, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:44:13 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > <1182293053.268914.294...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >The point you seem to be missing, is that you couldn't in reality > > explain rainfall, which is something that doesn't actually lie > >outside something that is consciously experienced. > > So you are really making some sort of solipsist argument. Or, at > least, a serious denial of the external world. > > >Though given your > >assumption of reality, you would think you could, and with your > >assumption of reality, applying the reasoning (as you would regard (1) > >to be true), you would reason that God could not be influential in > >rainfall. Obviously though if (1) were in fact false, then so would > >(2) be. It wouldn't be a problem with the reasoning, it would be a > >problem with your assertion in (1). > >I assume you mean by "a robot that appear human", that its behaviour > >gave you reason to think that it might be having subjective > >experiences, and that not that it necessarily looked like a human. > > It is behavior we are talking about. > > >I'm > >not sure why you are disagreeing with it being explainable in terms of > >the components following the known laws of physics, is it because you > >don't think they would be? > > I did not disagree with that. Try to follow all the steps: I disagree > that we can provide a natural explanation for this human-seeming robot > except that we all provide a natural explanation for its subjective > experience. I assert, based in part on lots of reading and work in > this area, that when we explain the robot we will also explain the > subjective experience. You might want to actually read up on this > subject. > > >[Personally I'd rather you responded as people might in an exchange of > >letters, rather than breaking up the context of various sentances and > >paragraphs, but I don't suppose you will. I understand most people on > >usenet intersperse, but then most converstations never get anywhere.] > > Your system is far worse. You repeat multiple steps of a conversation > and somehow present repetition as though it were a new claim. It is > much harder to follow your system. > I disagree that posting in a form of letters is worse, as if you are a new reader, you can look back if the history is still showing it, and simply read what was said. Also, it prevents a person restating the same point over and over again to different sections, and in case anyone was not interested in the truth, it allows them to cover up not responding to a point that is made over one or two paragraphs, by breaking it up, giving the impression that they had addressed the point, but really only replying to individual sentances, or portions of sentances. Take this correspondance between two Physics professors. How often do you see such a productive discussion on usenet? http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/weingold.htm Regarding the explanation of the robots behaviour, are you saying that it couldn't be explained in terms of the system components following the known laws of physics? For if it could , then it would have been explained without reference to any subjective experiences, as the known laws of physics don't refer to subjective experiences, that is a FACT. This isn't about whether you would consider it to be a useful explanation or not. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 20 Jun, 01:38, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 20 Jun, 01:21, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:44:13 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > <1182293053.268914.294...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > [snip] > > > >The point you seem to be missing, is that you couldn't in reality > > > explain rainfall, which is something that doesn't actually lie > > >outside something that is consciously experienced. > > > So you are really making some sort of solipsist argument. Or, at > > least, a serious denial of the external world. > > > >Though given your > > >assumption of reality, you would think you could, and with your > > >assumption of reality, applying the reasoning (as you would regard (1) > > >to be true), you would reason that God could not be influential in > > >rainfall. Obviously though if (1) were in fact false, then so would > > >(2) be. It wouldn't be a problem with the reasoning, it would be a > > >problem with your assertion in (1). > > >I assume you mean by "a robot that appear human", that its behaviour > > >gave you reason to think that it might be having subjective > > >experiences, and that not that it necessarily looked like a human. > > > It is behavior we are talking about. > > > >I'm > > >not sure why you are disagreeing with it being explainable in terms of > > >the components following the known laws of physics, is it because you > > >don't think they would be? > > > I did not disagree with that. Try to follow all the steps: I disagree > > that we can provide a natural explanation for this human-seeming robot > > except that we all provide a natural explanation for its subjective > > experience. I assert, based in part on lots of reading and work in > > this area, that when we explain the robot we will also explain the > > subjective experience. You might want to actually read up on this > > subject. > > > >[Personally I'd rather you responded as people might in an exchange of > > >letters, rather than breaking up the context of various sentances and > > >paragraphs, but I don't suppose you will. I understand most people on > > >usenet intersperse, but then most converstations never get anywhere.] > > > Your system is far worse. You repeat multiple steps of a conversation > > and somehow present repetition as though it were a new claim. It is > > much harder to follow your system. > > I disagree that posting in a form of letters is worse, as if you are a > new reader, you can look back if the history is still showing it, and > simply read what was said. Also, it prevents a person restating the > same point over and over again to different sections, and in case > anyone was not interested in the truth, it allows them to cover up not > responding to a point that is made over one or two paragraphs, by > breaking it up, giving the impression that they had addressed the > point, but really only replying to individual sentances, or portions > of sentances. Take this correspondance between two Physics professors. > How often do you see such a productive discussion on usenet?http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/weingold.htm > > Regarding the explanation of the robots behaviour, are you saying that > it couldn't be explained in terms of the system components following > the known laws of physics? For if it could , then it would have been > explained without reference to any subjective experiences, as the > known laws of physics don't refer to subjective experiences, that is a > FACT. This isn't about whether you would consider it to be a useful > explanation or not. (Just reposting, as reading it back, a bit was misleading) I disagree that posting in a form of letters is worse, as if you are a new reader, you can look back if the history is still showing it, and simply read what was said. Also, it prevents a person restating the same point over and over again to different sections. In a case where anyone was not interested in the truth, interspersing allows them to cover up not responding to a point that is made over one or two paragraphs, by breaking it up, giving the impression that they had addressed the point, but really only replying to individual sentances, or portions of sentances. Take this correspondance between two Physics professors. How often do you see such a productive discussion on usenet? http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/weingold.htm Regarding the explanation of the robots behaviour, are you saying that it couldn't be explained in terms of the system components following the known laws of physics? For if it could , then it would have been explained without reference to any subjective experiences, as the known laws of physics don't refer to subjective experiences, that is a FACT. This isn't about whether you would consider it to be a useful explanation or not. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:38:10 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1182299890.499350.8250@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> wrote: [snip] >Regarding the explanation of the robots behaviour, are you saying that >it couldn't be explained in terms of the system components following >the known laws of physics? For if it could , then it would have been >explained without reference to any subjective experiences, as the >known laws of physics don't refer to subjective experiences, that is a >FACT. This isn't about whether you would consider it to be a useful >explanation or not. I am only talking about useful explanations, there are an infinite number of non-useful explanations. And you keep asserting that the laws of physics don't refer to subjective experience, but that is the question. That is, can those laws explain that experience. As I keep asserting: that is an empirical question, not a logical one. The laws of physics do not (directly) reference photosynthesis, yet we can provide a natural explanation for it. It is my assertion that we likely explain humans/robots by having a theory of the mind, a model (explanation) of the internal views/actions involved. One more time, you really should read some of the material on this subject. Read _Godel, Escher, Bach_ or _The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat_. Using science we have learned quite a bit about thinking that we could not learn by introspection alone. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 20 Jun, 01:53, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:38:10 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > <1182299890.499350.8...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >Regarding the explanation of the robots behaviour, are you saying that > >it couldn't be explained in terms of the system components following > >the known laws of physics? For if it could , then it would have been > >explained without reference to any subjective experiences, as the > >known laws of physics don't refer to subjective experiences, that is a > >FACT. This isn't about whether you would consider it to be a useful > >explanation or not. > > I am only talking about useful explanations, there are an infinite > number of non-useful explanations. And you keep asserting that the > laws of physics don't refer to subjective experience, but that is the > question. That is, can those laws explain that experience. As I keep > asserting: that is an empirical question, not a logical one. The laws > of physics do not (directly) reference photosynthesis, yet we can > provide a natural explanation for it. It is my assertion that we > likely explain humans/robots by having a theory of the mind, a model > (explanation) of the internal views/actions involved. One more time, > you really should read some of the material on this subject. Read > _Godel, Escher, Bach_ or _The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat_. > Using science we have learned quite a bit about thinking that we could > not learn by introspection alone. > So you accept, that though it might not be useful, the behaviour of the robot could be explained simply in terms of the components following the known laws of physics, without reference to whether it has any subjective experiences, or what they may be like? The same as the behaviour of a car or mobile phone is explained. You just don't think such an explanation would be useful. Quote
Guest Richo Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 9:27 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: <snip> > Could you put forward for clarity, if it isn't too much effort, where > you think the following isn't reasoned: > > M refers to the physical entity in question. > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. > P refers to the a property in question. > > Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), > and P is the same in (1) and (2). > > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > knowledge of whether it has P or not. > > 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the > explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. > > If (1) is true, then (2) is true. You still do not seem to understand that people in general have no problem with this scheme. What we have difficulty is the truth of (1). IF (1) is false then it matters not that a true (1) is equivalent to (2) being true. You do understand that do you not? Have you any reason for believing (1) to be true? (By "reason" I do not mean a personal subjective conviction of its truth.) Mark. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 20 Jun, 02:05, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > On Jun 20, 9:27 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > <snip> > > > > > > > Could you put forward for clarity, if it isn't too much effort, where > > you think the following isn't reasoned: > > > M refers to the physical entity in question. > > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. > > P refers to the a property in question. > > > Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), > > and P is the same in (1) and (2). > > > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > > knowledge of whether it has P or not. > > > 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the > > explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. > > > If (1) is true, then (2) is true. > > You still do not seem to understand that people in general have no > problem with this scheme. > What we have difficulty is the truth of (1). > IF (1) is false then it matters not that a true (1) is equivalent to > (2) being true. > You do understand that do you not? > > Have you any reason for believing (1) to be true? > (By "reason" I do not mean a personal subjective conviction of its > truth.) > Well obviously if the (1) put forward was false, then (2) would be false. Whether (1) is false or not depends on the substitutions for M, B(M), and P. Are you ok with the following example: M = a car B(M) = parked with its engine running P = its serial number Which means: 1) A car parked with its engine running is explained by the laws of physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has a serial number or not. As (1) is true, so is: 2) Presence of a serial number, or lack of, does not affect the car parked with its engine running, else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without a serial number. Quote
Guest Richo Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 11:21 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 20 Jun, 02:05, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 20, 9:27 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Could you put forward for clarity, if it isn't too much effort, where > > > you think the following isn't reasoned: > > > > M refers to the physical entity in question. > > > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. > > > P refers to the a property in question. > > > > Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), > > > and P is the same in (1) and (2). > > > > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > > > knowledge of whether it has P or not. > > > > 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the > > > explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. > > > > If (1) is true, then (2) is true. > > > You still do not seem to understand that people in general have no > > problem with this scheme. > > What we have difficulty is the truth of (1). > > IF (1) is false then it matters not that a true (1) is equivalent to > > (2) being true. > > You do understand that do you not? > > > Have you any reason for believing (1) to be true? > > (By "reason" I do not mean a personal subjective conviction of its > > truth.) > > Well obviously if the (1) put forward was false, then (2) would be > false. Whether (1) is false or not depends on the substitutions for M, > B(M), and P. > > Are you ok with the following example: > > M = a car > B(M) = parked with its engine running > P = its serial number > > Which means: > > 1) A car parked with its engine running is explained by the laws of > physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has a serial number > or not. > > As (1) is true, so is: > > 2) Presence of a serial number, or lack of, does not affect the car > parked with its engine running, else the explanation of behaviour > could not be the same with or without a serial number. Yes. Can you answer my question with a yes or a no. Do you understand that I (and others) are disagreeing with (or have no belief in the truth of ) your statement (1)? Mark. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 20 Jun, 02:26, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > On Jun 20, 11:21 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 20 Jun, 02:05, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Jun 20, 9:27 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > Could you put forward for clarity, if it isn't too much effort, where > > > > you think the following isn't reasoned: > > > > > M refers to the physical entity in question. > > > > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. > > > > P refers to the a property in question. > > > > > Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), > > > > and P is the same in (1) and (2). > > > > > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > > > > knowledge of whether it has P or not. > > > > > 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the > > > > explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. > > > > > If (1) is true, then (2) is true. > > > > You still do not seem to understand that people in general have no > > > problem with this scheme. > > > What we have difficulty is the truth of (1). > > > IF (1) is false then it matters not that a true (1) is equivalent to > > > (2) being true. > > > You do understand that do you not? > > > > Have you any reason for believing (1) to be true? > > > (By "reason" I do not mean a personal subjective conviction of its > > > truth.) > > > Well obviously if the (1) put forward was false, then (2) would be > > false. Whether (1) is false or not depends on the substitutions for M, > > B(M), and P. > > > Are you ok with the following example: > > > M = a car > > B(M) = parked with its engine running > > P = its serial number > > > Which means: > > > 1) A car parked with its engine running is explained by the laws of > > physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has a serial number > > or not. > > > As (1) is true, so is: > > > 2) Presence of a serial number, or lack of, does not affect the car > > parked with its engine running, else the explanation of behaviour > > could not be the same with or without a serial number. > > Yes. > > Can you answer my question with a yes or a no. > > Do you understand that I (and others) are disagreeing with (or have > no belief in the truth of ) your statement (1)? > Which statement (1) are you talking about? Do you understand that M, B(M), and P are to be substituted, as in the example that you have just said you were ok with. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1182288138.648375.274940@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [snip] > The reasoning regards the explanation of the behaviour. So in > response to your assertion: > "So I can explain rainfall without mentioning God so, by your logic, > God does not influence rainfall." > > There was the response: > "If you could explain rainfall without mentioning God. We can > That would rely > on being able to explain the reality of what we experience without > taking God into account into what you experience, etc." Why .. we were talking about rainfall .. not about experiences. [snip] > Do you agree that the behaviour of any robot that followed the known > laws of physics, could always be explained in terms of the system > components following the known laws of physics Yes > without reference to > whether it was subjectively experiencing or not? No .. as they are taken into account as part of the mechanism >In other words, no > knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing or not would be > required to explain its behaviour. That you label and interpret part of the mechanism as 'subjective experience', or not, make no difference to how the mechanism works. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1182293053.268914.294130@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > The point you seem to be missing, is that you couldn't in reality > explain rainfall, We can > which is something that doesn't actually lie > outside something that is consciously experienced. What does it matter is we consciously experience it or not .. the rain still falls. > Though given your > assumption of reality, you would think you could, and with your > assumption of reality, applying the reasoning (as you would regard (1) > to be true), you would reason that God could not be influential in > rainfall. Obviously though if (1) were in fact false, then so would > (2) be. It wouldn't be a problem with the reasoning, it would be a > problem with your assertion in (1). There is no problem .. we can explain rainfall, and that explanation does not involve god, only the 'laws' of physics. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 20 Jun, 04:35, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1182288138.648375.274940@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > [snip] > > > The reasoning regards the explanation of the behaviour. So in > > response to your assertion: > > "So I can explain rainfall without mentioning God so, by your logic, > > God does not influence rainfall." > > > There was the response: > > "If you could explain rainfall without mentioning God. > > We can > > > That would rely > > on being able to explain the reality of what we experience without > > taking God into account into what you experience, etc." > > Why .. we were talking about rainfall .. not about experiences. > > [snip] > > > Do you agree that the behaviour of any robot that followed the known > > laws of physics, could always be explained in terms of the system > > components following the known laws of physics > > Yes > > > without reference to > > whether it was subjectively experiencing or not? > > No .. as they are taken into account as part of the mechanism > > >In other words, no > > knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing or not would be > > required to explain its behaviour. > > That you label and interpret part of the mechanism as 'subjective > experience', or not, make no difference to how the mechanism works. Why are you starting to post, and when I reply, don't answer, but simply post again joining in converstations I was having with other people? You don't seem interested in a continued discussion. Are the posts to cover up that you haven't actually responded? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1182295662.490660.300870@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > So the configuration of the neurons, causes the experience of > memories? Strawman .. I didn't say it CAUSED them. I said that is where they are stored / encoded. [snip same old stuff that I have already addressed .. please .. stop you copy paste spamming] Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 20 Jun, 04:53, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1182295662.490660.300870@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > So the configuration of the neurons, causes the experience of > > memories? > > Strawman .. I didn't say it CAUSED them. I said that is where they are > stored / encoded. > > [snip same old stuff that I have already addressed .. please .. stop you > copy paste spamming] Why when you keep posting, was it too much effort to have responded? Is it that you can't? So are the memories stored by means of the configuration and state of the neurons? Maybe in a similar way to memory on a computer is based on the configuration and state of the chips. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1182299215.353897.61090@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On 20 Jun, 01:13, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> Indeed if >> M = the universe >> B(M) = physical reality >> P = god >> >> Then we have the following both true: >> >> 1) Physical reality is explained by the laws of physics without requiring >> knowledge of whether god exists. >> 2) Presence of god or lack of, does not influence/affect physical >> reality, >> else the explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without >> god. >> >> So from that we can see the implausibility of god. > > Your post was a use of the following reasoning: [snip same old copy and paste spam] > You seem to be Oh give it a rest .. I have already responded to your incessant "do you understand" spamming. Yes .. I've already agreed long ago that your 1 and 2 are equivalent. But it is your use of them that is incorrect when based on incorrect assertion and assumptions. Now .. please (and I'm getting sickof asking) post your complete argument in one single post, and try to do so without your word salad and dubious grammar. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:03:47 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1182301427.374104.279690@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 20 Jun, 01:53, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:38:10 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> <1182299890.499350.8...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >Regarding the explanation of the robots behaviour, are you saying that >> >it couldn't be explained in terms of the system components following >> >the known laws of physics? For if it could , then it would have been >> >explained without reference to any subjective experiences, as the >> >known laws of physics don't refer to subjective experiences, that is a >> >FACT. This isn't about whether you would consider it to be a useful >> >explanation or not. >> >> I am only talking about useful explanations, there are an infinite >> number of non-useful explanations. And you keep asserting that the >> laws of physics don't refer to subjective experience, but that is the >> question. That is, can those laws explain that experience. As I keep >> asserting: that is an empirical question, not a logical one. The laws >> of physics do not (directly) reference photosynthesis, yet we can >> provide a natural explanation for it. It is my assertion that we >> likely explain humans/robots by having a theory of the mind, a model >> (explanation) of the internal views/actions involved. One more time, >> you really should read some of the material on this subject. Read >> _Godel, Escher, Bach_ or _The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat_. >> Using science we have learned quite a bit about thinking that we could >> not learn by introspection alone. >> > >So you accept, that though it might not be useful, the behaviour of >the robot could be explained simply in terms of the components >following the known laws of physics, without reference to whether it >has any subjective experiences, or what they may be like? The same as >the behaviour of a car or mobile phone is explained. In the same sense I can explain my PC in terms of quarks, without reference to whether or not it has a newsreader program. >You just don't >think such an explanation would be useful. That was a separate issue. "My computer is infested with demons" is an explanation for its behavior. Not a useful one, but it is an explanation. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1182299890.499350.8250@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > Regarding the explanation of the robots behaviour, are you saying that > it couldn't be explained in terms of the system components following > the known laws of physics? No > For if it could , then it would have been > explained without reference to any subjective experiences, as the > known laws of physics don't refer to subjective experiences, that is a > FACT. They don't need to. They don't refer to the size of a breadbox either, but the 'laws' of physics still apply to it. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1182300282.363558.210700@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Regarding the explanation of the robots behaviour, are you saying that > it couldn't be explained in terms of the system components following > the known laws of physics? No > For if it could , then it would have been > explained without reference to any subjective experiences, as the > known laws of physics don't refer to subjective experiences, that is a > FACT. This isn't about whether you would consider it to be a useful > explanation or not It all depends on the level of detail of the explanation. Quote
Guest Richo Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 11:40 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 20 Jun, 02:26, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 20, 11:21 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 20 Jun, 02:05, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 20, 9:27 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Could you put forward for clarity, if it isn't too much effort, where > > > > > you think the following isn't reasoned: > > > > > > M refers to the physical entity in question. > > > > > B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question. > > > > > P refers to the a property in question. > > > > > > Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2), > > > > > and P is the same in (1) and (2). > > > > > > 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring > > > > > knowledge of whether it has P or not. > > > > > > 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the > > > > > explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. > > > > > > If (1) is true, then (2) is true. > > > > > You still do not seem to understand that people in general have no > > > > problem with this scheme. > > > > What we have difficulty is the truth of (1). > > > > IF (1) is false then it matters not that a true (1) is equivalent to > > > > (2) being true. > > > > You do understand that do you not? > > > > > Have you any reason for believing (1) to be true? > > > > (By "reason" I do not mean a personal subjective conviction of its > > > > truth.) > > > > Well obviously if the (1) put forward was false, then (2) would be > > > false. Whether (1) is false or not depends on the substitutions for M, > > > B(M), and P. > > > > Are you ok with the following example: > > > > M = a car > > > B(M) = parked with its engine running > > > P = its serial number > > > > Which means: > > > > 1) A car parked with its engine running is explained by the laws of > > > physics without requiring knowledge of whether it has a serial number > > > or not. > > > > As (1) is true, so is: > > > > 2) Presence of a serial number, or lack of, does not affect the car > > > parked with its engine running, else the explanation of behaviour > > > could not be the same with or without a serial number. > > > Yes. > > > Can you answer my question with a yes or a no. > > > Do you understand that I (and others) are disagreeing with (or have > > no belief in the truth of ) your statement (1)? > > Which statement (1) are you talking about? Your statement (1) of course! You are being deliberately obtuse. > Do you understand that M, > B(M), and P are to be substituted, as in the example that you have > just said you were ok with. Of course. Now answer the question in relation to your original assertion about the hypothetical robot. Yes or no? Mark. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1182311432.653987.97680@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On 20 Jun, 04:35, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1182288138.648375.274940@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> [snip] >> >> > The reasoning regards the explanation of the behaviour. So in >> > response to your assertion: >> > "So I can explain rainfall without mentioning God so, by your logic, >> > God does not influence rainfall." >> >> > There was the response: >> > "If you could explain rainfall without mentioning God. >> >> We can >> >> > That would rely >> > on being able to explain the reality of what we experience without >> > taking God into account into what you experience, etc." >> >> Why .. we were talking about rainfall .. not about experiences. >> >> [snip] >> >> > Do you agree that the behaviour of any robot that followed the known >> > laws of physics, could always be explained in terms of the system >> > components following the known laws of physics >> >> Yes >> >> > without reference to >> > whether it was subjectively experiencing or not? >> >> No .. as they are taken into account as part of the mechanism >> >> >In other words, no >> > knowledge of whether it was subjectively experiencing or not would be >> > required to explain its behaviour. >> >> That you label and interpret part of the mechanism as 'subjective >> experience', or not, make no difference to how the mechanism works. > > Why are you starting to post, and when I reply, don't answer, I reply to all your posts to me directly > but > simply post again joining in converstations I was having with other > people? This is a newsgruop .. not private conversations. > You don't seem interested in a continued discussion. You're the one running away. > Are the > posts to cover up that you haven't actually responded? This is just more diversion by you to avoid actually coming out with a single post that states your argument, as you've been asked for repeatedly. Well .. come one .. we're all waiting to here this argument you keep promising to present. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1182312689.929729.237280@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 20 Jun, 04:53, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1182295662.490660.300870@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > So the configuration of the neurons, causes the experience of >> > memories? >> >> Strawman .. I didn't say it CAUSED them. I said that is where they are >> stored / encoded. >> >> [snip same old stuff that I have already addressed .. please .. stop you >> copy paste spamming] > > Why when you keep posting, was it too much effort to have responded? I have already responded to it > Is it that you can't? It is that I already have. No point in encouraging your spamming. > So are the memories stored by means of the configuration and state of > the neurons? Maybe in a similar way to memory on a computer is based > on the configuration and state of the chips. That seems most likely .. yes. Do you have a problem with that idea? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 20 Jun, 06:00, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:03:47 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > > <1182301427.374104.279...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On 20 Jun, 01:53, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:38:10 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> <1182299890.499350.8...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> [snip] > > >> >Regarding the explanation of the robots behaviour, are you saying that > >> >it couldn't be explained in terms of the system components following > >> >the known laws of physics? For if it could , then it would have been > >> >explained without reference to any subjective experiences, as the > >> >known laws of physics don't refer to subjective experiences, that is a > >> >FACT. This isn't about whether you would consider it to be a useful > >> >explanation or not. > > >> I am only talking about useful explanations, there are an infinite > >> number of non-useful explanations. And you keep asserting that the > >> laws of physics don't refer to subjective experience, but that is the > >> question. That is, can those laws explain that experience. As I keep > >> asserting: that is an empirical question, not a logical one. The laws > >> of physics do not (directly) reference photosynthesis, yet we can > >> provide a natural explanation for it. It is my assertion that we > >> likely explain humans/robots by having a theory of the mind, a model > >> (explanation) of the internal views/actions involved. One more time, > >> you really should read some of the material on this subject. Read > >> _Godel, Escher, Bach_ or _The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat_. > >> Using science we have learned quite a bit about thinking that we could > >> not learn by introspection alone. > > >So you accept, that though it might not be useful, the behaviour of > >the robot could be explained simply in terms of the components > >following the known laws of physics, without reference to whether it > >has any subjective experiences, or what they may be like? The same as > >the behaviour of a car or mobile phone is explained. > > In the same sense I can explain my PC in terms of quarks, without > reference to whether or not it has a newsreader program. > > >You just don't > >think such an explanation would be useful. > > That was a separate issue. "My computer is infested with demons" is an > explanation for its behavior. Not a useful one, but it is an > explanation. > How would your computer being infested with demons explain its behaviour, when its behaviour can be shown to be strictly following the laws of physics? It would be false. Do you accept that the way a mobile phone's behaviour is explained, in terms of its components following the laws of physics is both demonstrably true, and useful, so much so, that it is that understanding that allowed the mobile phone to be built, and that this would be the same with the robot? 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.