Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >As my viewing of the posts are being interfered with, this is my last >post on the topic. The reasoning is there, and it should be enough to >help any further deception designed to lead people away from God being >perpetrated. If you are referring to my posts not getting to you, I experienced a DSL problem from my end. I knew that, but did not know it was causing interference until you told me. THen i immediately re-sent. However, if you are done, you are done. I do not believe I engaged in any deception. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> said: >someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: > >>As my viewing of the posts are being interfered with, this is my last >>post on the topic. The reasoning is there, and it should be enough to >>help any further deception designed to lead people away from God being >>perpetrated. > >If you are referring to my posts not getting to you, I experienced a >DSL problem from my end. I knew that, but did not know it was causing >interference until you told me. THen i immediately re-sent. > >However, if you are done, you are done. I do not believe I engaged in >any deception. PS I don't see any reason for you to start over with Sippuden. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On 3 Jul, 22:45, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> said: > > >someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >>As my viewing of the posts are being interfered with, this is my last > >>post on the topic. The reasoning is there, and it should be enough to > >>help any further deception designed to lead people away from God being > >>perpetrated. > > >If you are referring to my posts not getting to you, I experienced a > >DSL problem from my end. I knew that, but did not know it was causing > >interference until you told me. THen i immediately re-sent. > > >However, if you are done, you are done. I do not believe I engaged in > >any deception. > > PS I don't see any reason for you to start over with Sippuden. I wasn't accusing you of being deceptive, and after consideration, I have decided that I may have been wrong to have acted in the way I did, and so will continue the discussion, and see if my decision is made for me. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. > The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. >> > >The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is >simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any >conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could >not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information >that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a violation of the mechanics of the situation. The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of problems. > >Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less subject to the deterministic model. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 3 Jul, 22:45, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> said: >> >> >someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >>As my viewing of the posts are being interfered with, this is my last >> >>post on the topic. The reasoning is there, and it should be enough to >> >>help any further deception designed to lead people away from God being >> >>perpetrated. >> >> >If you are referring to my posts not getting to you, I experienced a >> >DSL problem from my end. I knew that, but did not know it was causing >> >interference until you told me. THen i immediately re-sent. >> >> >However, if you are done, you are done. I do not believe I engaged in >> >any deception. >> >> PS I don't see any reason for you to start over with Sippuden. > >I wasn't accusing you of being deceptive, and after consideration, I >have decided that I may have been wrong to have acted in the way I >did, and so will continue the discussion, and see if my decision is >made for me. Good, I am finding this discussion sharpens my thinking. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On 4 Jul, 00:27, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. > > >The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is > >simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any > >conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could > >not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information > >that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." > > Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old > fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it > reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury > filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The > mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in > the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it > influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a > violation of the mechanics of the situation. > > The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of > problems. > > >Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. > > It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less > subject to the deterministic model. > The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its behaviour. [You seem to be having a problem understanding this rather simple truth, yet you are having problems coming to terms with it. The reason I suspect, is that it goes against the deceptive analogies that maybe you have read in books, or heard about, by so called 'intelligent' people, who were attempting to lead people away from God. Once you had accepted their deceptions, even though what I am pointing out is simple, you find it hard to face, as it goes against how you were indoctrinated to think about it. This isn't supposed to be in anyway insulting. You are discussing the matter in a very reasonable fashion, which is why I am happy to continue discussing it with you.] Quote
Guest DuhIdiot Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Jul 4, 7:35 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: <snip> > The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the > structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled > vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether > the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. Subjective experiences are purely physical parts of the structure of our mechanism. We're coming up on 1,000 posts and you still haven't said one thing to make this any less believable. You've nakedly asserted that physics will never be able to explain consciousness, you've applied the ridiculous rule that "if the laws of physics don't reference something then no physical explanation can reference it either", and at one point there was some meaningless blurb about there being no "scope" for any influence by consciousness. It all amounts to exactly nothing. > Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on > top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider > the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine > it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no > difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its > behaviour. Same old same old, Glenn. The conditional "If consciousness is irrelevant to explanation then it is uninfluential of behavior" is either true or false. If it is true, then wherever consciousness influences behavior, consciousness is not irrelevant to explanation. If it is false, then irrelevance of consciousness to explanation does not imply its non-influence of behavior. In this case you can have your consciousness-ignoring explanation, but you can't conclude a damn thing from it. This is your assumption in the paragraph above, but then you cheat and conclude non-influence of behavior anyway. Red flag, dude. We likes us some logic around these here parts. R(1) true or R(1) false, you're up the creek. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 4 Jul, 00:27, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. >> >> >The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is >> >simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any >> >conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could >> >not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information >> >that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." >> >> Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old >> fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it >> reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury >> filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The >> mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in >> the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it >> influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a >> violation of the mechanics of the situation. >> >> The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of >> problems. >> >> >Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. >> >> It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less >> subject to the deterministic model. >> > >The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the >structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled >vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether >the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. The mercury bulb has an influence by its action (tipping) just as the brain has an influence by its action (thinking.) > >Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on >top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider >the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine >it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no >difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its >behaviour. Not at all. Consider the thermostat again. Now suppose it is reading 66 and is set to start the furnace at 64. (All readings in Fahrenheit ;-).) Then you walk up and see the set point. You know your mother-in-law is about to arrive and she whines bitterly if it is below 70. On the other hand, you want her new boyfriend (she's divorced) who is coming with her, to see how bitter your mother-in-law can be. He's an asshole. This should drive him away. Well, you sort of want that. He's also rich. But you want to be a good host, regardless. So you have rational thoughts and feelings and manners and personal self interest.to consider. That takes thought. That takes a self-concept. That takes being conscious. > >[You seem to be having a problem understanding this rather simple >truth, yet you are having problems coming to terms with it. The reason >I suspect, is that it goes against the deceptive analogies that maybe >you have read in books, or heard about, by so called 'intelligent' >people, who were attempting to lead people away from God. Once you had >accepted their deceptions, even though what I am pointing out is >simple, you find it hard to face, as it goes against how you were >indoctrinated to think about it. This isn't supposed to be in anyway >insulting. You are discussing the matter in a very reasonable fashion, >which is why I am happy to continue discussing it with you.] If you think that my position is godless, you are mistaken. Everything I am saying could be said by a theist. Predestination is a theistic concept that meshes quite well with what I am saying. It is a particular view of theism that you are defending. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On 4 Jul, 17:11, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 4 Jul, 00:27, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. > > >> >The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is > >> >simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any > >> >conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could > >> >not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information > >> >that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." > > >> Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old > >> fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it > >> reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury > >> filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The > >> mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in > >> the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it > >> influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a > >> violation of the mechanics of the situation. > > >> The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of > >> problems. > > >> >Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. > > >> It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less > >> subject to the deterministic model. > > >The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the > >structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled > >vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether > >the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. > > The mercury bulb has an influence by its action (tipping) just as > the brain has an influence by its action (thinking.) > > > > >Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on > >top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider > >the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine > >it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no > >difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its > >behaviour. > > Not at all. Consider the thermostat again. Now suppose it is reading > 66 and is set to start the furnace at 64. (All readings in Fahrenheit > ;-).) Then you walk up and see the set point. You know your > mother-in-law is about to arrive and she whines bitterly if it is > below 70. On the other hand, you want her new boyfriend (she's > divorced) who is coming with her, to see how bitter your mother-in-law > can be. He's an asshole. This should drive him away. Well, you sort of > want that. He's also rich. But you want to be a good host, regardless. > > So you have rational thoughts and feelings and manners and personal > self interest.to consider. That takes thought. That takes a > self-concept. That takes being conscious. > > > > >[You seem to be having a problem understanding this rather simple > >truth, yet you are having problems coming to terms with it. The reason > >I suspect, is that it goes against the deceptive analogies that maybe > >you have read in books, or heard about, by so called 'intelligent' > >people, who were attempting to lead people away from God. Once you had > >accepted their deceptions, even though what I am pointing out is > >simple, you find it hard to face, as it goes against how you were > >indoctrinated to think about it. This isn't supposed to be in anyway > >insulting. You are discussing the matter in a very reasonable fashion, > >which is why I am happy to continue discussing it with you.] > > If you think that my position is godless, you are mistaken. Everything > I am saying could be said by a theist. Predestination is a theistic > concept that meshes quite well with what I am saying. It is a > particular view of theism that you are defending. > Well we aren't talking about a 'brain' we are simply talking about a robot. Explain to me how on a robot, if you were to have a belief that it was consciously experiencing, where the influence of it consciously experiencing is detectable in its behavior. This can later be used to see clearly how the situation would be, according to the story where we are simply meat machines following the laws of physics. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On 4 Jul, 17:22, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 4 Jul, 17:11, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > > > > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > >On 4 Jul, 00:27, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > >> >On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. > > > >> >The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is > > >> >simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any > > >> >conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could > > >> >not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information > > >> >that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." > > > >> Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old > > >> fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it > > >> reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury > > >> filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The > > >> mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in > > >> the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it > > >> influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a > > >> violation of the mechanics of the situation. > > > >> The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of > > >> problems. > > > >> >Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. > > > >> It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less > > >> subject to the deterministic model. > > > >The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the > > >structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled > > >vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether > > >the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. > > > The mercury bulb has an influence by its action (tipping) just as > > the brain has an influence by its action (thinking.) > > > >Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on > > >top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider > > >the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine > > >it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no > > >difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its > > >behaviour. > > > Not at all. Consider the thermostat again. Now suppose it is reading > > 66 and is set to start the furnace at 64. (All readings in Fahrenheit > > ;-).) Then you walk up and see the set point. You know your > > mother-in-law is about to arrive and she whines bitterly if it is > > below 70. On the other hand, you want her new boyfriend (she's > > divorced) who is coming with her, to see how bitter your mother-in-law > > can be. He's an asshole. This should drive him away. Well, you sort of > > want that. He's also rich. But you want to be a good host, regardless. > > > So you have rational thoughts and feelings and manners and personal > > self interest.to consider. That takes thought. That takes a > > self-concept. That takes being conscious. > > > >[You seem to be having a problem understanding this rather simple > > >truth, yet you are having problems coming to terms with it. The reason > > >I suspect, is that it goes against the deceptive analogies that maybe > > >you have read in books, or heard about, by so called 'intelligent' > > >people, who were attempting to lead people away from God. Once you had > > >accepted their deceptions, even though what I am pointing out is > > >simple, you find it hard to face, as it goes against how you were > > >indoctrinated to think about it. This isn't supposed to be in anyway > > >insulting. You are discussing the matter in a very reasonable fashion, > > >which is why I am happy to continue discussing it with you.] > > > If you think that my position is godless, you are mistaken. Everything > > I am saying could be said by a theist. Predestination is a theistic > > concept that meshes quite well with what I am saying. It is a > > particular view of theism that you are defending. > > Well we aren't talking about a 'brain' we are simply talking about a > robot. > > Explain to me how on a robot, if you were to have a belief that it was > consciously experiencing, where the influence of it consciously > experiencing is detectable in its behavior. This can later be used to > see clearly how the situation would be, according to the story where > we are simply meat machines following the laws of physics. > Or would you not expect any detectable influence of it consciously experiencing? Quote
Guest Sippuddin Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 someone2 wrote: > On 3 Jul, 22:01, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: >> Jim07D7 wrote: >>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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 > > So is a persons. You can give them electric shocks and condition them > to a response. This doesn't mean they can't choose to go against the > response if they had a reason. What reason does the dog have to act > against what it has understood to be the preferable course of action. > > Any robot that follows the laws of physics can have its behaviour > explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics > without believing it was consciously experiencing. Therefore any story > that claimed it was consciously experiencing would imply that > conscious experiences weren't influencing its behaviour. Any theist > could ask to have the influence of the claim that it was consciously > experiencing pointed out. > > As my viewing of the posts are being interfered with, this is my last > post on the topic. The reasoning is there, and it should be enough to > help any further deception designed to lead people away from God being > perpetrated. > > Look at building a world pleasing to God, remove power and money as > they are temptations away from God. > Essentially this seems to be Glen's argument for God: #73 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged) (1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X? (2) Atheist: of course. (3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'? (4) Atheist: Um, no, not really. (5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true? (6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'! (7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well? (8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway? (9) I'm glad we all agree..... ..... (37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed? (38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going? ..... (81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed? (82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING? ..... (177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed? (178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.] (179) Therefore, God exists. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On 4 Jul, 17:49, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > someone2 wrote: > > On 3 Jul, 22:01, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > >> Jim07D7 wrote: > >>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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 > > > So is a persons. You can give them electric shocks and condition them > > to a response. This doesn't mean they can't choose to go against the > > response if they had a reason. What reason does the dog have to act > > against what it has understood to be the preferable course of action. > > > Any robot that follows the laws of physics can have its behaviour > > explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics > > without believing it was consciously experiencing. Therefore any story > > that claimed it was consciously experiencing would imply that > > conscious experiences weren't influencing its behaviour. Any theist > > could ask to have the influence of the claim that it was consciously > > experiencing pointed out. > > > As my viewing of the posts are being interfered with, this is my last > > post on the topic. The reasoning is there, and it should be enough to > > help any further deception designed to lead people away from God being > > perpetrated. > > > Look at building a world pleasing to God, remove power and money as > > they are temptations away from God. > > Essentially this seems to be Glen's argument for God: > > #73 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged) > (1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X? > (2) Atheist: of course. > (3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'? > (4) Atheist: Um, no, not really. > (5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true? > (6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'! > (7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that > Z is true as well? > (8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this > going, anyway? > (9) I'm glad we all agree..... > .... > (37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and > Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed? > (38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is > this going? > .... > (81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' > are true. Agreed? > (82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS > GOING? > .... > (177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all > obviously valid. Agreed? > (178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.] > (179) Therefore, God exists. > Are you claiming that the atheist wouldn't agree that any robot that follows the laws of physics can have its behaviour explained in terms of the mechanism following the laws of physics without the need to believe in any story it was consciously experiencing? Or are you claiming that they wouldn't agree that the conscious experiences they claim in their story couldn't be influential? If so where would they be claiming the influence would be experimentally detectable? Do you think atheists stamping their feet and insisting that their story must be believed that the robot was consciously experiencing, and the conscious experiences they claimed were influential, after all, they believed and understood it, and its not simply a case of the Emporer's New Clothes, adds credibility to their story? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 4 Jul, 17:22, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> On 4 Jul, 17:11, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> > >On 4 Jul, 00:27, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> > >> >On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. >> >> > >> >The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is >> > >> >simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any >> > >> >conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could >> > >> >not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information >> > >> >that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." >> >> > >> Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old >> > >> fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it >> > >> reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury >> > >> filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The >> > >> mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in >> > >> the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it >> > >> influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a >> > >> violation of the mechanics of the situation. >> >> > >> The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of >> > >> problems. >> >> > >> >Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. >> >> > >> It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less >> > >> subject to the deterministic model. >> >> > >The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the >> > >structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled >> > >vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether >> > >the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. >> >> > The mercury bulb has an influence by its action (tipping) just as >> > the brain has an influence by its action (thinking.) >> >> > >Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on >> > >top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider >> > >the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine >> > >it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no >> > >difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its >> > >behaviour. >> >> > Not at all. Consider the thermostat again. Now suppose it is reading >> > 66 and is set to start the furnace at 64. (All readings in Fahrenheit >> > ;-).) Then you walk up and see the set point. You know your >> > mother-in-law is about to arrive and she whines bitterly if it is >> > below 70. On the other hand, you want her new boyfriend (she's >> > divorced) who is coming with her, to see how bitter your mother-in-law >> > can be. He's an asshole. This should drive him away. Well, you sort of >> > want that. He's also rich. But you want to be a good host, regardless. >> >> > So you have rational thoughts and feelings and manners and personal >> > self interest.to consider. That takes thought. That takes a >> > self-concept. That takes being conscious. >> >> > >[You seem to be having a problem understanding this rather simple >> > >truth, yet you are having problems coming to terms with it. The reason >> > >I suspect, is that it goes against the deceptive analogies that maybe >> > >you have read in books, or heard about, by so called 'intelligent' >> > >people, who were attempting to lead people away from God. Once you had >> > >accepted their deceptions, even though what I am pointing out is >> > >simple, you find it hard to face, as it goes against how you were >> > >indoctrinated to think about it. This isn't supposed to be in anyway >> > >insulting. You are discussing the matter in a very reasonable fashion, >> > >which is why I am happy to continue discussing it with you.] >> >> > If you think that my position is godless, you are mistaken. Everything >> > I am saying could be said by a theist. Predestination is a theistic >> > concept that meshes quite well with what I am saying. It is a >> > particular view of theism that you are defending. >> >> Well we aren't talking about a 'brain' we are simply talking about a >> robot. >> >> Explain to me how on a robot, if you were to have a belief that it was >> consciously experiencing, where the influence of it consciously >> experiencing is detectable in its behavior. This can later be used to >> see clearly how the situation would be, according to the story where >> we are simply meat machines following the laws of physics. >> > >Or would you not expect any detectable influence of it consciously >experiencing? You seem to accept that the position I present is not necessarily godless; it being Calvinism in a nutshell (or at least, it is one of its versions). I want to add that the quantum events in such a deterministic, but God-created world can be explained as events inserted by God into history, that are seemingly random (but are not actually, being decided when and where by God) and are, by God's choice, not explainable by the creatures as having physical causes. I think I have already explained everything relevant to this topic, the best I can. I am not expecting you to accept it as a valid alternative to however you explain things. I only wanted to explain a particular position. But I certainly think you might feel obligated to give me a detailed explanation of the opposing point of view, and that doesn't mean how or why the position i present is wrong, it means, how and why another position is right. With all best intentions and good feeling toward you, Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On 4 Jul, 23:23, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >On 4 Jul, 17:22, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On 4 Jul, 17:11, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >> > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> > >On 4 Jul, 00:27, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> > >> >On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> > >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. > > >> > >> >The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is > >> > >> >simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any > >> > >> >conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could > >> > >> >not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information > >> > >> >that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." > > >> > >> Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old > >> > >> fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it > >> > >> reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury > >> > >> filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The > >> > >> mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in > >> > >> the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it > >> > >> influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a > >> > >> violation of the mechanics of the situation. > > >> > >> The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of > >> > >> problems. > > >> > >> >Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. > > >> > >> It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less > >> > >> subject to the deterministic model. > > >> > >The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the > >> > >structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled > >> > >vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether > >> > >the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. > > >> > The mercury bulb has an influence by its action (tipping) just as > >> > the brain has an influence by its action (thinking.) > > >> > >Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on > >> > >top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider > >> > >the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine > >> > >it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no > >> > >difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its > >> > >behaviour. > > >> > Not at all. Consider the thermostat again. Now suppose it is reading > >> > 66 and is set to start the furnace at 64. (All readings in Fahrenheit > >> > ;-).) Then you walk up and see the set point. You know your > >> > mother-in-law is about to arrive and she whines bitterly if it is > >> > below 70. On the other hand, you want her new boyfriend (she's > >> > divorced) who is coming with her, to see how bitter your mother-in-law > >> > can be. He's an asshole. This should drive him away. Well, you sort of > >> > want that. He's also rich. But you want to be a good host, regardless. > > >> > So you have rational thoughts and feelings and manners and personal > >> > self interest.to consider. That takes thought. That takes a > >> > self-concept. That takes being conscious. > > >> > >[You seem to be having a problem understanding this rather simple > >> > >truth, yet you are having problems coming to terms with it. The reason > >> > >I suspect, is that it goes against the deceptive analogies that maybe > >> > >you have read in books, or heard about, by so called 'intelligent' > >> > >people, who were attempting to lead people away from God. Once you had > >> > >accepted their deceptions, even though what I am pointing out is > >> > >simple, you find it hard to face, as it goes against how you were > >> > >indoctrinated to think about it. This isn't supposed to be in anyway > >> > >insulting. You are discussing the matter in a very reasonable fashion, > >> > >which is why I am happy to continue discussing it with you.] > > >> > If you think that my position is godless, you are mistaken. Everything > >> > I am saying could be said by a theist. Predestination is a theistic > >> > concept that meshes quite well with what I am saying. It is a > >> > particular view of theism that you are defending. > > >> Well we aren't talking about a 'brain' we are simply talking about a > >> robot. > > >> Explain to me how on a robot, if you were to have a belief that it was > >> consciously experiencing, where the influence of it consciously > >> experiencing is detectable in its behavior. This can later be used to > >> see clearly how the situation would be, according to the story where > >> we are simply meat machines following the laws of physics. > > >Or would you not expect any detectable influence of it consciously > >experiencing? > > You seem to accept that the position I present is not necessarily > godless; it being Calvinism in a nutshell (or at least, it is one of > its versions). > > I want to add that the quantum events in such a deterministic, but > God-created world can be explained as events inserted by God into > history, that are seemingly random (but are not actually, being > decided when and where by God) and are, by God's choice, not > explainable by the creatures as having physical causes. > > I think I have already explained everything relevant to this topic, > the best I can. > > I am not expecting you to accept it as a valid alternative to however > you explain things. I only wanted to explain a particular position. > > But I certainly think you might feel obligated to give me a detailed > explanation of the opposing point of view, and that doesn't mean how > or why the position i present is wrong, it means, how and why another > position is right. > > With all best intentions and good feeling toward you, I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to have stopped and not explained where you would see any influence of consciousness in the robot, if you would expect to see any at all, or whether you think a robot could consciously experience, or whether you consider us to be biological mechanisms strictly following the laws of physics and yet somehow have free will and therefore responsibility for our choices. It is just that there is only the spiritual. What your neural state represents is presented/communicated to you. That there are rules in the physical that you experience, is because the physical is an unbiased presentation, neither Heaven, nor Hell. It is while experiencing the physical that you get to choose between following a loving, selfless God, or choose not to. Your choices often either please God or the Devil. You have free will. Your will is known, a communication if you like, and that is how you are able to influence the human you experience being. The presentation is the way it is, for its purpose. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On 4 Jul, 23:23, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >On 4 Jul, 17:22, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On 4 Jul, 17:11, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >> > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> > >On 4 Jul, 00:27, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> > >> >On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> > >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. > > >> > >> >The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is > >> > >> >simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any > >> > >> >conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could > >> > >> >not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information > >> > >> >that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." > > >> > >> Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old > >> > >> fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it > >> > >> reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury > >> > >> filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The > >> > >> mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in > >> > >> the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it > >> > >> influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a > >> > >> violation of the mechanics of the situation. > > >> > >> The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of > >> > >> problems. > > >> > >> >Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. > > >> > >> It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less > >> > >> subject to the deterministic model. > > >> > >The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the > >> > >structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled > >> > >vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether > >> > >the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. > > >> > The mercury bulb has an influence by its action (tipping) just as > >> > the brain has an influence by its action (thinking.) > > >> > >Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on > >> > >top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider > >> > >the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine > >> > >it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no > >> > >difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its > >> > >behaviour. > > >> > Not at all. Consider the thermostat again. Now suppose it is reading > >> > 66 and is set to start the furnace at 64. (All readings in Fahrenheit > >> > ;-).) Then you walk up and see the set point. You know your > >> > mother-in-law is about to arrive and she whines bitterly if it is > >> > below 70. On the other hand, you want her new boyfriend (she's > >> > divorced) who is coming with her, to see how bitter your mother-in-law > >> > can be. He's an asshole. This should drive him away. Well, you sort of > >> > want that. He's also rich. But you want to be a good host, regardless. > > >> > So you have rational thoughts and feelings and manners and personal > >> > self interest.to consider. That takes thought. That takes a > >> > self-concept. That takes being conscious. > > >> > >[You seem to be having a problem understanding this rather simple > >> > >truth, yet you are having problems coming to terms with it. The reason > >> > >I suspect, is that it goes against the deceptive analogies that maybe > >> > >you have read in books, or heard about, by so called 'intelligent' > >> > >people, who were attempting to lead people away from God. Once you had > >> > >accepted their deceptions, even though what I am pointing out is > >> > >simple, you find it hard to face, as it goes against how you were > >> > >indoctrinated to think about it. This isn't supposed to be in anyway > >> > >insulting. You are discussing the matter in a very reasonable fashion, > >> > >which is why I am happy to continue discussing it with you.] > > >> > If you think that my position is godless, you are mistaken. Everything > >> > I am saying could be said by a theist. Predestination is a theistic > >> > concept that meshes quite well with what I am saying. It is a > >> > particular view of theism that you are defending. > > >> Well we aren't talking about a 'brain' we are simply talking about a > >> robot. > > >> Explain to me how on a robot, if you were to have a belief that it was > >> consciously experiencing, where the influence of it consciously > >> experiencing is detectable in its behavior. This can later be used to > >> see clearly how the situation would be, according to the story where > >> we are simply meat machines following the laws of physics. > > >Or would you not expect any detectable influence of it consciously > >experiencing? > > You seem to accept that the position I present is not necessarily > godless; it being Calvinism in a nutshell (or at least, it is one of > its versions). > > I want to add that the quantum events in such a deterministic, but > God-created world can be explained as events inserted by God into > history, that are seemingly random (but are not actually, being > decided when and where by God) and are, by God's choice, not > explainable by the creatures as having physical causes. > > I think I have already explained everything relevant to this topic, > the best I can. > > I am not expecting you to accept it as a valid alternative to however > you explain things. I only wanted to explain a particular position. > > But I certainly think you might feel obligated to give me a detailed > explanation of the opposing point of view, and that doesn't mean how > or why the position i present is wrong, it means, how and why another > position is right. > > With all best intentions and good feeling toward you, Sorry my reply to you seemed to have got lost. I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting. Whether you would consider it to be possible for a robot to consciously experience, and if so, where would you see the influence of any conscious experiences. Also with regards to us, are you suggesting that we are similar to the robot, and that we don't consciously influence the human that we experience being? It is simply that all there is is the spiritual. We are presented with the physical world, and the presentation for the most part, seems to be based on what the neural state of the human we experience being represents. What the neural state represents is known to the source of the presentation. Your will is also known, which is how you feel yourself able to influence how the human you experience being behaves. Some of your choices will be pleasing to God, some will be pleasing to the Devil. After the presentation, depending on the choices you made, and your spiritual 'state', you will be presented with either Heaven or Hell. If you look at Isaiah 29:14-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/ passage/?search=Isaiah%2029&version=31) you might recognise the physicalists, and their denial of God. You might also notice that they had turned reality upside down (all there was was the physical), but it would be shown that their claims of intelligence would vanish. Can you see why their story was implausible, it was similar to the Emporer's New Clothes. Also if you can understand that you are not of the physical, and that your experiences are based upon the human you experience being, you can see that any talents are really given to you, and without being presented with experiences such as memory for example (such as when the human is under anaesthetic), we can see how limited we are without the presentation. Though we do have free will, and anything we choose, we could have chosen not to have done. The presentation is one suitable for the purpose for which it is presented. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to have stopped and >not explained where you would see any influence of consciousness in >the robot, if you would expect to see any at all, or whether you think >a robot could consciously experience, or whether you consider us to be >biological mechanisms strictly following the laws of physics and yet >somehow have free will and therefore responsibility for our choices. Well, you are tossing it back to me but I am done. > >It is just that there is only the spiritual. What your neural state >represents is presented/communicated to you. That there are rules in >the physical that you experience, is because the physical is an >unbiased presentation, neither Heaven, nor Hell. It is while >experiencing the physical that you get to choose between following a >loving, selfless God, or choose not to. Your choices often either >please God or the Devil. You have free will. Your will is known, a >communication if you like, and that is how you are able to influence >the human you experience being. The presentation is the way it is, for >its purpose. I don't know if you are speaking literally of these things like Heaven, Hell, God, and Devil, or metaphorically. If metaphorically, could you please be more literal? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On 5 Jul, 00:42, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to have stopped and > >not explained where you would see any influence of consciousness in > >the robot, if you would expect to see any at all, or whether you think > >a robot could consciously experience, or whether you consider us to be > >biological mechanisms strictly following the laws of physics and yet > >somehow have free will and therefore responsibility for our choices. > > Well, you are tossing it back to me but I am done. > > > > >It is just that there is only the spiritual. What your neural state > >represents is presented/communicated to you. That there are rules in > >the physical that you experience, is because the physical is an > >unbiased presentation, neither Heaven, nor Hell. It is while > >experiencing the physical that you get to choose between following a > >loving, selfless God, or choose not to. Your choices often either > >please God or the Devil. You have free will. Your will is known, a > >communication if you like, and that is how you are able to influence > >the human you experience being. The presentation is the way it is, for > >its purpose. > > I don't know if you are speaking literally of these things like > Heaven, Hell, God, and Devil, or metaphorically. If metaphorically, > could you please be more literal? I wasn't trying to throw anything back to you, I was just stating that I didn't understand your position. I was just giving examples of what I was unclear about. I wasn't speaking metaphorically. The same as you are presented with the physical, you will be presented with Heaven or Hell. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 5 Jul, 00:42, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to have stopped and >> >not explained where you would see any influence of consciousness in >> >the robot, if you would expect to see any at all, or whether you think >> >a robot could consciously experience, or whether you consider us to be >> >biological mechanisms strictly following the laws of physics and yet >> >somehow have free will and therefore responsibility for our choices. >> >> Well, you are tossing it back to me but I am done. >> >> >> >> >It is just that there is only the spiritual. What your neural state >> >represents is presented/communicated to you. That there are rules in >> >the physical that you experience, is because the physical is an >> >unbiased presentation, neither Heaven, nor Hell. It is while >> >experiencing the physical that you get to choose between following a >> >loving, selfless God, or choose not to. Your choices often either >> >please God or the Devil. You have free will. Your will is known, a >> >communication if you like, and that is how you are able to influence >> >the human you experience being. The presentation is the way it is, for >> >its purpose. >> >> I don't know if you are speaking literally of these things like >> Heaven, Hell, God, and Devil, or metaphorically. If metaphorically, >> could you please be more literal? > >I wasn't trying to throw anything back to you, I was just stating that >I didn't understand your position. I was just giving examples of what >I was unclear about. You have never asked me about the implications that a determinism that allows for quantum effects, has on free will and responsibility. Do you want a theistic response, or a nontheistic response? Both are available. However, you can probably find better explanations than I can offer, on various philosophy or religion web sites. I've explained that, IMO, consciousness and determinism are not incompatible, and dealt with your questions, even to the point of saying that such determinism is not incompatible with theism, and you have not disputed this. That was all I set out to do. >I wasn't speaking metaphorically. The same as you are presented with >the physical, you will be presented with Heaven or Hell. I don't have any worries about that. Quote
Guest James Norris Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 12:05?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 4 Jul, 23:23, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > >On 4 Jul, 17:22, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > >> On 4 Jul, 17:11, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > >> > >On 4 Jul, 00:27, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >> > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > >> > >> >On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >> > >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. > > > >> > >> >The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is > > >> > >> >simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any > > >> > >> >conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could > > >> > >> >not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information > > >> > >> >that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." > > > >> > >> Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old > > >> > >> fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it > > >> > >> reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury > > >> > >> filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The > > >> > >> mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in > > >> > >> the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it > > >> > >> influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a > > >> > >> violation of the mechanics of the situation. > > > >> > >> The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of > > >> > >> problems. > > > >> > >> >Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. > > > >> > >> It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less > > >> > >> subject to the deterministic model. > > > >> > >The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the > > >> > >structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled > > >> > >vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether > > >> > >the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. > > > >> > The mercury bulb has an influence by its action (tipping) just as > > >> > the brain has an influence by its action (thinking.) > > > >> > >Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on > > >> > >top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider > > >> > >the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine > > >> > >it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no > > >> > >difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its > > >> > >behaviour. > > > >> > Not at all. Consider the thermostat again. Now suppose it is reading > > >> > 66 and is set to start the furnace at 64. (All readings in Fahrenheit > > >> > ;-).) Then you walk up and see the set point. You know your > > >> > mother-in-law is about to arrive and she whines bitterly if it is > > >> > below 70. On the other hand, you want her new boyfriend (she's > > >> > divorced) who is coming with her, to see how bitter your mother-in-law > > >> > can be. He's an asshole. This should drive him away. Well, you sort of > > >> > want that. He's also rich. But you want to be a good host, regardless. > > > >> > So you have rational thoughts and feelings and manners and personal > > >> > self interest.to consider. That takes thought. That takes a > > >> > self-concept. That takes being conscious. > > > >> > >[You seem to be having a problem understanding this rather simple > > >> > >truth, yet you are having problems coming to terms with it. The reason > > >> > >I suspect, is that it goes against the deceptive analogies that maybe > > >> > >you have read in books, or heard about, by so called 'intelligent' > > >> > >people, who were attempting to lead people away from God. Once you had > > >> > >accepted their deceptions, even though what I am pointing out is > > >> > >simple, you find it hard to face, as it goes against how you were > > >> > >indoctrinated to think about it. This isn't supposed to be in anyway > > >> > >insulting. You are discussing the matter in a very reasonable fashion, > > >> > >which is why I am happy to continue discussing it with you.] > > > >> > If you think that my position is godless, you are mistaken. Everything > > >> > I am saying could be said by a theist. Predestination is a theistic > > >> > concept that meshes quite well with what I am saying. It is a > > >> > particular view of theism that you are defending. > > > >> Well we aren't talking about a 'brain' we are simply talking about a > > >> robot. > > > >> Explain to me how on a robot, if you were to have a belief that it was > > >> consciously experiencing, where the influence of it consciously > > >> experiencing is detectable in its behavior. This can later be used to > > >> see clearly how the situation would be, according to the story where > > >> we are simply meat machines following the laws of physics. > > > >Or would you not expect any detectable influence of it consciously > > >experiencing? > > > You seem to accept that the position I present is not necessarily > > godless; it being Calvinism in a nutshell (or at least, it is one of > > its versions). > > > I want to add that the quantum events in such a deterministic, but > > God-created world can be explained as events inserted by God into > > history, that are seemingly random (but are not actually, being > > decided when and where by God) and are, by God's choice, not > > explainable by the creatures as having physical causes. > > > I think I have already explained everything relevant to this topic, > > the best I can. > > > I am not expecting you to accept it as a valid alternative to however > > you explain things. I only wanted to explain a particular position. > > > But I certainly think you might feel obligated to give me a detailed > > explanation of the opposing point of view, and that doesn't mean how > > or why the position i present is wrong, it means, how and why another > > position is right. > > > With all best intentions and good feeling toward you, > > I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to have stopped and > not explained where you would see any influence of consciousness in > the robot, if you would expect to see any at all, or whether you think > a robot could consciously experience, or whether you consider us to be > biological mechanisms strictly following the laws of physics and yet > somehow have free will and therefore responsibility for our choices. > > It is just that there is only the spiritual. What your neural state > represents is presented/communicated to you. That there are rules in > the physical that you experience, is because the physical is an > unbiased presentation, neither Heaven, nor Hell. It is while > experiencing the physical that you get to choose between following a > loving, selfless God, or choose not to. Your choices often either > please God or the Devil. You have free will. Your will is known, a > communication if you like, and that is how you are able to influence > the human you experience being. The presentation is the way it is, for > its purpose. Yours is a truly Berkleyian viewpoint. The matter to which Newton's Law's of Physics apply does not exist - what we perceive as matter is the interaction of our conscious minds with God's spirit. Did you copy it straight out of his writings? I suppose he'd have written mental experience rather than neural state, and Berkley's objection to Newton's ideas was all originally in Latin anyway. Quote
Guest Sippuddin Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 someone2 wrote: > On 4 Jul, 23:23, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >>> On 4 Jul, 17:22, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> On 4 Jul, 17:11, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >>>>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >>>>>> On 4 Jul, 00:27, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >>>>>>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >>>>>>>> On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. >>>>>>>> The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is >>>>>>>> simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any >>>>>>>> conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could >>>>>>>> not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information >>>>>>>> that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." >>>>>>> Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old >>>>>>> fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it >>>>>>> reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury >>>>>>> filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The >>>>>>> mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in >>>>>>> the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it >>>>>>> influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a >>>>>>> violation of the mechanics of the situation. >>>>>>> The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of >>>>>>> problems. >>>>>>>> Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. >>>>>>> It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less >>>>>>> subject to the deterministic model. >>>>>> The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the >>>>>> structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled >>>>>> vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether >>>>>> the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. >>>>> The mercury bulb has an influence by its action (tipping) just as >>>>> the brain has an influence by its action (thinking.) >>>>>> Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on >>>>>> top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider >>>>>> the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine >>>>>> it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no >>>>>> difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its >>>>>> behaviour. >>>>> Not at all. Consider the thermostat again. Now suppose it is reading >>>>> 66 and is set to start the furnace at 64. (All readings in Fahrenheit >>>>> ;-).) Then you walk up and see the set point. You know your >>>>> mother-in-law is about to arrive and she whines bitterly if it is >>>>> below 70. On the other hand, you want her new boyfriend (she's >>>>> divorced) who is coming with her, to see how bitter your mother-in-law >>>>> can be. He's an asshole. This should drive him away. Well, you sort of >>>>> want that. He's also rich. But you want to be a good host, regardless. >>>>> So you have rational thoughts and feelings and manners and personal >>>>> self interest.to consider. That takes thought. That takes a >>>>> self-concept. That takes being conscious. >>>>>> [You seem to be having a problem understanding this rather simple >>>>>> truth, yet you are having problems coming to terms with it. The reason >>>>>> I suspect, is that it goes against the deceptive analogies that maybe >>>>>> you have read in books, or heard about, by so called 'intelligent' >>>>>> people, who were attempting to lead people away from God. Once you had >>>>>> accepted their deceptions, even though what I am pointing out is >>>>>> simple, you find it hard to face, as it goes against how you were >>>>>> indoctrinated to think about it. This isn't supposed to be in anyway >>>>>> insulting. You are discussing the matter in a very reasonable fashion, >>>>>> which is why I am happy to continue discussing it with you.] >>>>> If you think that my position is godless, you are mistaken. Everything >>>>> I am saying could be said by a theist. Predestination is a theistic >>>>> concept that meshes quite well with what I am saying. It is a >>>>> particular view of theism that you are defending. >>>> Well we aren't talking about a 'brain' we are simply talking about a >>>> robot. >>>> Explain to me how on a robot, if you were to have a belief that it was >>>> consciously experiencing, where the influence of it consciously >>>> experiencing is detectable in its behavior. This can later be used to >>>> see clearly how the situation would be, according to the story where >>>> we are simply meat machines following the laws of physics. >>> Or would you not expect any detectable influence of it consciously >>> experiencing? >> You seem to accept that the position I present is not necessarily >> godless; it being Calvinism in a nutshell (or at least, it is one of >> its versions). >> >> I want to add that the quantum events in such a deterministic, but >> God-created world can be explained as events inserted by God into >> history, that are seemingly random (but are not actually, being >> decided when and where by God) and are, by God's choice, not >> explainable by the creatures as having physical causes. >> >> I think I have already explained everything relevant to this topic, >> the best I can. >> >> I am not expecting you to accept it as a valid alternative to however >> you explain things. I only wanted to explain a particular position. >> >> But I certainly think you might feel obligated to give me a detailed >> explanation of the opposing point of view, and that doesn't mean how >> or why the position i present is wrong, it means, how and why another >> position is right. >> >> With all best intentions and good feeling toward you, > > I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to have stopped and > not explained where you would see any influence of consciousness in > the robot Take the example of a robot welder in an auto factory. Just like a human welder, the robot must present with evidence that it is alrt to it's surroundings, responding to stimuli, and conscious of the position of the car-body parts to be welded together and such, does it not? If it were not conscious of all it needs to perform the job, then it would not be of any use in the auto factory would it? Quote
Guest Sippuddin Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 someone2 wrote: > > It is just that there is only the spiritual. Spiritual meaning of spirit? You cannot reasonably maintain that there is the spiritual, much less that there is only the spiritual, unless you can first produce an operational definition of your term 'spirit', a description of it in terms of precisely how it is observed and measured so that anyone can check your observations. http://preview.tinyurl.com/248ept Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 4 Jul, 23:23, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >On 4 Jul, 17:22, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> On 4 Jul, 17:11, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> >> > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> > >On 4 Jul, 00:27, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> > >> >On 3 Jul, 22:04, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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. >> >> >> > >> >The problem with what you are saying is that if the behaviour is >> >> > >> >simply determined by the mechanism following the laws of physics, any >> >> > >> >conscious experiences cannot be influential, and therefore it could >> >> > >> >not be the case that "consciousness allows me to process information >> >> > >> >that I could not as effectively process unconsciously." >> >> >> > >> Look at it this way. According to the deterministic model, an old >> >> > >> fashioned thermostat has a temperature-reactive coil which, when it >> >> > >> reaches a certain temperature, expands enough and tips a mercury >> >> > >> filled vial that closes a circuit that fires up a furnace. The >> >> > >> mercury-filled vial is influential on the behavior of the furnace, in >> >> > >> the same sense of that word, as consciousness is on outcomes that it >> >> > >> influences. It is not influential in any sense that would imply a >> >> > >> violation of the mechanics of the situation. >> >> >> > >> The mercury vial is much simpler, of course. It has an easier set of >> >> > >> problems. >> >> >> > >> >Think of the robot, it makes it simpler to comprehend. >> >> >> > >> It certainly does, but being simpler does not make it any more or less >> >> > >> subject to the deterministic model. >> >> >> > >The problem with your analogy is that you are talking about the >> >> > >structure of the mechanism being influential. Having a mecury filled >> >> > >vial is part of the mechanism. Whereas we are talking about whether >> >> > >the mechanism consciously experiences or not could be influential. >> >> >> > The mercury bulb has an influence by its action (tipping) just as >> >> > the brain has an influence by its action (thinking.) >> >> >> > >Think of the deterministic model of the robot. Now add the story on >> >> > >top that it is consciously experiencing. Or if you'd rather, consider >> >> > >the hypothetical consciously experiencing robot, then simply imagine >> >> > >it wasn't consciously experiencing. You can see it would make no >> >> > >difference to the deterministic model of the robot, and therefore its >> >> > >behaviour. >> >> >> > Not at all. Consider the thermostat again. Now suppose it is reading >> >> > 66 and is set to start the furnace at 64. (All readings in Fahrenheit >> >> > ;-).) Then you walk up and see the set point. You know your >> >> > mother-in-law is about to arrive and she whines bitterly if it is >> >> > below 70. On the other hand, you want her new boyfriend (she's >> >> > divorced) who is coming with her, to see how bitter your mother-in-law >> >> > can be. He's an asshole. This should drive him away. Well, you sort of >> >> > want that. He's also rich. But you want to be a good host, regardless. >> >> >> > So you have rational thoughts and feelings and manners and personal >> >> > self interest.to consider. That takes thought. That takes a >> >> > self-concept. That takes being conscious. >> >> >> > >[You seem to be having a problem understanding this rather simple >> >> > >truth, yet you are having problems coming to terms with it. The reason >> >> > >I suspect, is that it goes against the deceptive analogies that maybe >> >> > >you have read in books, or heard about, by so called 'intelligent' >> >> > >people, who were attempting to lead people away from God. Once you had >> >> > >accepted their deceptions, even though what I am pointing out is >> >> > >simple, you find it hard to face, as it goes against how you were >> >> > >indoctrinated to think about it. This isn't supposed to be in anyway >> >> > >insulting. You are discussing the matter in a very reasonable fashion, >> >> > >which is why I am happy to continue discussing it with you.] >> >> >> > If you think that my position is godless, you are mistaken. Everything >> >> > I am saying could be said by a theist. Predestination is a theistic >> >> > concept that meshes quite well with what I am saying. It is a >> >> > particular view of theism that you are defending. >> >> >> Well we aren't talking about a 'brain' we are simply talking about a >> >> robot. >> >> >> Explain to me how on a robot, if you were to have a belief that it was >> >> consciously experiencing, where the influence of it consciously >> >> experiencing is detectable in its behavior. This can later be used to >> >> see clearly how the situation would be, according to the story where >> >> we are simply meat machines following the laws of physics. >> >> >Or would you not expect any detectable influence of it consciously >> >experiencing? >> >> You seem to accept that the position I present is not necessarily >> godless; it being Calvinism in a nutshell (or at least, it is one of >> its versions). >> >> I want to add that the quantum events in such a deterministic, but >> God-created world can be explained as events inserted by God into >> history, that are seemingly random (but are not actually, being >> decided when and where by God) and are, by God's choice, not >> explainable by the creatures as having physical causes. >> >> I think I have already explained everything relevant to this topic, >> the best I can. >> >> I am not expecting you to accept it as a valid alternative to however >> you explain things. I only wanted to explain a particular position. >> >> But I certainly think you might feel obligated to give me a detailed >> explanation of the opposing point of view, and that doesn't mean how >> or why the position i present is wrong, it means, how and why another >> position is right. >> >> With all best intentions and good feeling toward you, > >Sorry my reply to you seemed to have got lost. > >I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting. Whether you would >consider it to be possible for a robot to consciously experience, and >if so, where would you see the influence of any conscious experiences. >Also with regards to us, are you suggesting that we are similar to the >robot, and that we don't consciously influence the human that we >experience being? It is now your turn, pal. > >It is simply that all there is is the spiritual. We are presented with >the physical world, and the presentation for the most part, seems to >be based on what the neural state of the human we experience being >represents. What the neural state represents is known to the source of >the presentation. Your will is also known, which is how you feel >yourself able to influence how the human you experience being behaves. >Some of your choices will be pleasing to God, some will be pleasing to >the Devil. After the presentation, depending on the choices you made, >and your spiritual 'state', you will be presented with either Heaven >or Hell. If you look at Isaiah 29:14-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/ >passage/?search=Isaiah%2029&version=31) you might recognise the >physicalists, and their denial of God. You might also notice that they >had turned reality upside down (all there was was the physical), but >it would be shown that their claims of intelligence would vanish. Can >you see why their story was implausible, it was similar to the >Emporer's New Clothes. Also if you can understand that you are not of >the physical, and that your experiences are based upon the human you >experience being, you can see that any talents are really given to >you, and without being presented with experiences such as memory for >example (such as when the human is under anaesthetic), we can see how >limited we are without the presentation. Though we do have free will, >and anything we choose, we could have chosen not to have done. The >presentation is one suitable for the purpose for which it is presented. OK, I'll take that as your turn being taken. I have no concerns about Heaven and Hell. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On 5 Jul, 01:12, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 5 Jul, 00:42, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to have stopped and > >> >not explained where you would see any influence of consciousness in > >> >the robot, if you would expect to see any at all, or whether you think > >> >a robot could consciously experience, or whether you consider us to be > >> >biological mechanisms strictly following the laws of physics and yet > >> >somehow have free will and therefore responsibility for our choices. > > >> Well, you are tossing it back to me but I am done. > > >> >It is just that there is only the spiritual. What your neural state > >> >represents is presented/communicated to you. That there are rules in > >> >the physical that you experience, is because the physical is an > >> >unbiased presentation, neither Heaven, nor Hell. It is while > >> >experiencing the physical that you get to choose between following a > >> >loving, selfless God, or choose not to. Your choices often either > >> >please God or the Devil. You have free will. Your will is known, a > >> >communication if you like, and that is how you are able to influence > >> >the human you experience being. The presentation is the way it is, for > >> >its purpose. > > >> I don't know if you are speaking literally of these things like > >> Heaven, Hell, God, and Devil, or metaphorically. If metaphorically, > >> could you please be more literal? > > >I wasn't trying to throw anything back to you, I was just stating that > >I didn't understand your position. I was just giving examples of what > >I was unclear about. > > You have never asked me about the implications that a determinism that > allows for quantum effects, has on free will and responsibility. Do > you want a theistic response, or a nontheistic response? Both are > available. However, you can probably find better explanations than I > can offer, on various philosophy or religion web sites. I've explained > that, IMO, consciousness and determinism are not incompatible, and > dealt with your questions, even to the point of saying that such > determinism is not incompatible with theism, and you have not disputed > this. That was all I set out to do. > > >I wasn't speaking metaphorically. The same as you are presented with > >the physical, you will be presented with Heaven or Hell. > > I don't have any worries about that. > I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will. If there were a means by which quantum events could influence the behaviour of the mechanism, as Penrose suggested for example with alpha and beta microtubules, the difference being the presence of an electron, then either the events wouldn't appear random, or the will would have to be hidden within the general random distribution. Though it could not be looked at in the sense that the choices were actually made by each quantum event, or again it wouldn't matter what you consciously experienced (as the choice makers wouldn't have the conscious experience), and that you had the conscious experiences you did would have to be coincidental to your behaviour. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: <...> >I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your >position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a >mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will. This depends on your definition of free will. If it is being "not coerced" where being coerced is something you would know is happening, then you can have free will in a deterministic world, whenever you don't believe or feel you are being coerced. > If >there were a means by which quantum events could influence the >behaviour of the mechanism, as Penrose suggested for example with >alpha and beta microtubules, the difference being the presence of an >electron, then either the events wouldn't appear random, or the will >would have to be hidden within the general random distribution. Though >it could not be looked at in the sense that the choices were actually >made by each quantum event, or again it wouldn't matter what you >consciously experienced (as the choice makers wouldn't have the >conscious experience), and that you had the conscious experiences you >did would have to be coincidental to your behaviour. I don't buy the idea that randomness can somehow be the basis of free will. One problem I see with free will is sort of on the flip side. How can we perform an act of free will that we are responsible for? If it is free of all "outside" influence, then it's just us being ourselves. But that's just us, being however we were made. And we didn't make ourselves, under the usual theistic scheme. 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.