Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 29 Jun, 23:26, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 29 Jun, 19:19, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >On 29 Jun, 17:54, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> <...> >> >> >> I follow that, but I (still) don't think it is stated very well. Such >> >> >> a claim by a materialist would be better stated something like this: >> >> >> "Matter, energy, space, time and fields, are all there is. Matter >> >> >> exists as atoms that can form into molecules. At the present time I >> >> >> have no reason to rule out the possibility that there might someday be >> >> >> conscious entities (e.g., conscious robots) made of molecules that >> >> >> differ from those currently found in conscious entities (e.g., human >> >> >> beings)." >> >> >> >> I don't know of any reason to rule out this possibility, but in itself >> >> >> my ignorance is not an argument that it is possible. >> >> >> >> While you are under no obligation to do so, I would ask for your >> >> >> thought on where you think we should look, for an explanation of >> >> >> consciousness; or alternatively, do you think consciousness should be >> >> >> treated as a fundamental constituent of reality, as the materialist >> >> >> treats matter or space? Or whatever else you want to say. >> >> >> >Sure, I can do that later, at the moment do you mind if we stick to >> >> >the point and just go through the implausibility of materialism. Later >> >> >I can address the issue of whether although it is implausible, it must >> >> >be true, as there is no other explanation. >> >> >> >So you could follow that though some atheists might claim we are >> >> >simply a meat machine, and then suggest a robot could also have >> >> >conscious experiences, as why should there be anything special about >> >> >the meat machine. [it isn't a definition of materialism btw] >> >> >> >Can you also follow that with a robot though, it can always be >> >> >explained simply as a mechanism following the laws of physics, without >> >> >any need to believe in any atheist story that it was consciously >> >> >experiencing anything. Same as a mobile phone (no need to believe in >> >> >the atheist pansychics story)? >> >> >> "Always" is a long time. I think it depends on the robot. I don't know >> >> if someday, we will or will not believe that the best explanation for >> >> a robot includes the belief that it is consciously experiencing >> >> things. I know the Cartesians believed that non-human animals were not >> >> conscious, and so they would have said that if these animals can be >> >> explained, they can be explained without believing that they are >> >> consciously experiencing anything. Nowadays we believe that at least >> >> some animals have conscious experience, and we use that in explaining >> >> them. Someday we may believe the same about some robots. If we do, >> >> will we necessarily be wrong? If so, why? >> >> >So you think that one day, the robot's behaviour won't be able to be >> >explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics? >> >> Well, I certainly didn't say that. Let me explain. >> >> You coupled "(1) it can always be explained simply as a mechanism >> following the laws of physics" with "(2) without any need to believe >> in any atheist story that it was consciously experiencing anything." >> >> First, I made a change from a "need" to explain as conscious, to >> whether explaining as conscious might become the "best" way to go. I >> think this change is essential. >> >> The question of what makes for the "best" explanation is left open, >> here, perhaps for more discussion, perhaps not. >> >> Second, it may be that the robot's behavior can be fully explained in >> terms of the mechanisms following the laws of physics, regardless of >> whether we decide it is conscious. For example, this ability could >> depend on whether we built a conscious robot start to finish, in which >> case we will be applying known theories, or we start a class of >> non-conscious robots on an evolutionary road toward consciousness, but >> do not keep track of the software and hardware changes they are making >> as consciousness emerges (if it can). In this latter case it will be a >> matter of our being intelligent enough to see how current theories >> apply, or to develop any new or revised physics theories that explain >> how they did it -- if they give us access. ;-) >> >> Third, it may be that the "best" way to explain it, even if we can >> explain it by physics, will be to explain it by psychology. I don't >> know. For example, in humans, we can explain and treat some disorders >> with drugs (at the brain chemistry level) or with talk therapy, at the >> psychological level. Will those two alternatives exist for robots >> someday? I see no reason to say yes or no. Do you? >> > >So you do agree with the following: > >Can you also follow that with a robot though, it can always be >explained simply as a mechanism following the laws of physics, without >any need to believe in any atheist story that it was consciously >experiencing anything. Same as a mobile phone (no need to believe in >the atheist pansychics story)? > > Since it's a question, how can I agree or disagree? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On 30 Jun, 00:57, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 29 Jun, 23:26, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >On 29 Jun, 19:19, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >> >On 29 Jun, 17:54, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >> <...> > >> >> >> I follow that, but I (still) don't think it is stated very well. Such > >> >> >> a claim by a materialist would be better stated something like this: > >> >> >> "Matter, energy, space, time and fields, are all there is. Matter > >> >> >> exists as atoms that can form into molecules. At the present time I > >> >> >> have no reason to rule out the possibility that there might someday be > >> >> >> conscious entities (e.g., conscious robots) made of molecules that > >> >> >> differ from those currently found in conscious entities (e.g., human > >> >> >> beings)." > > >> >> >> I don't know of any reason to rule out this possibility, but in itself > >> >> >> my ignorance is not an argument that it is possible. > > >> >> >> While you are under no obligation to do so, I would ask for your > >> >> >> thought on where you think we should look, for an explanation of > >> >> >> consciousness; or alternatively, do you think consciousness should be > >> >> >> treated as a fundamental constituent of reality, as the materialist > >> >> >> treats matter or space? Or whatever else you want to say. > > >> >> >Sure, I can do that later, at the moment do you mind if we stick to > >> >> >the point and just go through the implausibility of materialism. Later > >> >> >I can address the issue of whether although it is implausible, it must > >> >> >be true, as there is no other explanation. > > >> >> >So you could follow that though some atheists might claim we are > >> >> >simply a meat machine, and then suggest a robot could also have > >> >> >conscious experiences, as why should there be anything special about > >> >> >the meat machine. [it isn't a definition of materialism btw] > > >> >> >Can you also follow that with a robot though, it can always be > >> >> >explained simply as a mechanism following the laws of physics, without > >> >> >any need to believe in any atheist story that it was consciously > >> >> >experiencing anything. Same as a mobile phone (no need to believe in > >> >> >the atheist pansychics story)? > > >> >> "Always" is a long time. I think it depends on the robot. I don't know > >> >> if someday, we will or will not believe that the best explanation for > >> >> a robot includes the belief that it is consciously experiencing > >> >> things. I know the Cartesians believed that non-human animals were not > >> >> conscious, and so they would have said that if these animals can be > >> >> explained, they can be explained without believing that they are > >> >> consciously experiencing anything. Nowadays we believe that at least > >> >> some animals have conscious experience, and we use that in explaining > >> >> them. Someday we may believe the same about some robots. If we do, > >> >> will we necessarily be wrong? If so, why? > > >> >So you think that one day, the robot's behaviour won't be able to be > >> >explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics? > > >> Well, I certainly didn't say that. Let me explain. > > >> You coupled "(1) it can always be explained simply as a mechanism > >> following the laws of physics" with "(2) without any need to believe > >> in any atheist story that it was consciously experiencing anything." > > >> First, I made a change from a "need" to explain as conscious, to > >> whether explaining as conscious might become the "best" way to go. I > >> think this change is essential. > > >> The question of what makes for the "best" explanation is left open, > >> here, perhaps for more discussion, perhaps not. > > >> Second, it may be that the robot's behavior can be fully explained in > >> terms of the mechanisms following the laws of physics, regardless of > >> whether we decide it is conscious. For example, this ability could > >> depend on whether we built a conscious robot start to finish, in which > >> case we will be applying known theories, or we start a class of > >> non-conscious robots on an evolutionary road toward consciousness, but > >> do not keep track of the software and hardware changes they are making > >> as consciousness emerges (if it can). In this latter case it will be a > >> matter of our being intelligent enough to see how current theories > >> apply, or to develop any new or revised physics theories that explain > >> how they did it -- if they give us access. ;-) > > >> Third, it may be that the "best" way to explain it, even if we can > >> explain it by physics, will be to explain it by psychology. I don't > >> know. For example, in humans, we can explain and treat some disorders > >> with drugs (at the brain chemistry level) or with talk therapy, at the > >> psychological level. Will those two alternatives exist for robots > >> someday? I see no reason to say yes or no. Do you? > > >So you do agree with the following: > > >Can you also follow that with a robot though, it can always be > >explained simply as a mechanism following the laws of physics, without > >any need to believe in any atheist story that it was consciously > >experiencing anything. Same as a mobile phone (no need to believe in > >the atheist pansychics story)? > > Since it's a question, how can I agree or disagree? > So you agree with the following: That a robot though, can always be explained simply as a mechanism following the laws of physics, without any need to believe in any atheist story that it was consciously experiencing anything. Same as a mobile phone (no need to believe in the atheist pansychics story). [As I mentioned but you snipped, it isn't anything to do with whether you thing the explanation would be better with the story on top] Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: > >So you agree with the following: > >That a robot though, can always be explained simply as a mechanism >following the laws of physics, without any need to believe in any >atheist story that it was consciously experiencing anything. Same as a >mobile phone (no need to believe in the atheist pansychics story). Whether I would think there is such a need depends on 3 things: 1. Do I believe the robot is conscious? 2. Do I believe an explanation of its conscious state is essential to the situation? 3. Do I think there is such an explanation available? I do not know if and when the answer to these 3 questions might be "yes". I do not think the answer is "yes" today, for any robot that now exists. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On 30 Jun, 01:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > >So you agree with the following: > > >That a robot though, can always be explained simply as a mechanism > >following the laws of physics, without any need to believe in any > >atheist story that it was consciously experiencing anything. Same as a > >mobile phone (no need to believe in the atheist pansychics story). > > Whether I would think there is such a need depends on 3 things: > > 1. Do I believe the robot is conscious? > 2. Do I believe an explanation of its conscious state is essential to > the situation? > 3. Do I think there is such an explanation available? > > I do not know if and when the answer to these 3 questions might be > "yes". I do not think the answer is "yes" today, for any robot that > now exists. > Well do you think we could ever hypothetically build a robot that didn't follow the laws of physics, and so couldn't be explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 30 Jun, 01:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >So you agree with the following: >> >> >That a robot though, can always be explained simply as a mechanism >> >following the laws of physics, without any need to believe in any >> >atheist story that it was consciously experiencing anything. Same as a >> >mobile phone (no need to believe in the atheist pansychics story). >> >> Whether I would think there is such a need depends on 3 things: >> >> 1. Do I believe the robot is conscious? >> 2. Do I believe an explanation of its conscious state is essential to >> the situation? >> 3. Do I think there is such an explanation available? >> >> I do not know if and when the answer to these 3 questions might be >> "yes". I do not think the answer is "yes" today, for any robot that >> now exists. >> > >Well do you think we could ever hypothetically build a robot that >didn't follow the laws of physics, and so couldn't be explained in >terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics? I believe that anything we build will be adequately explainable by theories about the natural world that we develop before, during, and/or after building it. Physics is one level of explanation, chemistry is another, biology is another, psychology is another, etc. This does not necessarily mean that we will develop (some say, find) that explanation. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On 30 Jun, 01:53, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 30 Jun, 01:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >So you agree with the following: > > >> >That a robot though, can always be explained simply as a mechanism > >> >following the laws of physics, without any need to believe in any > >> >atheist story that it was consciously experiencing anything. Same as a > >> >mobile phone (no need to believe in the atheist pansychics story). > > >> Whether I would think there is such a need depends on 3 things: > > >> 1. Do I believe the robot is conscious? > >> 2. Do I believe an explanation of its conscious state is essential to > >> the situation? > >> 3. Do I think there is such an explanation available? > > >> I do not know if and when the answer to these 3 questions might be > >> "yes". I do not think the answer is "yes" today, for any robot that > >> now exists. > > >Well do you think we could ever hypothetically build a robot that > >didn't follow the laws of physics, and so couldn't be explained in > >terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics? > > I believe that anything we build will be adequately explainable by > theories about the natural world that we develop before, during, > and/or after building it. Physics is one level of explanation, > chemistry is another, biology is another, psychology is another, etc. > This does not necessarily mean that we will develop (some say, find) > that explanation. > I assume you are not suggesting that chemistry is not conceptually explainable in terms of physics. Psychology and biology are distractions as they would refer to us, and the human we experience being, and it is the nature of us, and the human we experience being that is being debated. Are you saying we could ever hypothetically build a robot that didn't follow the laws of physics or not? It seems an easy question. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 30 Jun, 01:53, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 30 Jun, 01:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >So you agree with the following: >> >> >> >That a robot though, can always be explained simply as a mechanism >> >> >following the laws of physics, without any need to believe in any >> >> >atheist story that it was consciously experiencing anything. Same as a >> >> >mobile phone (no need to believe in the atheist pansychics story). >> >> >> Whether I would think there is such a need depends on 3 things: >> >> >> 1. Do I believe the robot is conscious? >> >> 2. Do I believe an explanation of its conscious state is essential to >> >> the situation? >> >> 3. Do I think there is such an explanation available? >> >> >> I do not know if and when the answer to these 3 questions might be >> >> "yes". I do not think the answer is "yes" today, for any robot that >> >> now exists. >> >> >Well do you think we could ever hypothetically build a robot that >> >didn't follow the laws of physics, and so couldn't be explained in >> >terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics? >> >> I believe that anything we build will be adequately explainable by >> theories about the natural world that we develop before, during, >> and/or after building it. Physics is one level of explanation, >> chemistry is another, biology is another, psychology is another, etc. >> This does not necessarily mean that we will develop (some say, find) >> that explanation. >> > >I assume you are not suggesting that chemistry is not conceptually >explainable in terms of physics. You assume correctly. > >Psychology and biology are distractions as they would refer to us, and >the human we experience being, and it is the nature of us, and the >human we experience being that is being debated. Psychology would could apply. > >Are you saying we could ever hypothetically build a robot that didn't >follow the laws of physics or not? It seems an easy question. I think we couldn't. But we might not know how to describe its behavior using the laws of physics. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> said: >someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: > >>On 30 Jun, 01:53, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >On 30 Jun, 01:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >>> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >>> >>> >> >So you agree with the following: >>> >>> >> >That a robot though, can always be explained simply as a mechanism >>> >> >following the laws of physics, without any need to believe in any >>> >> >atheist story that it was consciously experiencing anything. Same as a >>> >> >mobile phone (no need to believe in the atheist pansychics story). >>> >>> >> Whether I would think there is such a need depends on 3 things: >>> >>> >> 1. Do I believe the robot is conscious? >>> >> 2. Do I believe an explanation of its conscious state is essential to >>> >> the situation? >>> >> 3. Do I think there is such an explanation available? >>> >>> >> I do not know if and when the answer to these 3 questions might be >>> >> "yes". I do not think the answer is "yes" today, for any robot that >>> >> now exists. >>> >>> >Well do you think we could ever hypothetically build a robot that >>> >didn't follow the laws of physics, and so couldn't be explained in >>> >terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics? >>> >>> I believe that anything we build will be adequately explainable by >>> theories about the natural world that we develop before, during, >>> and/or after building it. Physics is one level of explanation, >>> chemistry is another, biology is another, psychology is another, etc. >>> This does not necessarily mean that we will develop (some say, find) >>> that explanation. >>> >> >>I assume you are not suggesting that chemistry is not conceptually >>explainable in terms of physics. > >You assume correctly. > >> >>Psychology and biology are distractions as they would refer to us, and >>the human we experience being, and it is the nature of us, and the >>human we experience being that is being debated. > >Psychology would could apply. > >> >>Are you saying we could ever hypothetically build a robot that didn't >>follow the laws of physics or not? It seems an easy question. > > >I think we couldn't. But we might not know how to describe its >behavior using the laws of physics. I will elaborate on that point. We can't make something that violates the so-called laws of nature (including laws at the level of physics) because if there is an apparent violation of a law of nature, all that means is that we got the law wrong. That which happens does not follow from the laws of nature, instead, the laws of nature follow from that which happens. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On 30 Jun, 17:57, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> said: > > > > > > >someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >>On 30 Jun, 01:53, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >>> >On 30 Jun, 01:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >>> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >>> >> >So you agree with the following: > > >>> >> >That a robot though, can always be explained simply as a mechanism > >>> >> >following the laws of physics, without any need to believe in any > >>> >> >atheist story that it was consciously experiencing anything. Same as a > >>> >> >mobile phone (no need to believe in the atheist pansychics story). > > >>> >> Whether I would think there is such a need depends on 3 things: > > >>> >> 1. Do I believe the robot is conscious? > >>> >> 2. Do I believe an explanation of its conscious state is essential to > >>> >> the situation? > >>> >> 3. Do I think there is such an explanation available? > > >>> >> I do not know if and when the answer to these 3 questions might be > >>> >> "yes". I do not think the answer is "yes" today, for any robot that > >>> >> now exists. > > >>> >Well do you think we could ever hypothetically build a robot that > >>> >didn't follow the laws of physics, and so couldn't be explained in > >>> >terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics? > > >>> I believe that anything we build will be adequately explainable by > >>> theories about the natural world that we develop before, during, > >>> and/or after building it. Physics is one level of explanation, > >>> chemistry is another, biology is another, psychology is another, etc. > >>> This does not necessarily mean that we will develop (some say, find) > >>> that explanation. > > >>I assume you are not suggesting that chemistry is not conceptually > >>explainable in terms of physics. > > >You assume correctly. > > >>Psychology and biology are distractions as they would refer to us, and > >>the human we experience being, and it is the nature of us, and the > >>human we experience being that is being debated. > > >Psychology would could apply. > > >>Are you saying we could ever hypothetically build a robot that didn't > >>follow the laws of physics or not? It seems an easy question. > > >I think we couldn't. But we might not know how to describe its > >behavior using the laws of physics. > > I will elaborate on that point. We can't make something that violates > the so-called laws of nature (including laws at the level of physics) > because if there is an apparent violation of a law of nature, all that > means is that we got the law wrong. That which happens does not follow > from the laws of nature, instead, the laws of nature follow from that > which happens. > So any robot will follow the laws of physics, and the only reason it couldn't be explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics would be because we didn't understand how we made it. Though if we did understand how it worked, we could explain its behaviour in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics. Do you agree? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: > >So any robot will follow the laws of physics, and the only reason it >couldn't be explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of >physics would be because we didn't understand how we made it. Though >if we did understand how it worked, we could explain its behaviour in >terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics. Do you agree? Well, we need to be intelligent enough. It is possible that the world will NOT have people who are bright and educated well enough to dig into it successfully. But in principle, yes, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT it is not automatic that the current theories of nature (including physics) are correct -- so we might modify them while we investigate such things. After all, in science we define and modify the laws to fit what we see, not the other way around. WRT laws of nature, A theistic interpretation would be that God establishes the laws of nature and nature follows the laws. A nontheistic interpretation is that the so-called "laws" of nature are our best estimate, based on observation, about how things work, and those estimates a subject to change based on observations. I hope you will not try to simply this answer in a way that omits my qualifiers. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On 1 Jul, 00:05, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > >So any robot will follow the laws of physics, and the only reason it > >couldn't be explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of > >physics would be because we didn't understand how we made it. Though > >if we did understand how it worked, we could explain its behaviour in > >terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics. Do you agree? > > Well, we need to be intelligent enough. It is possible that the > world will NOT have people who are bright and educated well enough to > dig into it successfully. But in principle, yes, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT > it is not automatic that the current theories of nature (including > physics) are correct -- so we might modify them while we investigate > such things. After all, in science we define and modify the laws to > fit what we see, not the other way around. > > WRT laws of nature, A theistic interpretation would be that God > establishes the laws of nature and nature follows the laws. A > nontheistic interpretation is that the so-called "laws" of nature are > our best estimate, based on observation, about how things work, and > those estimates a subject to change based on observations. > > I hope you will not try to simply this answer in a way that omits my > qualifiers. Well ok, lets just for the moment talk about the rules of physics that we do know of. Do you agree that it is implausible that any robot that followed the known laws of physics has conscious experiences? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >Well ok, lets just for the moment talk about the rules of physics that >we do know of. Do you agree that it is implausible that any robot that >followed the known laws of physics has conscious experiences? I have no belief, either way, on that question. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On 1 Jul, 17:58, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >Well ok, lets just for the moment talk about the rules of physics that > >we do know of. Do you agree that it is implausible that any robot that > >followed the known laws of physics has conscious experiences? > > I have no belief, either way, on that question. Well can you follow that any robot that followed the known laws of physics could have its behaviour explained without the need to believe in any atheist story that it was consciously experiencing? They couldn't claim that any conscious experiences they claimed it was having were influential to its behaviour, as it would be behaving exactly as expected to if it wasn't having any conscious experiences. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 1 Jul, 17:58, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >Well ok, lets just for the moment talk about the rules of physics that >> >we do know of. Do you agree that it is implausible that any robot that >> >followed the known laws of physics has conscious experiences? >> >> I have no belief, either way, on that question. > >Well can you follow that any robot that followed the known laws of >physics could have its behaviour explained without the need to believe >in any atheist story that it was consciously experiencing? They >couldn't claim that any conscious experiences they claimed it was >having were influential to its behaviour, as it would be behaving >exactly as expected to if it wasn't having any conscious experiences. Not quite. We use observations of behavior and structure, to draw conclusions about the mental states, if any, of things that show behaviors. For example, non-human biological organisms behave in some of the same ways we do. Let's take moving away from a hot object. If the organism is a single-celled flagellate, most scientists would not ascribe consciousness of heat, to such behavior. But many scientists today would posit that a chimpanzee would be conscious of heat. Regarding the chimp, they might say that if the chimp is aware of a long-term benefit to enduring mild heat, the chimp might consider that, and decide accordingly, but they'd be less likely to say this kind of thinking occurred in the flagellate. We do know some things about the parts of the human brain that are active during conscious thought, and if the same active parts are present in the chimp during similar tasks, we might then impute consciousness from these active structural elements being present. While parsimony needs to be respected, explaining the presence of these active parts would justify ascribing consciousness, in keeping with the physics of the brain. So, the structure of the robot would also have to be examined to ascertain whether there were active structures accompanying behavior that reflects the weighing of alternatives and long-term benefit against short term needs. At present, I doubt very seriously that we are in a position to do that. At least I for one, have no idea what a hardware consciousness module would look like. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On 1 Jul, 23:30, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >On 1 Jul, 17:58, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >Well ok, lets just for the moment talk about the rules of physics that > >> >we do know of. Do you agree that it is implausible that any robot that > >> >followed the known laws of physics has conscious experiences? > > >> I have no belief, either way, on that question. > > >Well can you follow that any robot that followed the known laws of > >physics could have its behaviour explained without the need to believe > >in any atheist story that it was consciously experiencing? They > >couldn't claim that any conscious experiences they claimed it was > >having were influential to its behaviour, as it would be behaving > >exactly as expected to if it wasn't having any conscious experiences. > > Not quite. We use observations of behavior and structure, to draw > conclusions about the mental states, if any, of things that show > behaviors. For example, non-human biological organisms behave in some > of the same ways we do. Let's take moving away from a hot object. If > the organism is a single-celled flagellate, most scientists would not > ascribe consciousness of heat, to such behavior. But many scientists > today would posit that a chimpanzee would be conscious of heat. > Regarding the chimp, they might say that if the chimp is aware of a > long-term benefit to enduring mild heat, the chimp might consider > that, and decide accordingly, but they'd be less likely to say this > kind of thinking occurred in the flagellate. We do know some things > about the parts of the human brain that are active during conscious > thought, and if the same active parts are present in the chimp during > similar tasks, we might then impute consciousness from these active > structural elements being present. While parsimony needs to be > respected, explaining the presence of these active parts would justify > ascribing consciousness, in keeping with the physics of the brain. > > So, the structure of the robot would also have to be examined to > ascertain whether there were active structures accompanying behavior > that reflects the weighing of alternatives and long-term benefit > against short term needs. At present, I doubt very seriously that we > are in a position to do that. At least I for one, have no idea what a > hardware consciousness module would look like. As I have said earlier, it is not about whether as an atheist you think the explanation would be better with your story on top. Do you acknowledge that any robot following the known laws of physics can have its behaviour explained simply in terms of a mechanism following the laws of physics. As such, the theist not be required to believe any atheist story it was consciously experiencing to explain its behaviour. Are you really so indoctrinated in atheism that you can't comprehend this? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >As I have said earlier, it is not about whether as an atheist you >think the explanation would be better with your story on top. Do you >acknowledge that any robot following the known laws of physics can >have its behaviour explained simply in terms of a mechanism following >the laws of physics. As such, the theist not be required to believe >any atheist story it was consciously experiencing to explain its >behaviour. Are you really so indoctrinated in atheism that you can't >comprehend this? I don't think you grasp the implications of your own words. My objections have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. You are jumping to conclusions. If we limit the behavior of the robot to that behavior explained by our currently "known laws", and the currently known laws do not rely on consciousness to explain the behavior of a robot, then it is obviously true that its behavior will be explainable by those same laws, without any need to invoke consciousness. I have no problem saying that. I am not well-informed of the present state of research in physics, that might concern consciousness. I'll add that, too, just so you don't think I am claiming to know such things. I am just not sure that a robot whose behavior can be explained in terms of the currently "known laws" of physics, can be built. This has nothing to do with theism or atheism or consciousness or nonconsciousness. The object built could be a non-robotic rocket, or just a rock, and the problem I see is the same. Let me explain. Prior to relativity theory becoming "currently known", the laws known as Newtonian were the limiting laws, and the robot's (or rocket's, or rock's) behavior would be predicted to be Newtonian, for example its mass would not increase as it accelerated. Now we believe that we could not have built a Newtonian robot or rocket or rock. According to current theory, its mass would increase with its velocity, defying Newtonian physics, But I doubt that any physicist would have said that because it was going faster, it wanted to be heaver. ;-) So, not knowing what the future of physics will be, I am not in a position to say that robots can be built that behave according to our now current physics. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On 2 Jul, 00:59, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >As I have said earlier, it is not about whether as an atheist you > >think the explanation would be better with your story on top. Do you > >acknowledge that any robot following the known laws of physics can > >have its behaviour explained simply in terms of a mechanism following > >the laws of physics. As such, the theist not be required to believe > >any atheist story it was consciously experiencing to explain its > >behaviour. Are you really so indoctrinated in atheism that you can't > >comprehend this? > > I don't think you grasp the implications of your own words. My > objections have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. You are > jumping to conclusions. > > If we limit the behavior of the robot to that behavior explained by > our currently "known laws", and the currently known laws do not rely > on consciousness to explain the behavior of a robot, then it is > obviously true that its behavior will be explainable by those same > laws, without any need to invoke consciousness. I have no problem > saying that. > > I am not well-informed of the present state of research in physics, > that might concern consciousness. I'll add that, too, just so you > don't think I am claiming to know such things. > > I am just not sure that a robot whose behavior can be explained in > terms of the currently "known laws" of physics, can be built. This has > nothing to do with theism or atheism or consciousness or > nonconsciousness. The object built could be a non-robotic rocket, or > just a rock, and the problem I see is the same. Let me explain. > > Prior to relativity theory becoming "currently known", the laws known > as Newtonian were the limiting laws, and the robot's (or rocket's, or > rock's) behavior would be predicted to be Newtonian, for example its > mass would not increase as it accelerated. Now we believe that we > could not have built a Newtonian robot or rocket or rock. According to > current theory, its mass would increase with its velocity, defying > Newtonian physics, But I doubt that any physicist would have said that > because it was going faster, it wanted to be heaver. ;-) > > So, not knowing what the future of physics will be, I am not in a > position to say that robots can be built that behave according to our > now current physics. So do you acknowledge that for any robot following the known laws of physics that the implication of any story that it was conscious, would be that it being conscious didn't influence its behaviour? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On 2 Jul, 00:59, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >As I have said earlier, it is not about whether as an atheist you > >think the explanation would be better with your story on top. Do you > >acknowledge that any robot following the known laws of physics can > >have its behaviour explained simply in terms of a mechanism following > >the laws of physics. As such, the theist not be required to believe > >any atheist story it was consciously experiencing to explain its > >behaviour. Are you really so indoctrinated in atheism that you can't > >comprehend this? > > I don't think you grasp the implications of your own words. My > objections have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. You are > jumping to conclusions. > > If we limit the behavior of the robot to that behavior explained by > our currently "known laws", and the currently known laws do not rely > on consciousness to explain the behavior of a robot, then it is > obviously true that its behavior will be explainable by those same > laws, without any need to invoke consciousness. I have no problem > saying that. > > I am not well-informed of the present state of research in physics, > that might concern consciousness. I'll add that, too, just so you > don't think I am claiming to know such things. > > I am just not sure that a robot whose behavior can be explained in > terms of the currently "known laws" of physics, can be built. This has > nothing to do with theism or atheism or consciousness or > nonconsciousness. The object built could be a non-robotic rocket, or > just a rock, and the problem I see is the same. Let me explain. > > Prior to relativity theory becoming "currently known", the laws known > as Newtonian were the limiting laws, and the robot's (or rocket's, or > rock's) behavior would be predicted to be Newtonian, for example its > mass would not increase as it accelerated. Now we believe that we > could not have built a Newtonian robot or rocket or rock. According to > current theory, its mass would increase with its velocity, defying > Newtonian physics, But I doubt that any physicist would have said that > because it was going faster, it wanted to be heaver. ;-) > > So, not knowing what the future of physics will be, I am not in a > position to say that robots can be built that behave according to our > now current physics. Having to post replies to you and DuhIdiot again, as they didn't come through. So you understand that the implications of any story regarding a robot following the known laws of physics consciously experiencing would be that the conscious experiences couldn't be influencing its behaviour. Could you just confirm this. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On 2 Jul, 00:59, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >As I have said earlier, it is not about whether as an atheist you > >think the explanation would be better with your story on top. Do you > >acknowledge that any robot following the known laws of physics can > >have its behaviour explained simply in terms of a mechanism following > >the laws of physics. As such, the theist not be required to believe > >any atheist story it was consciously experiencing to explain its > >behaviour. Are you really so indoctrinated in atheism that you can't > >comprehend this? > > I don't think you grasp the implications of your own words. My > objections have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. You are > jumping to conclusions. > > If we limit the behavior of the robot to that behavior explained by > our currently "known laws", and the currently known laws do not rely > on consciousness to explain the behavior of a robot, then it is > obviously true that its behavior will be explainable by those same > laws, without any need to invoke consciousness. I have no problem > saying that. > > I am not well-informed of the present state of research in physics, > that might concern consciousness. I'll add that, too, just so you > don't think I am claiming to know such things. > > I am just not sure that a robot whose behavior can be explained in > terms of the currently "known laws" of physics, can be built. This has > nothing to do with theism or atheism or consciousness or > nonconsciousness. The object built could be a non-robotic rocket, or > just a rock, and the problem I see is the same. Let me explain. > > Prior to relativity theory becoming "currently known", the laws known > as Newtonian were the limiting laws, and the robot's (or rocket's, or > rock's) behavior would be predicted to be Newtonian, for example its > mass would not increase as it accelerated. Now we believe that we > could not have built a Newtonian robot or rocket or rock. According to > current theory, its mass would increase with its velocity, defying > Newtonian physics, But I doubt that any physicist would have said that > because it was going faster, it wanted to be heaver. ;-) > > So, not knowing what the future of physics will be, I am not in a > position to say that robots can be built that behave according to our > now current physics. Having to post reply to you for 3rd time, as they aren't coming through. So you understand that the implications of any story regarding a robot following the known laws of physics consciously experiencing would be that the conscious experiences couldn't be influencing its behaviour. Could you just confirm this. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On 2 Jul, 00:59, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >As I have said earlier, it is not about whether as an atheist you > >think the explanation would be better with your story on top. Do you > >acknowledge that any robot following the known laws of physics can > >have its behaviour explained simply in terms of a mechanism following > >the laws of physics. As such, the theist not be required to believe > >any atheist story it was consciously experiencing to explain its > >behaviour. Are you really so indoctrinated in atheism that you can't > >comprehend this? > > I don't think you grasp the implications of your own words. My > objections have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. You are > jumping to conclusions. > > If we limit the behavior of the robot to that behavior explained by > our currently "known laws", and the currently known laws do not rely > on consciousness to explain the behavior of a robot, then it is > obviously true that its behavior will be explainable by those same > laws, without any need to invoke consciousness. I have no problem > saying that. > > I am not well-informed of the present state of research in physics, > that might concern consciousness. I'll add that, too, just so you > don't think I am claiming to know such things. > > I am just not sure that a robot whose behavior can be explained in > terms of the currently "known laws" of physics, can be built. This has > nothing to do with theism or atheism or consciousness or > nonconsciousness. The object built could be a non-robotic rocket, or > just a rock, and the problem I see is the same. Let me explain. > > Prior to relativity theory becoming "currently known", the laws known > as Newtonian were the limiting laws, and the robot's (or rocket's, or > rock's) behavior would be predicted to be Newtonian, for example its > mass would not increase as it accelerated. Now we believe that we > could not have built a Newtonian robot or rocket or rock. According to > current theory, its mass would increase with its velocity, defying > Newtonian physics, But I doubt that any physicist would have said that > because it was going faster, it wanted to be heaver. ;-) > > So, not knowing what the future of physics will be, I am not in a > position to say that robots can be built that behave according to our > now current physics. Having to post reply to you for 4th time, as they aren't coming through. So you understand that the implications of any story regarding a robot following the known laws of physics consciously experiencing would be that the conscious experiences couldn't be influencing its behaviour. Could you just confirm this. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 2 Jul, 00:59, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >As I have said earlier, it is not about whether as an atheist you >> >think the explanation would be better with your story on top. Do you >> >acknowledge that any robot following the known laws of physics can >> >have its behaviour explained simply in terms of a mechanism following >> >the laws of physics. As such, the theist not be required to believe >> >any atheist story it was consciously experiencing to explain its >> >behaviour. Are you really so indoctrinated in atheism that you can't >> >comprehend this? >> >> I don't think you grasp the implications of your own words. My >> objections have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. You are >> jumping to conclusions. >> >> If we limit the behavior of the robot to that behavior explained by >> our currently "known laws", and the currently known laws do not rely >> on consciousness to explain the behavior of a robot, then it is >> obviously true that its behavior will be explainable by those same >> laws, without any need to invoke consciousness. I have no problem >> saying that. >> >> I am not well-informed of the present state of research in physics, >> that might concern consciousness. I'll add that, too, just so you >> don't think I am claiming to know such things. >> >> I am just not sure that a robot whose behavior can be explained in >> terms of the currently "known laws" of physics, can be built. This has >> nothing to do with theism or atheism or consciousness or >> nonconsciousness. The object built could be a non-robotic rocket, or >> just a rock, and the problem I see is the same. Let me explain. >> >> Prior to relativity theory becoming "currently known", the laws known >> as Newtonian were the limiting laws, and the robot's (or rocket's, or >> rock's) behavior would be predicted to be Newtonian, for example its >> mass would not increase as it accelerated. Now we believe that we >> could not have built a Newtonian robot or rocket or rock. According to >> current theory, its mass would increase with its velocity, defying >> Newtonian physics, But I doubt that any physicist would have said that >> because it was going faster, it wanted to be heaver. ;-) >> >> So, not knowing what the future of physics will be, I am not in a >> position to say that robots can be built that behave according to our >> now current physics. > >Having to post reply to you for 4th time, as they aren't coming >through. > >So you understand that the implications of any story regarding a robot >following the known laws of physics consciously experiencing would >be that the conscious experiences couldn't be influencing its >behaviour. Could you just confirm this. You just don't get it, do you? I don't know that a robot could be made that follows the so-called " known " laws of physics. The so-called " known " laws of physics have been wrong before, and they might be wrong now. If they are wrong now, no robot can follow them. Robots, just like rockets and rocks, will do what they do, and that might bring us to change the so-called " known " laws of physics. The laws follow the action, not the other way around. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On 2 Jul, 02:21, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 2 Jul, 00:59, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >As I have said earlier, it is not about whether as an atheist you > >> >think the explanation would be better with your story on top. Do you > >> >acknowledge that any robot following the known laws of physics can > >> >have its behaviour explained simply in terms of a mechanism following > >> >the laws of physics. As such, the theist not be required to believe > >> >any atheist story it was consciously experiencing to explain its > >> >behaviour. Are you really so indoctrinated in atheism that you can't > >> >comprehend this? > > >> I don't think you grasp the implications of your own words. My > >> objections have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. You are > >> jumping to conclusions. > > >> If we limit the behavior of the robot to that behavior explained by > >> our currently "known laws", and the currently known laws do not rely > >> on consciousness to explain the behavior of a robot, then it is > >> obviously true that its behavior will be explainable by those same > >> laws, without any need to invoke consciousness. I have no problem > >> saying that. > > >> I am not well-informed of the present state of research in physics, > >> that might concern consciousness. I'll add that, too, just so you > >> don't think I am claiming to know such things. > > >> I am just not sure that a robot whose behavior can be explained in > >> terms of the currently "known laws" of physics, can be built. This has > >> nothing to do with theism or atheism or consciousness or > >> nonconsciousness. The object built could be a non-robotic rocket, or > >> just a rock, and the problem I see is the same. Let me explain. > > >> Prior to relativity theory becoming "currently known", the laws known > >> as Newtonian were the limiting laws, and the robot's (or rocket's, or > >> rock's) behavior would be predicted to be Newtonian, for example its > >> mass would not increase as it accelerated. Now we believe that we > >> could not have built a Newtonian robot or rocket or rock. According to > >> current theory, its mass would increase with its velocity, defying > >> Newtonian physics, But I doubt that any physicist would have said that > >> because it was going faster, it wanted to be heaver. ;-) > > >> So, not knowing what the future of physics will be, I am not in a > >> position to say that robots can be built that behave according to our > >> now current physics. > > >Having to post reply to you for 4th time, as they aren't coming > >through. > > >So you understand that the implications of any story regarding a robot > >following the known laws of physics consciously experiencing would > >be that the conscious experiences couldn't be influencing its > >behaviour. Could you just confirm this. > > You just don't get it, do you? I don't know that a robot could be made > that follows the so-called " known " laws of physics. The so-called > " known " laws of physics have been wrong before, and they might be > wrong now. If they are wrong now, no robot can follow them. Robots, > just like rockets and rocks, will do what they do, and that might > bring us to change the so-called " known " laws of physics. The laws > follow the action, not the other way around. > Would you agree that all our technology appears to be behaving according to our understanding of physics? So you understand that the implications of any story regarding a robot appearing to follow the known laws of physics consciously experiencing, would be that the conscious experiences couldn't be influencing its behaviour. Could you just confirm this. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 2 Jul, 02:21, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 2 Jul, 00:59, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >As I have said earlier, it is not about whether as an atheist you >> >> >think the explanation would be better with your story on top. Do you >> >> >acknowledge that any robot following the known laws of physics can >> >> >have its behaviour explained simply in terms of a mechanism following >> >> >the laws of physics. As such, the theist not be required to believe >> >> >any atheist story it was consciously experiencing to explain its >> >> >behaviour. Are you really so indoctrinated in atheism that you can't >> >> >comprehend this? >> >> >> I don't think you grasp the implications of your own words. My >> >> objections have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. You are >> >> jumping to conclusions. >> >> >> If we limit the behavior of the robot to that behavior explained by >> >> our currently "known laws", and the currently known laws do not rely >> >> on consciousness to explain the behavior of a robot, then it is >> >> obviously true that its behavior will be explainable by those same >> >> laws, without any need to invoke consciousness. I have no problem >> >> saying that. >> >> >> I am not well-informed of the present state of research in physics, >> >> that might concern consciousness. I'll add that, too, just so you >> >> don't think I am claiming to know such things. >> >> >> I am just not sure that a robot whose behavior can be explained in >> >> terms of the currently "known laws" of physics, can be built. This has >> >> nothing to do with theism or atheism or consciousness or >> >> nonconsciousness. The object built could be a non-robotic rocket, or >> >> just a rock, and the problem I see is the same. Let me explain. >> >> >> Prior to relativity theory becoming "currently known", the laws known >> >> as Newtonian were the limiting laws, and the robot's (or rocket's, or >> >> rock's) behavior would be predicted to be Newtonian, for example its >> >> mass would not increase as it accelerated. Now we believe that we >> >> could not have built a Newtonian robot or rocket or rock. According to >> >> current theory, its mass would increase with its velocity, defying >> >> Newtonian physics, But I doubt that any physicist would have said that >> >> because it was going faster, it wanted to be heaver. ;-) >> >> >> So, not knowing what the future of physics will be, I am not in a >> >> position to say that robots can be built that behave according to our >> >> now current physics. >> >> >Having to post reply to you for 4th time, as they aren't coming >> >through. >> >> >So you understand that the implications of any story regarding a robot >> >following the known laws of physics consciously experiencing would >> >be that the conscious experiences couldn't be influencing its >> >behaviour. Could you just confirm this. >> >> You just don't get it, do you? I don't know that a robot could be made >> that follows the so-called " known " laws of physics. The so-called >> " known " laws of physics have been wrong before, and they might be >> wrong now. If they are wrong now, no robot can follow them. Robots, >> just like rockets and rocks, will do what they do, and that might >> bring us to change the so-called " known " laws of physics. The laws >> follow the action, not the other way around. >> > >Would you agree that all our technology appears to be behaving >according to our understanding of physics? That's my assumption, but there might be cases where it is wrong. Over history, it would not have always been the correct assumption. > >So you understand that the implications of any story regarding a robot >appearing to follow the known laws of physics consciously >experiencing, would be that the conscious experiences couldn't be >influencing its behaviour. Could you just confirm this. > I'm not sure. If something is conscious, can it rightfully be called an observer? If the robot could be said to be an observer, and it reacted to its observations, some of its reactions could be due to quantum effects of its observations -- at least, this is accordance with certain aspects of quantum theory that might be considered controversial by some. This is if my understanding is correct, which I'm not sure about. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement . Quote
Guest Sippuddin Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 someone2 wrote: > > Would you agree that all our technology appears to be behaving > according to our understanding of physics? > EVERYTHING (including animals) appears to behave lawfully. If not, behavior wouldn't be predictable, but it is. Are you saying that a robot cannot be depended upon to be aware of where it is, the position of it's arms and such, and what it is doing? If that were true then robot welders for example wouldn't be of any use at all in automobile factories for example would they? Quote
Guest Lisbeth Andersson Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in news:1183120825.782515.196650@n2g2000hse.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. > > > Can you all follow that though some atheists might claim we are > simply a meat machine, and then suggest a robot could also have > conscious experiences, as why should there be anything special > about the meat machine. The thing is with a robot though, it can > always be explained simply as a mechanism following the laws of > physics, without any need to believe in any atheist story that it > was consciously experiencing anything. Same as a mobile phone (no > need to believe in the atheist pansychics story). > > So you can see that even if the atheists wanted to make up a > story that the robot wasn't the same as a teady bear with regards > to conscious experiences, they couldn't claim the consciousness > was influencing the behaviour of the robot. > > If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same > would hold for us. In which case it would have to be a > coincidence the conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked > actually existed (they couldn't have been influencing the > behaviour). > > Are the athiests having a problem following it (maybe the > complexity of it), or just having a problem that you believed an > implausible story? > The black-net-hole must have eaten your answer to my post from june 12, so I'll repeat part of it here: Implausible? Implausible things happens all the time. It's very implausible that anything can live in boiling water near volcanoes, that time depends on how fast stuff is moving, or that people actually believe that pure water can cure illness. The argument from personal incredibility really shouldn't work on people who has lived through a significant part of the 20th century. I find it veird that you actually spelled out that you are using it. The argument from pejorative vocabulary doesn't help either. "simply a biological mechanism". That's two derisive words in a four word construct. Some of the most fascinating stuff found are biological organisms. I won't bother with making a list of them, but the above mentioned volcano dwellers would be somewhere in the top 100 positions. Lisbeth. ---- The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die. What we know is not nearly as interesting as how we know it. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
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.