Implausibility of Materialism

July 2, 2007

On 2 Jul, 16:44, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement.

>

I've already explained to you the term "observer" in quantum mechanics

has nothing to do with a conscious observer. In the 2-slit experiment

it is simply the wave hitting the screen (the screen is observing the

wave).

Which bit aren't you sure about, that for any robot following the

known laws of physics that its behaviour can be explained in terms of

the mechanism following the known laws of physics?

July 2, 2007

On 2 Jul, 16:52, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

> 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?

>

You are using aware in the sense that a mobile phone is aware that the

buttons are pressed. This has nothing to do with subjective

experiences such as pleasure and pain etc.

Human behaviour isn't 100% predictable, nor does it seem is animal

behaviour. There maybe trends, but if you asked the individual to do

something unpredictable, you can't predict what they will do.

Did you agree that all our technology appears to be behaving

according to our understanding of physics?

July 2, 2007

Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

>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.

Everything? I thought the exact moment of decay of a nucleus is in

principle, not predictable, because it is dependent on a quantum event

that is significantly subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

"However, there are many other ways to get true randomness into your

computer. A really good physical phenomenon to use is a radioactive

source. The points in time at which a radioactive source decays are

completely unpredictable, and they can quite easily be detected and

fed into a computer, avoiding any buffering mechanisms in the

operating system. The HotBits service at Fourmilab in Switzerland is

an excellent example of a random number generator that uses this

technique. "

http://www.random.org/randomness/

"The depth of the uncertainty principle is realized when we ask the

question; is our knowledge of reality unlimited? The answer is no,

because the uncertainty principle states that there is a built-in

uncertainty, indeterminacy, unpredictability to Nature."

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html

>

>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?

This should be interesting. Can I watch? ;-)

July 2, 2007

someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>On 2 Jul, 16:44, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement.

>>

>

>I've already explained to you the term "observer" in quantum mechanics

>has nothing to do with a conscious observer. In the 2-slit experiment

>it is simply the wave hitting the screen (the screen is observing the

>wave).

So the robot can be an observer as you state here. For example the

robot could base some of its behavior on the timing of radioactive

decay. We would have to observe its structure, and explain that too,

in order to explain its otherwise unpredictable behavior. And our

predictions would have to be probabilistic, such as "Most of the time

it will do X, but based on what we know of its structure, if there is

a radioactive decay, it will do Y. And we can't predict when that will

be."

>

>Which bit aren't you sure about, that for any robot following the

>known laws of physics that its behaviour can be explained in terms of

>the mechanism following the known laws of physics?

I only needed to add that observation and understanding of its

structure needs to be done, in order to explain its behavior.

My uncertainty is resolved by your agreement that the robot would be

an observer if it had something like the double slit experiment or

detection of quantum events built in to its operation. In that case

our explanations would make full use of quantum uncertainty, so our

explanations would be probabilistic.

And as far as physics is concerned, this is the same whether the

robot is made of meat or steel. As far as this explanation goes, if

there is an adequate understanding of its structure and how its

structure works, there would be no need to think of it as being

conscious, as long as it can be thought of as being an observer that

bases at least some of its behavior on its observations.

Is that what you are looking for?

July 2, 2007

someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>Human behaviour isn't 100% predictable, nor does it seem is animal

>behaviour. There maybe trends, but if you asked the individual to do

>something unpredictable, you can't predict what they will do.

The question is, what is the reason a human's or an animal's behavior

isn't predictable?

July 2, 2007

On 2 Jul, 18:24, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> >On 2 Jul, 16:44, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement.

>

> >I've already explained to you the term "observer" in quantum mechanics

> >has nothing to do with a conscious observer. In the 2-slit experiment

> >it is simply the wave hitting the screen (the screen is observing the

> >wave).

>

> So the robot can be an observer as you state here. For example the

> robot could base some of its behavior on the timing of radioactive

> decay. We would have to observe its structure, and explain that too,

> in order to explain its otherwise unpredictable behavior. And our

> predictions would have to be probabilistic, such as "Most of the time

> it will do X, but based on what we know of its structure, if there is

> a radioactive decay, it will do Y. And we can't predict when that will

> be."

>

> >Which bit aren't you sure about, that for any robot following the

> >known laws of physics that its behaviour can be explained in terms of

> >the mechanism following the known laws of physics?

>

> I only needed to add that observation and understanding of its

> structure needs to be done, in order to explain its behavior.

>

> My uncertainty is resolved by your agreement that the robot would be

> an observer if it had something like the double slit experiment or

> detection of quantum events built in to its operation. In that case

> our explanations would make full use of quantum uncertainty, so our

> explanations would be probabilistic.

>

> And as far as physics is concerned, this is the same whether the

> robot is made of meat or steel. As far as this explanation goes, if

> there is an adequate understanding of its structure and how its

> structure works, there would be no need to think of it as being

> conscious, as long as it can be thought of as being an observer that

> bases at least some of its behavior on its observations.

>

> Is that what you are looking for?

>

That would be the case, can you understand that. Whether the robots

behaviour is somewhat random by being influenced by radioactive decay

as you suggested doesn't come into it.

So while the atheists may claim well why couldn't the robot be

conscious, after all we are just a meat machine following the laws of

physics. If we were a meat machine, similar to a robot, then it would

mean our behaviour (like a robot whose behaviour is due to the

mechanism simply following the laws of physics) would be uninfluenced

by us having conscious experiences. Which is implausible. So it isn't

that we are a meat machine and that only coincidentally do we actually

have the conscious experiences the meat machine expresses in its

behaviour, it is that the atheist assumption was wrong.

July 3, 2007

someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>On 2 Jul, 18:24, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>>

>> >On 2 Jul, 16:44, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement.

>>

>> >I've already explained to you the term "observer" in quantum mechanics

>> >has nothing to do with a conscious observer. In the 2-slit experiment

>> >it is simply the wave hitting the screen (the screen is observing the

>> >wave).

>>

>> So the robot can be an observer as you state here. For example the

>> robot could base some of its behavior on the timing of radioactive

>> decay. We would have to observe its structure, and explain that too,

>> in order to explain its otherwise unpredictable behavior. And our

>> predictions would have to be probabilistic, such as "Most of the time

>> it will do X, but based on what we know of its structure, if there is

>> a radioactive decay, it will do Y. And we can't predict when that will

>> be."

>>

>> >Which bit aren't you sure about, that for any robot following the

>> >known laws of physics that its behaviour can be explained in terms of

>> >the mechanism following the known laws of physics?

>>

>> I only needed to add that observation and understanding of its

>> structure needs to be done, in order to explain its behavior.

>>

>> My uncertainty is resolved by your agreement that the robot would be

>> an observer if it had something like the double slit experiment or

>> detection of quantum events built in to its operation. In that case

>> our explanations would make full use of quantum uncertainty, so our

>> explanations would be probabilistic.

>>

>> And as far as physics is concerned, this is the same whether the

>> robot is made of meat or steel. As far as this explanation goes, if

>> there is an adequate understanding of its structure and how its

>> structure works, there would be no need to think of it as being

>> conscious, as long as it can be thought of as being an observer that

>> bases at least some of its behavior on its observations.

>>

>> Is that what you are looking for?

>>

>

>That would be the case, can you understand that. Whether the robots

>behaviour is somewhat random by being influenced by radioactive decay

>as you suggested doesn't come into it.

>

>So while the atheists may claim well why couldn't the robot be

>conscious, after all we are just a meat machine following the laws of

>physics. If we were a meat machine, similar to a robot, then it would

>mean our behaviour (like a robot whose behaviour is due to the

>mechanism simply following the laws of physics) would be uninfluenced

>by us having conscious experiences. Which is implausible. So it isn't

>that we are a meat machine and that only coincidentally do we actually

>have the conscious experiences the meat machine expresses in its

>behaviour, it is that the atheist assumption was wrong.

>

You seem to be saying that if physical determinism is true, there

would not be conscious experience. Is that what you are saying?

July 3, 2007

On 3 Jul, 07:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> >On 2 Jul, 18:24, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> >> >On 2 Jul, 16:44, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement.

>

> >> >I've already explained to you the term "observer" in quantum mechanics

> >> >has nothing to do with a conscious observer. In the 2-slit experiment

> >> >it is simply the wave hitting the screen (the screen is observing the

> >> >wave).

>

> >> So the robot can be an observer as you state here. For example the

> >> robot could base some of its behavior on the timing of radioactive

> >> decay. We would have to observe its structure, and explain that too,

> >> in order to explain its otherwise unpredictable behavior. And our

> >> predictions would have to be probabilistic, such as "Most of the time

> >> it will do X, but based on what we know of its structure, if there is

> >> a radioactive decay, it will do Y. And we can't predict when that will

> >> be."

>

> >> >Which bit aren't you sure about, that for any robot following the

> >> >known laws of physics that its behaviour can be explained in terms of

> >> >the mechanism following the known laws of physics?

>

> >> I only needed to add that observation and understanding of its

> >> structure needs to be done, in order to explain its behavior.

>

> >> My uncertainty is resolved by your agreement that the robot would be

> >> an observer if it had something like the double slit experiment or

> >> detection of quantum events built in to its operation. In that case

> >> our explanations would make full use of quantum uncertainty, so our

> >> explanations would be probabilistic.

>

> >> And as far as physics is concerned, this is the same whether the

> >> robot is made of meat or steel. As far as this explanation goes, if

> >> there is an adequate understanding of its structure and how its

> >> structure works, there would be no need to think of it as being

> >> conscious, as long as it can be thought of as being an observer that

> >> bases at least some of its behavior on its observations.

>

> >> Is that what you are looking for?

>

> >That would be the case, can you understand that. Whether the robots

> >behaviour is somewhat random by being influenced by radioactive decay

> >as you suggested doesn't come into it.

>

> >So while the atheists may claim well why couldn't the robot be

> >conscious, after all we are just a meat machine following the laws of

> >physics. If we were a meat machine, similar to a robot, then it would

> >mean our behaviour (like a robot whose behaviour is due to the

> >mechanism simply following the laws of physics) would be uninfluenced

> >by us having conscious experiences. Which is implausible. So it isn't

> >that we are a meat machine and that only coincidentally do we actually

> >have the conscious experiences the meat machine expresses in its

> >behaviour, it is that the atheist assumption was wrong.

>

> You seem to be saying that if physical determinism is true, there

> would not be conscious experience. Is that what you are saying?

>

No that is not what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether the robot's

behaviour was strictly deterministic or if there was true randomness

as suggested in orthodox quantum mechanics, the if we were a meat

machine, similar to a robot, then it would mean our behaviour (like a

robot whose behaviour is due to the mechanism simply following the

laws of physics) would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

experiences.

Can you not actually understand what is written there, or is it that

you can't follow why it would be the case?

July 3, 2007

On 2 Jul, 17:12, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote innews: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.

>

Well without the assumption that we were a simply a biological

mechanism following the laws of physics what reason would you have to

think that anything thats behaviour was explainable in terms of the

mechanism following the laws of physics was consciously experiencing?

If we were such a mechanism (simply a meat machine), what reason would

the meat machine have to be questioning whether a robot was

consciously experiencing? [if it was influenced by its own conscious

experiences, it couldn't simply be a biological mechanism following

the known laws of physics]

July 3, 2007

someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>On 3 Jul, 07:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

<...>

>>

>> You seem to be saying that if physical determinism is true, there

>> would not be conscious experience. Is that what you are saying?

>>

>

>No that is not what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether the robot's

>behaviour was strictly deterministic or if there was true randomness

>as suggested in orthodox quantum mechanics, the if we were a meat

>machine, similar to a robot, then it would mean our behaviour (like a

>robot whose behaviour is due to the mechanism simply following the

>laws of physics) would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

>experiences.

>

>Can you not actually understand what is written there, or is it that

>you can't follow why it would be the case?

Of course. We just got done covering this, old bean. I thought you'd

take that into account. Nowadays, physical determinism -- determinism

in accord with current physics -- would have some quantum influences

and therefore, probabilistic. truly random events. THis has no effect

on the argument.

I am delighted to take the summation as you state it. So now, if

physical determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminism) is true, the

course of events would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

experiences. (Where "having influence" must now be taken to mean, to

make something happen that would not have happened if only physical

determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminancy) were true.)

So? Maybe the course of events is uninfluenced by us having

conscious experiences. Have you shown that to be implausible? Or is

this something you leave for each reader to decide?

July 3, 2007

On 3 Jul, 16:32, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> >On 3 Jul, 07:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> <...>

>

> >> You seem to be saying that if physical determinism is true, there

> >> would not be conscious experience. Is that what you are saying?

>

> >No that is not what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether the robot's

> >behaviour was strictly deterministic or if there was true randomness

> >as suggested in orthodox quantum mechanics, the if we were a meat

> >machine, similar to a robot, then it would mean our behaviour (like a

> >robot whose behaviour is due to the mechanism simply following the

> >laws of physics) would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

> >experiences.

>

> >Can you not actually understand what is written there, or is it that

> >you can't follow why it would be the case?

>

> Of course. We just got done covering this, old bean. I thought you'd

> take that into account. Nowadays, physical determinism -- determinism

> in accord with current physics -- would have some quantum influences

> and therefore, probabilistic. truly random events. THis has no effect

> on the argument.

>

> I am delighted to take the summation as you state it. So now, if

> physical determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminism) is true, the

> course of events would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

> experiences. (Where "having influence" must now be taken to mean, to

> make something happen that would not have happened if only physical

> determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminancy) were true.)

>

> So? Maybe the course of events is uninfluenced by us having

> conscious experiences. Have you shown that to be implausible? Or is

> this something you leave for each reader to decide?

>

Well it would mean that it is would only be a coincidence that we

actually have the conscious experiences we are talking about. The

coincidence makes the story implausible.

As for what the reader makes of it, they might want to ask themselves,

without the assumption that we were a simply a biological mechanism

following the laws of physics what reason would they have to think

that anything thats behaviour was explainable in terms of the

mechanism following the laws of physics was consciously experiencing?

If we were such a mechanism (simply a meat machine), what reason would

the meat machine have to be questioning whether a robot was

consciously experiencing? [if it was influenced by its own conscious

experiences, it couldn't simply be a biological mechanism following

the known laws of physics]

Now that you have understood, would you mind me asking whether you

believe that this converstation has been a correspondence between meat

machines blind to the existance of conscious experiences?

July 3, 2007

someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>On 3 Jul, 16:32, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>>

>> >On 3 Jul, 07:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> <...>

>>

>> >> You seem to be saying that if physical determinism is true, there

>> >> would not be conscious experience. Is that what you are saying?

>>

>> >No that is not what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether the robot's

>> >behaviour was strictly deterministic or if there was true randomness

>> >as suggested in orthodox quantum mechanics, the if we were a meat

>> >machine, similar to a robot, then it would mean our behaviour (like a

>> >robot whose behaviour is due to the mechanism simply following the

>> >laws of physics) would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

>> >experiences.

>>

>> >Can you not actually understand what is written there, or is it that

>> >you can't follow why it would be the case?

>>

>> Of course. We just got done covering this, old bean. I thought you'd

>> take that into account. Nowadays, physical determinism -- determinism

>> in accord with current physics -- would have some quantum influences

>> and therefore, probabilistic. truly random events. THis has no effect

>> on the argument.

>>

>> I am delighted to take the summation as you state it. So now, if

>> physical determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminism) is true, the

>> course of events would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

>> experiences. (Where "having influence" must now be taken to mean, to

>> make something happen that would not have happened if only physical

>> determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminancy) were true.)

>>

>> So? Maybe the course of events is uninfluenced by us having

>> conscious experiences. Have you shown that to be implausible? Or is

>> this something you leave for each reader to decide?

>>

>

>Well it would mean that it is would only be a coincidence that we

>actually have the conscious experiences we are talking about. The

>coincidence makes the story implausible.

Then I have used the term differently than you. When I say conscious

experiences are not "influential" I mean (if determinism that allows

quantum effects is true) that they do not, and cannot, play a role in

causing behavior that deviates from a determinism that allows for

quantum effects.

You might say, then why conscious experience? Why have it?

Having conscious experiences and using them in determining behavior is

evidently more efficient and effective, in some situations, than

non-conscious methods would be. I say evidently, because they clearly

occur, and the question why is fair, because they clearly took a lot

of evolution to get to. (From a physicalist POV.)

So, taking that role, I agree that conscious experiences are

influential in the sense that they are sometimes an important part of

the overall process, but they are not influential in any sense that

would imply they cause deviations from a determinism that allows for

quantum effects. If a non-conscious process were more efficient and

effective, that process would not have been abandoned as we evolved

from single cells. (Assuming single cells don't think differently

;-0.)

>

>As for what the reader makes of it, they might want to ask themselves,

>without the assumption that we were a simply a biological mechanism

>following the laws of physics what reason would they have to think

>that anything thats behaviour was explainable in terms of the

>mechanism following the laws of physics was consciously experiencing?

Apparently, consciousness allows me to process information that I

could not as effectively process unconsciously. Anybody who does not

have this capability, will be at a disadvantage to me. So the people I

see around me, are generally doing something like I do. Otherwise

they'd be extinct.

>

>If we were such a mechanism (simply a meat machine), what reason would

>the meat machine have to be questioning whether a robot was

>consciously experiencing? [if it was influenced by its own conscious

>experiences, it couldn't simply be a biological mechanism following

>the known laws of physics]

What I think we are failing to communicate about is the role of

consciousness. I believe consciousness can have a vital role in some

situations, even if it cannot make choices that result in behavior

that deviates from a physical determinism that allows for quantum

effects.

>Now that you have understood, would you mind me asking whether you

>believe that this converstation has been a correspondence between meat

>machines blind to the existance of conscious experiences?

>

I'm not blind to it, and I assume you aren't either. In fact, we are

using them as an important part of this conversation.

July 3, 2007

someone2 wrote:

> On 2 Jul, 16:52, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

>> 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?

>>

>

> You are using aware in the sense that a mobile phone is aware that the

> buttons are pressed.

We are talking about experience (events gone through). What's the

difference between a flesh and blood person experiencing where it is,

the position of it's arms and such, and what it is doing, and the exact

same experience of a robot? Robots are doing the exact same things in

auto manufacturing plants human welders used to do before don't you

know, except for the taking of coffee breaks of course.

Are you just trying to draw a distinction without a difference? If not,

then please describe the procedure for observing the difference.

> Human behaviour isn't 100% predictable

Disingenuous response. As you know very well, a rate of 100% is not

required in any case, just an honest assessment of and report of the

level of confidence in the findings.

We demonstrate or knowledge of the laws (the observed regularities) of

the universe through the ability to control and or predict observable

events with a high level of confidence. This applies to animal (which

includes human) behavior just as well as it applies to the observable

regularities in the behavior of anything else.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ylb9t

July 3, 2007

On 3 Jul, 18:04, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 3 Jul, 16:32, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>

> > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> > >On 3 Jul, 07:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> > <...>

>

> > >> You seem to be saying that if physical determinism is true, there

> > >> would not be conscious experience. Is that what you are saying?

>

> > >No that is not what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether the robot's

> > >behaviour was strictly deterministic or if there was true randomness

> > >as suggested in orthodox quantum mechanics, the if we were a meat

> > >machine, similar to a robot, then it would mean our behaviour (like a

> > >robot whose behaviour is due to the mechanism simply following the

> > >laws of physics) would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

> > >experiences.

>

> > >Can you not actually understand what is written there, or is it that

> > >you can't follow why it would be the case?

>

> > Of course. We just got done covering this, old bean. I thought you'd

> > take that into account. Nowadays, physical determinism -- determinism

> > in accord with current physics -- would have some quantum influences

> > and therefore, probabilistic. truly random events. THis has no effect

> > on the argument.

>

> > I am delighted to take the summation as you state it. So now, if

> > physical determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminism) is true, the

> > course of events would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

> > experiences. (Where "having influence" must now be taken to mean, to

> > make something happen that would not have happened if only physical

> > determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminancy) were true.)

>

> > So? Maybe the course of events is uninfluenced by us having

> > conscious experiences. Have you shown that to be implausible? Or is

> > this something you leave for each reader to decide?

>

> Well it would mean that it is would only be a coincidence that we

> actually have the conscious experiences we are talking about. The

> coincidence makes the story implausible.

>

> As for what the reader makes of it, they might want to ask themselves,

> without the assumption that we were a simply a biological mechanism

> following the laws of physics what reason would they have to think

> that anything thats behaviour was explainable in terms of the

> mechanism following the laws of physics was consciously experiencing?

>

> If we were such a mechanism (simply a meat machine), what reason would

> the meat machine have to be questioning whether a robot was

> consciously experiencing? [if it was influenced by its own conscious

> experiences, it couldn't simply be a biological mechanism following

> the known laws of physics]

>

> Now that you have understood, would you mind me asking whether you

> believe that this converstation has been a correspondence between meat

> machines blind to the existance of conscious experiences?

>

I can see you've replied, and while your reply shows up on tree

(viewing through google) your post doesn't and so I can't reply. Maybe

after this post it will show up.

July 3, 2007

On 3 Jul, 21:25, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 3 Jul, 18:04, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>

> > On 3 Jul, 16:32, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>

> > > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> > > >On 3 Jul, 07:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> > > <...>

>

> > > >> You seem to be saying that if physical determinism is true, there

> > > >> would not be conscious experience. Is that what you are saying?

>

> > > >No that is not what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether the robot's

> > > >behaviour was strictly deterministic or if there was true randomness

> > > >as suggested in orthodox quantum mechanics, the if we were a meat

> > > >machine, similar to a robot, then it would mean our behaviour (like a

> > > >robot whose behaviour is due to the mechanism simply following the

> > > >laws of physics) would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

> > > >experiences.

>

> > > >Can you not actually understand what is written there, or is it that

> > > >you can't follow why it would be the case?

>

> > > Of course. We just got done covering this, old bean. I thought you'd

> > > take that into account. Nowadays, physical determinism -- determinism

> > > in accord with current physics -- would have some quantum influences

> > > and therefore, probabilistic. truly random events. THis has no effect

> > > on the argument.

>

> > > I am delighted to take the summation as you state it. So now, if

> > > physical determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminism) is true, the

> > > course of events would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

> > > experiences. (Where "having influence" must now be taken to mean, to

> > > make something happen that would not have happened if only physical

> > > determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminancy) were true.)

>

> > > So? Maybe the course of events is uninfluenced by us having

> > > conscious experiences. Have you shown that to be implausible? Or is

> > > this something you leave for each reader to decide?

>

> > Well it would mean that it is would only be a coincidence that we

> > actually have the conscious experiences we are talking about. The

> > coincidence makes the story implausible.

>

> > As for what the reader makes of it, they might want to ask themselves,

> > without the assumption that we were a simply a biological mechanism

> > following the laws of physics what reason would they have to think

> > that anything thats behaviour was explainable in terms of the

> > mechanism following the laws of physics was consciously experiencing?

>

> > If we were such a mechanism (simply a meat machine), what reason would

> > the meat machine have to be questioning whether a robot was

> > consciously experiencing? [if it was influenced by its own conscious

> > experiences, it couldn't simply be a biological mechanism following

> > the known laws of physics]

>

> > Now that you have understood, would you mind me asking whether you

> > believe that this converstation has been a correspondence between meat

> > machines blind to the existance of conscious experiences?

>

> I can see you've replied, and while your reply shows up on tree

> (viewing through google) your post doesn't and so I can't reply. Maybe

> after this post it will show up.

>

I can now see two posts after you one you posted. Only your reply is

edited out. If you could cut and paste and repost, I'd appreciate it.

July 3, 2007

On 3 Jul, 21:25, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 3 Jul, 18:04, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>

> > On 3 Jul, 16:32, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>

> > > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> > > >On 3 Jul, 07:37, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> > > <...>

>

> > > >> You seem to be saying that if physical determinism is true, there

> > > >> would not be conscious experience. Is that what you are saying?

>

> > > >No that is not what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether the robot's

> > > >behaviour was strictly deterministic or if there was true randomness

> > > >as suggested in orthodox quantum mechanics, the if we were a meat

> > > >machine, similar to a robot, then it would mean our behaviour (like a

> > > >robot whose behaviour is due to the mechanism simply following the

> > > >laws of physics) would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

> > > >experiences.

>

> > > >Can you not actually understand what is written there, or is it that

> > > >you can't follow why it would be the case?

>

> > > Of course. We just got done covering this, old bean. I thought you'd

> > > take that into account. Nowadays, physical determinism -- determinism

> > > in accord with current physics -- would have some quantum influences

> > > and therefore, probabilistic. truly random events. THis has no effect

> > > on the argument.

>

> > > I am delighted to take the summation as you state it. So now, if

> > > physical determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminism) is true, the

> > > course of events would be uninfluenced by us having conscious

> > > experiences. (Where "having influence" must now be taken to mean, to

> > > make something happen that would not have happened if only physical

> > > determinism (allowing for quantum indeterminancy) were true.)

>

> > > So? Maybe the course of events is uninfluenced by us having

> > > conscious experiences. Have you shown that to be implausible? Or is

> > > this something you leave for each reader to decide?

>

> > Well it would mean that it is would only be a coincidence that we

> > actually have the conscious experiences we are talking about. The

> > coincidence makes the story implausible.

>

> > As for what the reader makes of it, they might want to ask themselves,

> > without the assumption that we were a simply a biological mechanism

> > following the laws of physics what reason would they have to think

> > that anything thats behaviour was explainable in terms of the

> > mechanism following the laws of physics was consciously experiencing?

>

> > If we were such a mechanism (simply a meat machine), what reason would

> > the meat machine have to be questioning whether a robot was

> > consciously experiencing? [if it was influenced by its own conscious

> > experiences, it couldn't simply be a biological mechanism following

> > the known laws of physics]

>

> > Now that you have understood, would you mind me asking whether you

> > believe that this converstation has been a correspondence between meat

> > machines blind to the existance of conscious experiences?

>

> I can see you've replied, and while your reply shows up on tree

> (viewing through google) your post doesn't and so I can't reply. Maybe

> after this post it will show up.

>

I can now see two posts after you one you posted. Only your reply is

edited out. If you could cut and paste and repost, I'd appreciate it.

July 3, 2007

On 3 Jul, 21:24, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

> someone2 wrote:

> > On 2 Jul, 16:52, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

> >> 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?

>

> > You are using aware in the sense that a mobile phone is aware that the

> > buttons are pressed.

>

> We are talking about experience (events gone through). What's the

> difference between a flesh and blood person experiencing where it is,

> the position of it's arms and such, and what it is doing, and the exact

> same experience of a robot? Robots are doing the exact same things in

> auto manufacturing plants human welders used to do before don't you

> know, except for the taking of coffee breaks of course.

>

> Are you just trying to draw a distinction without a difference? If not,

> then please describe the procedure for observing the difference.

> > Human behaviour isn't 100% predictable

>

> Disingenuous response. As you know very well, a rate of 100% is not

> required in any case, just an honest assessment of and report of the

> level of confidence in the findings.

>

> We demonstrate or knowledge of the laws (the observed regularities) of

> the universe through the ability to control and or predict observable

> events with a high level of confidence. This applies to animal (which

> includes human) behavior just as well as it applies to the observable

> regularities in the behavior of anything else.http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ylb9t

>

No as I said we are talking about awareness in the sense of subjective

conscious experiences.

July 3, 2007

Jim07D7 wrote:

> Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

>

>> 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.

>

> Everything? I thought the exact moment of decay of a nucleus is in

> principle, not predictable, because it is dependent on a quantum event

> that is significantly subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

>

> "However, there are many other ways to get true randomness into your

> computer. A really good physical phenomenon to use is a radioactive

> source. The points in time at which a radioactive source decays are

> completely unpredictable, and they can quite easily be detected and

> fed into a computer, avoiding any buffering mechanisms in the

> operating system. The HotBits service at Fourmilab in Switzerland is

> an excellent example of a random number generator that uses this

> technique. " -- http://www.random.org/randomness/

Yes, we can depend on, with a high level of confidence, the difference

in times between radioactive source decays being random. If that

couldn't be depended upon, then it wouldn't be useful as a random number

generator at Fourmilab <http://www.fourmilab.ch/> would it? This is just

another fine example of a law (observed regularity) of nature. 8^)

Now why would you think that would in any way hinder a high level of

confidence in the lawful (observed regularity) of the other

99.99999999...% of the events in the world.

>> 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?

>

> This should be interesting. Can I watch? ;-)

I'm sure you can. Unless you're a robot, then Glen wouldn't agree that

you would be watching (experiencing this thread of discussion) in the

same way a human does. Yet he has yet to explain any discernible difference.

July 3, 2007

Jim07D7 wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>

>> Human behaviour isn't 100% predictable, nor does it seem is animal

>> behaviour. There maybe trends, but if you asked the individual to do

>> something unpredictable, you can't predict what they will do.

>

> The question is, what is the reason a human's or an animal's behavior

> isn't predictable?

But animal (including human) behavior is predictable (and controllable),

to a high level of confidence. Ask any dog trainer.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ylb9t

July 3, 2007