Guest jientho@aol.com Posted July 10, 2007 Posted July 10, 2007 On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would > >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the > >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they > >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). > > >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me > > >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, > > >> Because that was not relevant to my question. > > >> >but I think I > >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make > >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- > >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) > >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; > > >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep > >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither > >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural > >> expiation will somehow work. > > >> >that is the > >> >Materialistic premise. > > >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced > >> materialism. > > >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence > >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. > > >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations > >> asserting naturalistic causes. > > >> >The > >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of > >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. > > >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an > >> explanation. > > >> >So under the > >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed > >> >behavior. > > >> And here you are wrong. > > >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at > >windmills, sir. > > No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) behavior. P2) To completely explain is to account for all influences. L1) All influences on observable behavior are accounted for by a present-laws-of-physics explanation. (From P1 and P2.) P3) If all influences are accounted for, there are no additional influences (else the behavior would be other than as observed). (This premise could be further broken down if you really need it.) P4) No present law of physics uses conscious experiences in an explanatory way for any phenomenon. C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. You have evidently tried to Strawman P4 with your "explanandum" response/interpretation, since you now seem to assert (below) that you do not agree with P4. > >> >there is no influence > >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. > > >> The assertion is that conscious experience is > >> a physical process and so influences other physical processes. > > >You just got done saying that that conscious experience is an > >explanandum-only under the argument, so you have just contradicted > >yourself by asserting there's an influence. > > I never said only Then you are simply Strawmanning, since the original argument says "only". Sheesh. Jeff Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted July 10, 2007 Posted July 10, 2007 On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jientho@aol.com in <1184086495.252400.43190@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me >> >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, >> >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. >> >> >> >but I think I >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; >> >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural >> >> expiation will somehow work. >> >> >> >that is the >> >> >Materialistic premise. >> >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced >> >> materialism. >> >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. >> >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. >> >> >> >The >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. >> >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an >> >> explanation. >> >> >> >So under the >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed >> >> >behavior. >> >> >> And here you are wrong. >> >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at >> >windmills, sir. >> >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. > >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. > >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all >(observable) behavior. Whose premise is this? It is not mine and it sure seems like a strawman version of physicalism. By "present-laws-of-physics" something like "current/future naturalistic laws"? If not, why the claim about present and why do you narrow this to physics? >P2) To completely explain is to account for all influences. Depending on what "explain" means, perhaps. And I am not sure about the notion of "complete" explanations. In science we would talk about sufficient explanations. >L1) All influences on observable behavior are accounted for by a >present-laws-of-physics explanation. (From P1 and P2.) And suffers from the problem of P1 above. >P3) If all influences are accounted for, there are no additional >influences (else the behavior would be other than as observed). (This >premise could be further broken down if you really need it.) If we can sufficiently explain X, then the other influences, if they exist, are not of sufficient concern. >P4) No present law of physics uses conscious experiences in an >explanatory way for any phenomenon. No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for any phenomenon either. Yet science does not deny reproduction. Your insistence on looking only at physics and your insistence that things are either explanation or explanandum, but not both, has misled you. >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. > >You have evidently tried to Strawman P4 with your "explanandum" >response/interpretation, since you now seem to assert (below) that you >do not agree with P4. I have objected to your P4 for some time. And I don't see how I can "strawman" something here since this argument is your attempt to describe the argument of others. I do see them as strawmen, but I did not make the strawmen. >> >> >there is no influence >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. >> >> >> The assertion is that conscious experience is >> >> a physical process and so influences other physical processes. >> >> >You just got done saying that that conscious experience is an >> >explanandum-only under the argument, so you have just contradicted >> >yourself by asserting there's an influence. >> >> I never said only > >Then you are simply Strawmanning, since the original argument says >"only". Sheesh. The original argument was wrong because it said only. I am not strawmanning, I am pointing out the straw nature of Glenn's argument. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 10, 2007 Posted July 10, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 10 Jul, 16:32, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >"someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >news:1184058166.768448.96470@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> On 10 Jul, 01:43, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >>> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> said: >> >>> >I never claimed a single node is conscious. Just as I would not claim a >> >>> >single neuron in the brain is conscious (even though it is a little more >> >>> >complicated than an OR gate). Just as I would not claim a molecule or >> >>> >an >> >>> >atom or an electron or... as conscious. >> >>> >Would you call an electron or proton a human being .. even though human >> >>> >beings have countless such particles within them? >> >>> >All you are possibly demonstrating is that an individual node is not >> >>> >conscious. That does not mean the neural network is not conscious. >> >>> >See my alternative F above >> >>> >Try again >> >>> THis started IIRC, with "what if" a complex network's outputs were >> >>> replaceable by a single node. Now the single node is an OR gate? >> >> >> Where do you get this stuff from. There was never any mention of a >> >> complex network's outputs being replaceable by a single node. It was >> >> that each individual node within the network, would give the same >> >> outputs as a single node in a lab, given the same inputs. >> >> Thanks you for clearing up my misunderstanding. >> >> Suppose that in addition to monitoring the overall inputs and outputs >> of a complex, artificial network, we can monitor the inputs and >> outputs of each element (node) of that network, and come to fully >> understand, and predict, the overall outputs, based on knowing the >> overall inputs. (IOW, we could simulate that network.) Would doing >> this change our criteria, and/or our decision, as to whether the >> network was demonstrating conscious behavior? If so, why? >> >> By comparison, suppose that in addition to monitoring the overall >> inputs and outputs or a human being, we can monitor the inputs and >> outputs of each neuron of that human being and come to fully >> understand, and predict, the overall outputs, based on knowing the >> overall inputs. (IOW, we could simulate that human being.) Would >> doing this change our criteria, and/or our decision, as to whether the >> human being was demonstrating conscious behavior? If so, Why? >> >> Or is one of these two supposed situations, scientifically impossible >> even in principle , not just by current-day physics (digital >> electronics)? I think that is the crux of it. >> > >In the example that was what was happening. The inputs and outputs of >each individual node were being monitored. I'll write out the example >again for you (well cut and paste). With regards to the human, the >whole point is that it is implausible that we simply are a biological >mechanism following the known laws of physics, or any law of physics >which didn't take into account the conscious experiences themselves, >and something willing to talking about them. The end of that sentence is hard to understand grammatically. WHile I've written made my share of ungrammatical statements, you are right if you think I do not comprehend it. But I will give it my best shot. I hope you will comprehend it. >First though, you need to >actually comprehend what I am saying, may I suggest you read it >carefully, as so far you seem to have been quick on giving your >opinions, but hadn't actually read/understood the example scenario. You are right. "...and something willing to talking about them" does not make sense to me. Moving on, I disagree with that it is a premise of all forms of materialism, that conscious experiences themselves are not to be taken into account. According to standard materialism, conscious experiences are to be taken into account, but materialistically. You are right, if you limit your argument to "eliminative materialism" or something like it, which does not recognize conscious experience as real. "Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist. " http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/ I would argue that mental states exist as events, and a series of related mental states is a thought process. It is what some brains do. some of the time. > >Supposing there was an artificial neural network, with a billion more >nodes than you had neurons in your brain, and a very 'complicated' >configuration, which drove a robot. The robot, due to its behaviour >(being a Turing Equivalent), caused some atheists to claim it was >consciously experiencing. I do not see why a Turing equivalent machine would be considered by anyone, atheist or no, as consciously experiencing. But this doesn't matter. I will assume that "due to its behavior" it is adequate for these people o claim it is conscious. (I also don't see why the people are specified to be atheists, but that's unimportant.) >Now supposing each message between each node >contained additional information such as source node, destination node >(which could be the same as the source node, for feedback loops), the >time the message was sent, and the message. Each node wrote out to a >log on receipt of a message, and on sending a message out. Now after >an hour of the atheist communicating with the robot, the logs could be >examined by a bank of computers, varifying, that for the input >messages each received, the outputs were those expected by a single >node in a lab given the same inputs. They could also varify that no >unexplained messages appeared. Let's simplify that a bit and say the "atheist" is a whiz bang programmer and is given a printed copy of the program the robot is using, and is given the initial inputs and the results of every intermediate computation, comparison, conditional, etc. it performs. Actually, he could do all these calculations himself. For example, the program could look for a question mark in the message from the "atheist" and if present, branch to a question analysis, response generating module. That module contains information that can look at the question for such things as, is it grammatical? Is it hostile? Is it merely rhetorical? Based on current information will returning the correct answer cause the "atheist' to shut off the robot and bash it to bits, and does the robot have a rule against doing anything that would lead to this? These are not easy modules to write, but in principle, the materialist will say, they can be written, because he will say WE use them all the time. > >What would you be saying with regards to it consciously experiencing: > >A) The atheists, mentioned in the example, were wrong to consider it >to be consciously experiencing. >B) Were correct to say that was consciously experiencing, but that it >doesn't influence behaviour. >C) It might have been consciously experiencing, how could you tell, it >doesn't influence behaviour. >D) It was consciously experiencing and that influenced its behaviour. >If you select D, as all the nodes are giving the same outputs as they >would have singly in the lab given the same inputs, could you also >select between D1, and D2: >D1) The outputs given by a single node in the lab were also influenced >by conscious experiences. >D2) The outputs given by a single node in the lab were not influenced >by conscious experiences, but the influence of the conscious >experiences within the robot, is such that the outputs are the same as >without the influence of the conscious experiences. > You didn't stipulate at the beginning that the "atheist" claimed that the robot was consciously influencing. You stipulated only that the "atheist" claimed that it was consciously experiencing. But let's assume that, before examining the code and the data, the "atheist" claimed that the robot was consciously influencing. I see nothing in the above that should change the "atheist" belief and claim. If anything, his materialism will be reinforced, to see that the behavior he regards as conscious, is performable by a robot.. So the "atheist" will continue to adhere to his "behavioral" criterion for conscious experience and influence (I see no reason why he wouldn't) and if the robot continues to behave in the way that had originally convinced the "atheist" that it was conscious, then I think he'd prefer a form of D1. However, the "atheist" might only claim that it is the final node -- the final output node, that is influenced by the robot's fully conscious experience and behavior, and each node up to then, is incrementally, contributing to that conscious experience and behavior. So, is that a definite answer? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 10, 2007 Posted July 10, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 10 Jul, 14:16, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1184058166.768448.96470@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 10 Jul, 01:43, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> said: >> >> >I never claimed a single node is conscious. Just as I would not claim a >> >> >single neuron in the brain is conscious (even though it is a little more >> >> >complicated than an OR gate). Just as I would not claim a molecule or >> >> >an >> >> >atom or an electron or... as conscious. >> >> >Would you call an electron or proton a human being .. even though human >> >> >beings have countless such particles within them? >> >> >All you are possibly demonstrating is that an individual node is not >> >> >conscious. That does not mean the neural network is not conscious. >> >> >See my alternative F above >> >> >Try again >> >> THis started IIRC, with "what if" a complex network's outputs were >> >> replaceable by a single node. Now the single node is an OR gate? >> >> > Where do you get this stuff from. There was never any mention of a >> > complex network's outputs being replaceable by a single node. It was >> > that each individual node within the network, would give the same >> > outputs as a single node in a lab, given the same inputs. >> >> Unless it was faulty. >> >> That says nothing, however, about whether the neural network is conscious .. >> only that the nodes that comprise it are functioning. >> >> BTW: It is not _necessarily_ the case that a neuron (or the machine >> equivalent) would always give the same response for a given set of inputs. >> But the result it does give would be able to be explained and one would >> determine whether or not it was working correctly. >> > >Well you know its behaviour, how would you ever know whether it was >conscious or not from your perspective? > >It is a hypothetical example, and there is no mention of it being >faulty. Really the lengths you atheists go to to avoid facing simple >truths. Hey, I said "IIRC" if you know what that means, and thanked you for the correction. Jekyll is actually agreeing with you, "unless it was faulty". Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On 10 Jul, 22:53, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 10 Jul, 16:32, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> said: > > >> >"someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >> >news:1184058166.768448.96470@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >> >> On 10 Jul, 01:43, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >>> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> said: > >> >>> >I never claimed a single node is conscious. Just as I would not claim a > >> >>> >single neuron in the brain is conscious (even though it is a little more > >> >>> >complicated than an OR gate). Just as I would not claim a molecule or > >> >>> >an > >> >>> >atom or an electron or... as conscious. > >> >>> >Would you call an electron or proton a human being .. even though human > >> >>> >beings have countless such particles within them? > >> >>> >All you are possibly demonstrating is that an individual node is not > >> >>> >conscious. That does not mean the neural network is not conscious. > >> >>> >See my alternative F above > >> >>> >Try again > >> >>> THis started IIRC, with "what if" a complex network's outputs were > >> >>> replaceable by a single node. Now the single node is an OR gate? > > >> >> Where do you get this stuff from. There was never any mention of a > >> >> complex network's outputs being replaceable by a single node. It was > >> >> that each individual node within the network, would give the same > >> >> outputs as a single node in a lab, given the same inputs. > > >> Thanks you for clearing up my misunderstanding. > > >> Suppose that in addition to monitoring the overall inputs and outputs > >> of a complex, artificial network, we can monitor the inputs and > >> outputs of each element (node) of that network, and come to fully > >> understand, and predict, the overall outputs, based on knowing the > >> overall inputs. (IOW, we could simulate that network.) Would doing > >> this change our criteria, and/or our decision, as to whether the > >> network was demonstrating conscious behavior? If so, why? > > >> By comparison, suppose that in addition to monitoring the overall > >> inputs and outputs or a human being, we can monitor the inputs and > >> outputs of each neuron of that human being and come to fully > >> understand, and predict, the overall outputs, based on knowing the > >> overall inputs. (IOW, we could simulate that human being.) Would > >> doing this change our criteria, and/or our decision, as to whether the > >> human being was demonstrating conscious behavior? If so, Why? > > >> Or is one of these two supposed situations, scientifically impossible > >> even in principle , not just by current-day physics (digital > >> electronics)? I think that is the crux of it. > > >In the example that was what was happening. The inputs and outputs of > >each individual node were being monitored. I'll write out the example > >again for you (well cut and paste). With regards to the human, the > >whole point is that it is implausible that we simply are a biological > >mechanism following the known laws of physics, or any law of physics > >which didn't take into account the conscious experiences themselves, > >and something willing to talking about them. > > The end of that sentence is hard to understand grammatically. WHile > I've written made my share of ungrammatical statements, you are right > if you think I do not comprehend it. > > But I will give it my best shot. I hope you will comprehend it. > > >First though, you need to > >actually comprehend what I am saying, may I suggest you read it > >carefully, as so far you seem to have been quick on giving your > >opinions, but hadn't actually read/understood the example scenario. > > You are right. "...and something willing to talking about them" does > not make sense to me. > > Moving on, I disagree with that it is a premise of all forms of > materialism, that conscious experiences themselves are not to be taken > into account. According to standard materialism, conscious experiences > are to be taken into account, but materialistically. > > You are right, if you limit your argument to "eliminative materialism" > or something like it, which does not recognize conscious experience as > real. > > "Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that > our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong > and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do > not actually exist. " > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/ > > I would argue that mental states exist as events, and a series of > related mental states is a thought process. It is what some brains do. > some of the time. > > > > >Supposing there was an artificial neural network, with a billion more > >nodes than you had neurons in your brain, and a very 'complicated' > >configuration, which drove a robot. The robot, due to its behaviour > >(being a Turing Equivalent), caused some atheists to claim it was > >consciously experiencing. > > I do not see why a Turing equivalent machine would be considered by > anyone, atheist or no, as consciously experiencing. But this doesn't > matter. I will assume that "due to its behavior" it is adequate for > these people o claim it is conscious. (I also don't see why the people > are specified to be atheists, but that's unimportant.) > > >Now supposing each message between each node > >contained additional information such as source node, destination node > >(which could be the same as the source node, for feedback loops), the > >time the message was sent, and the message. Each node wrote out to a > >log on receipt of a message, and on sending a message out. Now after > >an hour of the atheist communicating with the robot, the logs could be > >examined by a bank of computers, varifying, that for the input > >messages each received, the outputs were those expected by a single > >node in a lab given the same inputs. They could also varify that no > >unexplained messages appeared. > > Let's simplify that a bit and say the "atheist" is a whiz bang > programmer and is given a printed copy of the program the robot is > using, and is given the initial inputs and the results of every > intermediate computation, comparison, conditional, etc. it performs. > Actually, he could do all these calculations himself. For example, > the program could look for a question mark in the message from the > "atheist" and if present, branch to a question analysis, response > generating module. That module contains information that can look at > the question for such things as, is it grammatical? Is it hostile? Is > it merely rhetorical? Based on current information will returning the > correct answer cause the "atheist' to shut off the robot and bash it > to bits, and does the robot have a rule against doing anything that > would lead to this? These are not easy modules to write, but in > principle, the materialist will say, they can be written, because he > will say WE use them all the time. > > > > > > >What would you be saying with regards to it consciously experiencing: > > >A) The atheists, mentioned in the example, were wrong to consider it > >to be consciously experiencing. > >B) Were correct to say that was consciously experiencing, but that it > >doesn't influence behaviour. > >C) It might have been consciously experiencing, how could you tell, it > >doesn't influence behaviour. > >D) It was consciously experiencing and that influenced its behaviour. > >If you select D, as all the nodes are giving the same outputs as they > >would have singly in the lab given the same inputs, could you also > >select between D1, and D2: > >D1) The outputs given by a single node in the lab were also influenced > >by conscious experiences. > >D2) The outputs given by a single node in the lab were not influenced > >by conscious experiences, but the influence of the conscious > >experiences within the robot, is such that the outputs are the same as > >without the influence of the conscious experiences. > > You didn't stipulate at the beginning that the "atheist" claimed that > the robot was consciously influencing. You stipulated only that the > "atheist" claimed that it was consciously experiencing. > > But let's assume that, before examining the code and the data, the > "atheist" claimed that the robot was consciously influencing. I see > nothing in the above that should change the "atheist" belief and > claim. If anything, his materialism will be reinforced, to see that > the behavior he regards as conscious, is performable by a robot.. > > So the "atheist" will continue to adhere to his "behavioral" criterion > for conscious experience and influence (I see no reason why he > wouldn't) and if the robot continues to behave in the way that had > originally convinced the "atheist" that it was conscious, then I think > he'd prefer a form of D1. However, the "atheist" might only claim that > it is the final node -- the final output node, that is influenced by > the robot's fully conscious experience and behavior, and each node up > to then, is incrementally, contributing to that conscious experience > and behavior. > > So, is that a definite answer? > You said: --------- You didn't stipulate at the beginning that the "atheist" claimed that the robot was consciously influencing. You stipulated only that the "atheist" claimed that it was consciously experiencing. --------- I know. I didn't claim the atheists in the scenario claimed it was being consciously influenced. Nor is that claim made in anyway in the options given. I'm glad you understood. It is a question of what you are saying. The question is about whether the robot is consciously experiencing, and whether if you considered it to be, that it consciously experiencing influenced the behaviour. Are you suggesting that the final node, giving the outputs it would in the lab given the same inputs is being influenced by the robot having conscious experiences? Quote
Guest jientho@aol.com Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > in <1184086495.252400.43...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would > >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the > >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they > >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). > > >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me > > >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, > > >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. > > >> >> >but I think I > >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make > >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- > >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) > >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; > > >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep > >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither > >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural > >> >> expiation will somehow work. > > >> >> >that is the > >> >> >Materialistic premise. > > >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced > >> >> materialism. > > >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence > >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. > > >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations > >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. > > >> >> >The > >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of > >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. > > >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an > >> >> explanation. > > >> >> >So under the > >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed > >> >> >behavior. > > >> >> And here you are wrong. > > >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at > >> >windmills, sir. > > >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. > > >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. > > >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all > >(observable) behavior. > > Whose premise is this? It's someone2's. "Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics..." I'm sorry, but your asking this shows that you simply never understood the argument from the very beginning. <snip> > No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for > any phenomenon either. Thus reproduction does not influence any behavior (under the other premises). > >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. <snip> I note that you also seem to have forgotten (if you ever understood) that the above is only the "pre-reductio" part of someone2's argument. The whole point of the argument _was_ the rejection of P1 via reductio ad absurdum. (Whether P1 represents "mainline" materialism or physicalism or whatever is completely beside the point. There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) Jeff Quote
Guest Richo Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On Jul 10, 8:57 am, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: <snip> > I forget the name of this error at the moment, Fallacy of composition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition All arguments I have seen (so far) against consciousness having a non supernatural origin involve : Argument from ignorance Argument from personal incredulity Fallacy of composition. "No atom can receive and decode television programs therefore Televisions cannot be made solely of atoms" Cheers, Mark. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:04:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , jientho@aol.com in <1184119474.349100.186320@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> in <1184086495.252400.43...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would >> >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they >> >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me >> >> >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, >> >> >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. >> >> >> >> >but I think I >> >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make >> >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- >> >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) >> >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; >> >> >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep >> >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither >> >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural >> >> >> expiation will somehow work. >> >> >> >> >that is the >> >> >> >Materialistic premise. >> >> >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced >> >> >> materialism. >> >> >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence >> >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. >> >> >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations >> >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. >> >> >> >> >The >> >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of >> >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. >> >> >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an >> >> >> explanation. >> >> >> >> >So under the >> >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed >> >> >> >behavior. >> >> >> >> And here you are wrong. >> >> >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at >> >> >windmills, sir. >> >> >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. >> >> >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. >> >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all >> >(observable) behavior. >> >> Whose premise is this? > >It's someone2's. > >"Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics..." > >I'm sorry, but your asking this shows that you simply never understood >the argument from the very beginning. I was under the impression that he put that forth as the supposed materialist argument. If that is what he actually asserts then I agree that I don't understand what is going on. I thought that Glenn was trying to refute materialism by showing that materialism can't explain conscious experience. ><snip> > >> No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for >> any phenomenon either. > >Thus reproduction does not influence any behavior (under the other >premises). Which is clearly silly. So the argument is useless. >> >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. > ><snip> > >I note that you also seem to have forgotten (if you ever understood) >that the above is only the "pre-reductio" part of someone2's >argument. No, I do understand that, that was sort of my point above. I asked whose premise it was because I saw it as part of the reductio and I reject the premise. So the reductio is useless is it reduces a strawman. >The whole point of the argument _was_ the rejection of P1 >via reductio ad absurdum. (Whether P1 represents "mainline" >materialism or physicalism or whatever is completely beside the >point. No, it is kind of an important point. Since it does not represent mainline material or physicalism Glenn's argument does not refute mainline materialism or physicalism. Since P1 does not represent the views of anyone here it does not refute our views. So all that Glenn has done is refute some strawman. >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) Who are some of those "plenty"? -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:18:21 -0000, in alt.atheism , Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com> in <1184120301.351544.305180@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On Jul 10, 8:57 am, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: ><snip> > >> I forget the name of this error at the moment, > >Fallacy of composition. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition > >All arguments I have seen (so far) against consciousness having a non >supernatural origin involve : >Argument from ignorance >Argument from personal incredulity >Fallacy of composition. > >"No atom can receive and decode television programs therefore >Televisions cannot be made solely of atoms" Thanks. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On 11 Jul, 03:18, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:04:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > > > > > in <1184119474.349100.186...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> in <1184086495.252400.43...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would > >> >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the > >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they > >> >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). > > >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me > > >> >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, > > >> >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. > > >> >> >> >but I think I > >> >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make > >> >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- > >> >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) > >> >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; > > >> >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep > >> >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither > >> >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural > >> >> >> expiation will somehow work. > > >> >> >> >that is the > >> >> >> >Materialistic premise. > > >> >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced > >> >> >> materialism. > > >> >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence > >> >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. > > >> >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations > >> >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. > > >> >> >> >The > >> >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of > >> >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. > > >> >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an > >> >> >> explanation. > > >> >> >> >So under the > >> >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed > >> >> >> >behavior. > > >> >> >> And here you are wrong. > > >> >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at > >> >> >windmills, sir. > > >> >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. > > >> >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. > > >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all > >> >(observable) behavior. > > >> Whose premise is this? > > >It's someone2's. > > >"Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics..." > > >I'm sorry, but your asking this shows that you simply never understood > >the argument from the very beginning. > > I was under the impression that he put that forth as the supposed > materialist argument. If that is what he actually asserts then I agree > that I don't understand what is going on. I thought that Glenn was > trying to refute materialism by showing that materialism can't explain > conscious experience. > > ><snip> > > >> No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for > >> any phenomenon either. > > >Thus reproduction does not influence any behavior (under the other > >premises). > > Which is clearly silly. So the argument is useless. > > >> >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. > > ><snip> > > >I note that you also seem to have forgotten (if you ever understood) > >that the above is only the "pre-reductio" part of someone2's > >argument. > > No, I do understand that, that was sort of my point above. I asked > whose premise it was because I saw it as part of the reductio and I > reject the premise. So the reductio is useless is it reduces a > strawman. > > >The whole point of the argument _was_ the rejection of P1 > >via reductio ad absurdum. (Whether P1 represents "mainline" > >materialism or physicalism or whatever is completely beside the > >point. > > No, it is kind of an important point. Since it does not represent > mainline material or physicalism Glenn's argument does not refute > mainline materialism or physicalism. Since P1 does not represent the > views of anyone here it does not refute our views. So all that Glenn > has done is refute some strawman. > > >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty > >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to > >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) > > Who are some of those "plenty"? > Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics. Once that has been ruled out as implausible, we could move onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 11 Jul, 03:18, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:04:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> >> >> in <1184119474.349100.186...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> in <1184086495.252400.43...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would >> >> >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the >> >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they >> >> >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me >> >> >> >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, >> >> >> >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. >> >> >> >> >> >but I think I >> >> >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make >> >> >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- >> >> >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) >> >> >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; >> >> >> >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep >> >> >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither >> >> >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural >> >> >> >> expiation will somehow work. >> >> >> >> >> >that is the >> >> >> >> >Materialistic premise. >> >> >> >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced >> >> >> >> materialism. >> >> >> >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence >> >> >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. >> >> >> >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations >> >> >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. >> >> >> >> >> >The >> >> >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. >> >> >> >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an >> >> >> >> explanation. >> >> >> >> >> >So under the >> >> >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed >> >> >> >> >behavior. >> >> >> >> >> And here you are wrong. >> >> >> >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at >> >> >> >windmills, sir. >> >> >> >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. >> >> >> >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. >> >> >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all >> >> >(observable) behavior. >> >> >> Whose premise is this? >> >> >It's someone2's. >> >> >"Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics..." >> >> >I'm sorry, but your asking this shows that you simply never understood >> >the argument from the very beginning. >> >> I was under the impression that he put that forth as the supposed >> materialist argument. If that is what he actually asserts then I agree >> that I don't understand what is going on. I thought that Glenn was >> trying to refute materialism by showing that materialism can't explain >> conscious experience. >> >> ><snip> >> >> >> No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for >> >> any phenomenon either. >> >> >Thus reproduction does not influence any behavior (under the other >> >premises). >> >> Which is clearly silly. So the argument is useless. >> >> >> >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. >> >> ><snip> >> >> >I note that you also seem to have forgotten (if you ever understood) >> >that the above is only the "pre-reductio" part of someone2's >> >argument. >> >> No, I do understand that, that was sort of my point above. I asked >> whose premise it was because I saw it as part of the reductio and I >> reject the premise. So the reductio is useless is it reduces a >> strawman. >> >> >The whole point of the argument _was_ the rejection of P1 >> >via reductio ad absurdum. (Whether P1 represents "mainline" >> >materialism or physicalism or whatever is completely beside the >> >point. >> >> No, it is kind of an important point. Since it does not represent >> mainline material or physicalism Glenn's argument does not refute >> mainline materialism or physicalism. Since P1 does not represent the >> views of anyone here it does not refute our views. So all that Glenn >> has done is refute some strawman. >> >> >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty >> >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to >> >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) >> >> Who are some of those "plenty"? >> > >Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being >explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of >physics. Once that has been ruled out as implausible, we could move >onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. Should it be limited to the (as-of-2007 so-called) known laws of physics, and if so, why? There might be a reason, but let's have it. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On 11 Jul, 05:33, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 11 Jul, 03:18, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:04:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> in <1184119474.349100.186...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> in <1184086495.252400.43...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein > >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would > >> >> >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the > >> >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they > >> >> >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). > > >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me > > >> >> >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, > > >> >> >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. > > >> >> >> >> >but I think I > >> >> >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make > >> >> >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- > >> >> >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) > >> >> >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; > > >> >> >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep > >> >> >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither > >> >> >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural > >> >> >> >> expiation will somehow work. > > >> >> >> >> >that is the > >> >> >> >> >Materialistic premise. > > >> >> >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced > >> >> >> >> materialism. > > >> >> >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence > >> >> >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. > > >> >> >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations > >> >> >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. > > >> >> >> >> >The > >> >> >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of > >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. > > >> >> >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an > >> >> >> >> explanation. > > >> >> >> >> >So under the > >> >> >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed > >> >> >> >> >behavior. > > >> >> >> >> And here you are wrong. > > >> >> >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at > >> >> >> >windmills, sir. > > >> >> >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. > > >> >> >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. > > >> >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all > >> >> >(observable) behavior. > > >> >> Whose premise is this? > > >> >It's someone2's. > > >> >"Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics..." > > >> >I'm sorry, but your asking this shows that you simply never understood > >> >the argument from the very beginning. > > >> I was under the impression that he put that forth as the supposed > >> materialist argument. If that is what he actually asserts then I agree > >> that I don't understand what is going on. I thought that Glenn was > >> trying to refute materialism by showing that materialism can't explain > >> conscious experience. > > >> ><snip> > > >> >> No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for > >> >> any phenomenon either. > > >> >Thus reproduction does not influence any behavior (under the other > >> >premises). > > >> Which is clearly silly. So the argument is useless. > > >> >> >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. > > >> ><snip> > > >> >I note that you also seem to have forgotten (if you ever understood) > >> >that the above is only the "pre-reductio" part of someone2's > >> >argument. > > >> No, I do understand that, that was sort of my point above. I asked > >> whose premise it was because I saw it as part of the reductio and I > >> reject the premise. So the reductio is useless is it reduces a > >> strawman. > > >> >The whole point of the argument _was_ the rejection of P1 > >> >via reductio ad absurdum. (Whether P1 represents "mainline" > >> >materialism or physicalism or whatever is completely beside the > >> >point. > > >> No, it is kind of an important point. Since it does not represent > >> mainline material or physicalism Glenn's argument does not refute > >> mainline materialism or physicalism. Since P1 does not represent the > >> views of anyone here it does not refute our views. So all that Glenn > >> has done is refute some strawman. > > >> >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty > >> >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to > >> >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) > > >> Who are some of those "plenty"? > > >Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being > >explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of > >physics. Once that has been ruled out as implausible, we could move > >onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. > > Should it be limited to the (as-of-2007 so-called) known laws of > physics, and if so, why? There might be a reason, but let's have it. > As I said, that's just a starting point. Though it would be useful to help us be clear about what is actually being said. Once its shown to be implausible, then it can clearly be seen that the physicalists would have to be assuming that the human we experience being isn't following the known laws of physics, and to start looking at the type of 'laws' that would be required for their position to not be implausible, and how similar it would have to be to us being a spiritual being consciously influencing the human we experience being. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184085145.108388.26990@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Jul, 16:32, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> Suppose that in addition to monitoring the overall inputs and outputs >> of a complex, artificial network, we can monitor the inputs and >> outputs of each element (node) of that network, and come to fully >> understand, and predict, the overall outputs, based on knowing the >> overall inputs. (IOW, we could simulate that network.) Would doing >> this change our criteria, and/or our decision, as to whether the >> network was demonstrating conscious behavior? If so, why? >> >> By comparison, suppose that in addition to monitoring the overall >> inputs and outputs or a human being, we can monitor the inputs and >> outputs of each neuron of that human being and come to fully >> understand, and predict, the overall outputs, based on knowing the >> overall inputs. (IOW, we could simulate that human being.) Would >> doing this change our criteria, and/or our decision, as to whether the >> human being was demonstrating conscious behavior? If so, Why? >> >> Or is one of these two supposed situations, scientifically impossible >> even in principle , not just by current-day physics (digital >> electronics)? I think that is the crux of it. >> > > In the example that was what was happening. The inputs and outputs of > each individual node were being monitored. And you comepletely ignore the second part of his post .. we could do the same thing with a human being. > I'll write out the example > again for you (well cut and paste). With regards to the human, the > whole point is that it is implausible that we simply are a biological > mechanism following the known laws of physics, or any law of physics > which didn't take into account the conscious experiences themselves, > and something willing to talking about them. You're assuming that it is implausible .. you have not yet demonstrated that. > First though, you need to > actually comprehend what I am saying, We do .. it is wrong > may I suggest you read it carefully, We have .. it is wrong > as so far you seem to have been quick on giving your > opinions, but hadn't actually read/understood the example scenario. We have .. it is wrong > Supposing there was an artificial neural network, with a billion more > nodes than you had neurons in your brain, and a very 'complicated' > configuration, which drove a robot. The robot, due to its behaviour > (being a Turing Equivalent), caused some atheists to claim it was > consciously experiencing. Now supposing each message between each node > contained additional information such as source node, destination node > (which could be the same as the source node, for feedback loops), the > time the message was sent, and the message. Each node wrote out to a > log on receipt of a message, and on sending a message out. Now after > an hour of the atheist communicating with the robot, the logs could be > examined by a bank of computers, varifying, that for the input > messages each received, the outputs were those expected by a single > node in a lab given the same inputs. They could also varify that no > unexplained messages appeared. > > What would you be saying with regards to it consciously experiencing: > > A) The atheists, mentioned in the example, were wrong to consider it > to be consciously experiencing. > B) Were correct to say that was consciously experiencing, but that it > doesn't influence behaviour. > C) It might have been consciously experiencing, how could you tell, it > doesn't influence behaviour. > D) It was consciously experiencing and that influenced its behaviour. > If you select D, as all the nodes are giving the same outputs as they > would have singly in the lab given the same inputs, could you also > select between D1, and D2: > D1) The outputs given by a single node in the lab were also influenced > by conscious experiences. > D2) The outputs given by a single node in the lab were not influenced > by conscious experiences, but the influence of the conscious > experiences within the robot, is such that the outputs are the same as > without the influence of the conscious experiences. I've addressed all of these, and you've not been able to counter the points I raised. Copy and pasting the same example OVER and OVER does not make it any more valid. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184084813.404073.243390@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Jul, 14:17, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1184059089.529048.217100@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 10 Jul, 03:57, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1184018743.898170.104030@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 9 Jul, 16:46, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> When you write 'where conscious experiences do not influence >> >> >> behaviour', I take it you mean 'where the hypothetical conscious >> >> >> experiences of the neural network do not influence the behaviour of >> >> >> the neural network', because conscious experiences in a neural >> >> >> network >> >> >> and its behaviour is what your earlier questions were about. So >> >> >> your >> >> >> next sentence must mean something along the lines of 'taking the >> >> >> analogy of human behaviour, if a human brain was not influenced by >> >> >> its >> >> >> conscious experiences, but the human brain indicated (by talking) >> >> >> that >> >> >> it was influenced by conscious experiences, what it was saying >> >> >> would >> >> >> be irrelevant'. If that's what you mean, I agree with you. The >> >> >> human >> >> >> could just be in a trance, automatically reciting a sentence about >> >> >> consciousness that was triggered by some external input, without >> >> >> consciously experiencing anything. So where do you go from >> >> >> there?> >> >> >> > Well, it is implausible that we aren't influenced by our conscious >> >> > experiences >> >> >> Yes >> >> >> > therefore we cannot be simply a mechanism like the robot >> >> > in the example, where there is no conscious influence >> >> >> Obviously. >> >> >> But we are the same as a robot where ther IS conscious influence >> >> >> > the outputs >> >> > (which determine the behaviour) are the same as they are for a >> >> > single >> >> > node in the lab which is uninfluenced by conscious experiences. >> >> >> Just like the outputs for a single neuron are the same in a lab which >> >> is >> >> uninfluenced by conscious experiences. >> >> >> It would be like looking at a single or-gate in a computer and >> >> claiming >> >> that >> >> 3d graphics games are not possible because the or-gate does not show >> >> any >> >> signs of being one. >> >> > It would be like looking at a single or-gate in a computer running a >> > 3d graphics game and just pointing out that its outputs aren't >> > influenced by any conscious experiences of the 3d graphics game the >> > computer might or might not be having. This can be shown by all the >> > component parts behaving as they would be expected to without any >> > conscious influence. >> >> You're talking nonsense now .. 3d graphic games are not conscious. >> >> > [This is not an argument that because an individual component wasn't >> > consciously experiencing that combined there couldn't because of some >> > 'special' configuration a conscious experience emerge.] >> >> Could you state that again in grammatically correct English .. the above >> is >> just word salad. >> > > How would you know computers running 3d graphic games aren't conscious > from your perspective? Irrelevant > Anyway, it was just to correct your poor analogy. It was a perfectly good analogy, and you've not corrected anything. If you look at a single or-gate that works, you cannot say "that is part of a 3d-graphics game" or "that is not part of a 3d-graphics game" .. all you can do is see what outputs are produced from what inputs. The same in your case. If you have a single node from a neural network, you cannot say "that is part of a conscious network" or "that is not part of a conscious network" .. all you can do is see what outputs are produced from what inputs. Your logic is flawed. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184124611.997740.64000@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On 11 Jul, 03:18, Matt Silberstein > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:04:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> >> >> in <1184119474.349100.186...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> in <1184086495.252400.43...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the >> >> >> >> >> >same would >> >> >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence >> >> >> >> >> >the >> >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] >> >> >> >> >> >actually existed (they >> >> >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me >> >> >> >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, >> >> >> >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. >> >> >> >> >> >but I think I >> >> >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you >> >> >> >> >make >> >> >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a >> >> >> >> >present- >> >> >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all >> >> >> >> >(observable) >> >> >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; >> >> >> >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you >> >> >> >> keep >> >> >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But >> >> >> >> neither >> >> >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some >> >> >> >> non-natural >> >> >> >> expiation will somehow work. >> >> >> >> >> >that is the >> >> >> >> >Materialistic premise. >> >> >> >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much >> >> >> >> replaced >> >> >> >> materialism. >> >> >> >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence >> >> >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. >> >> >> >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations >> >> >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. >> >> >> >> >> >The >> >> >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever >> >> >> >> >of >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. >> >> >> >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, >> >> >> >> not an >> >> >> >> explanation. >> >> >> >> >> >So under the >> >> >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence >> >> >> >> >observed >> >> >> >> >behavior. >> >> >> >> >> And here you are wrong. >> >> >> >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at >> >> >> >windmills, sir. >> >> >> >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. >> >> >> >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. >> >> >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all >> >> >(observable) behavior. >> >> >> Whose premise is this? >> >> >It's someone2's. >> >> >"Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics..." >> >> >I'm sorry, but your asking this shows that you simply never understood >> >the argument from the very beginning. >> >> I was under the impression that he put that forth as the supposed >> materialist argument. If that is what he actually asserts then I agree >> that I don't understand what is going on. I thought that Glenn was >> trying to refute materialism by showing that materialism can't explain >> conscious experience. >> >> ><snip> >> >> >> No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for >> >> any phenomenon either. >> >> >Thus reproduction does not influence any behavior (under the other >> >premises). >> >> Which is clearly silly. So the argument is useless. >> >> >> >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. >> >> ><snip> >> >> >I note that you also seem to have forgotten (if you ever understood) >> >that the above is only the "pre-reductio" part of someone2's >> >argument. >> >> No, I do understand that, that was sort of my point above. I asked >> whose premise it was because I saw it as part of the reductio and I >> reject the premise. So the reductio is useless is it reduces a >> strawman. >> >> >The whole point of the argument _was_ the rejection of P1 >> >via reductio ad absurdum. (Whether P1 represents "mainline" >> >materialism or physicalism or whatever is completely beside the >> >point. >> >> No, it is kind of an important point. Since it does not represent >> mainline material or physicalism Glenn's argument does not refute >> mainline materialism or physicalism. Since P1 does not represent the >> views of anyone here it does not refute our views. So all that Glenn >> has done is refute some strawman. >> >> >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty >> >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to >> >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) >> >> Who are some of those "plenty"? >> > > Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being > explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of > physics. No .. that has not been shown > Once that has been ruled out as implausible, But it hasn't > we could move onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. You've still to post your argument in a single post for review .. maybe after we see than and debunk it, we can all move on. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184129148.852122.139830@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 11 Jul, 05:33, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being >> >explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of >> >physics. Once that has been ruled out as implausible, we could move >> >onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. >> >> Should it be limited to the (as-of-2007 so-called) known laws of >> physics, and if so, why? There might be a reason, but let's have it. >> > > As I said, that's just a starting point. Though it would be useful to > help us be clear about what is actually being said. Once its shown to > be implausible, You've yet to do that [snip things that will have to wait until you do] Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On 11 Jul, 06:59, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1184084813.404073.243390@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 10 Jul, 14:17, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1184059089.529048.217100@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 10 Jul, 03:57, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1184018743.898170.104030@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 9 Jul, 16:46, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > >> >> >> When you write 'where conscious experiences do not influence > >> >> >> behaviour', I take it you mean 'where the hypothetical conscious > >> >> >> experiences of the neural network do not influence the behaviour of > >> >> >> the neural network', because conscious experiences in a neural > >> >> >> network > >> >> >> and its behaviour is what your earlier questions were about. So > >> >> >> your > >> >> >> next sentence must mean something along the lines of 'taking the > >> >> >> analogy of human behaviour, if a human brain was not influenced by > >> >> >> its > >> >> >> conscious experiences, but the human brain indicated (by talking) > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> it was influenced by conscious experiences, what it was saying > >> >> >> would > >> >> >> be irrelevant'. If that's what you mean, I agree with you. The > >> >> >> human > >> >> >> could just be in a trance, automatically reciting a sentence about > >> >> >> consciousness that was triggered by some external input, without > >> >> >> consciously experiencing anything. So where do you go from > >> >> >> there?> > > >> >> > Well, it is implausible that we aren't influenced by our conscious > >> >> > experiences > > >> >> Yes > > >> >> > therefore we cannot be simply a mechanism like the robot > >> >> > in the example, where there is no conscious influence > > >> >> Obviously. > > >> >> But we are the same as a robot where ther IS conscious influence > > >> >> > the outputs > >> >> > (which determine the behaviour) are the same as they are for a > >> >> > single > >> >> > node in the lab which is uninfluenced by conscious experiences. > > >> >> Just like the outputs for a single neuron are the same in a lab which > >> >> is > >> >> uninfluenced by conscious experiences. > > >> >> It would be like looking at a single or-gate in a computer and > >> >> claiming > >> >> that > >> >> 3d graphics games are not possible because the or-gate does not show > >> >> any > >> >> signs of being one. > > >> > It would be like looking at a single or-gate in a computer running a > >> > 3d graphics game and just pointing out that its outputs aren't > >> > influenced by any conscious experiences of the 3d graphics game the > >> > computer might or might not be having. This can be shown by all the > >> > component parts behaving as they would be expected to without any > >> > conscious influence. > > >> You're talking nonsense now .. 3d graphic games are not conscious. > > >> > [This is not an argument that because an individual component wasn't > >> > consciously experiencing that combined there couldn't because of some > >> > 'special' configuration a conscious experience emerge.] > > >> Could you state that again in grammatically correct English .. the above > >> is > >> just word salad. > > > How would you know computers running 3d graphic games aren't conscious > > from your perspective? > > Irrelevant > > > Anyway, it was just to correct your poor analogy. > > It was a perfectly good analogy, and you've not corrected anything. > > If you look at a single or-gate that works, you cannot say "that is part of > a 3d-graphics game" or "that is not part of a 3d-graphics game" .. all you > can do is see what outputs are produced from what inputs. > > The same in your case. > > If you have a single node from a neural network, you cannot say "that is > part of a conscious network" or "that is not part of a conscious network" .. > all you can do is see what outputs are produced from what inputs. > > Your logic is flawed. > Your analogy was poor because it had nothing to do with conscious experiences. As I said: ------------------ It would be like looking at a single or-gate in a computer running a 3d graphics game and just pointing out that its outputs aren't influenced by any conscious experiences of the 3d graphics game the computer might or might not be having. This can be shown by all the component parts behaving as they would be expected to without any conscious influence. ------------------- To which you claimed that this was nonsense as a computer doesn't have conscious experiences, to which I replied, how could you tell from your perspective, which you dismissed as irrelevent. It is not irrelevent, it is to the point, from your perspective, whether something was consciously experiencing or not, you would not expect it detectable through any influence of those conscious experiences. This is a simple truth that you seem not to be able to face, or disingeniously are trying to cover up. The question is about where would be the influence of the network having conscious experiences (as some atheists suggest it does in the scenario), if all the nodes are behaving as they would be expected to uninfluenced by conscious experiences. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:30:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1184124611.997740.64000@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 11 Jul, 03:18, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:04:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> >> >> in <1184119474.349100.186...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> in <1184086495.252400.43...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would >> >> >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the >> >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they >> >> >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me >> >> >> >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, >> >> >> >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. >> >> >> >> >> >but I think I >> >> >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make >> >> >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- >> >> >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) >> >> >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; >> >> >> >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep >> >> >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither >> >> >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural >> >> >> >> expiation will somehow work. >> >> >> >> >> >that is the >> >> >> >> >Materialistic premise. >> >> >> >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced >> >> >> >> materialism. >> >> >> >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence >> >> >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. >> >> >> >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations >> >> >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. >> >> >> >> >> >The >> >> >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. >> >> >> >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an >> >> >> >> explanation. >> >> >> >> >> >So under the >> >> >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed >> >> >> >> >behavior. >> >> >> >> >> And here you are wrong. >> >> >> >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at >> >> >> >windmills, sir. >> >> >> >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. >> >> >> >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. >> >> >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all >> >> >(observable) behavior. >> >> >> Whose premise is this? >> >> >It's someone2's. >> >> >"Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics..." >> >> >I'm sorry, but your asking this shows that you simply never understood >> >the argument from the very beginning. >> >> I was under the impression that he put that forth as the supposed >> materialist argument. If that is what he actually asserts then I agree >> that I don't understand what is going on. I thought that Glenn was >> trying to refute materialism by showing that materialism can't explain >> conscious experience. >> >> ><snip> >> >> >> No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for >> >> any phenomenon either. >> >> >Thus reproduction does not influence any behavior (under the other >> >premises). >> >> Which is clearly silly. So the argument is useless. >> >> >> >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. >> >> ><snip> >> >> >I note that you also seem to have forgotten (if you ever understood) >> >that the above is only the "pre-reductio" part of someone2's >> >argument. >> >> No, I do understand that, that was sort of my point above. I asked >> whose premise it was because I saw it as part of the reductio and I >> reject the premise. So the reductio is useless is it reduces a >> strawman. >> >> >The whole point of the argument _was_ the rejection of P1 >> >via reductio ad absurdum. (Whether P1 represents "mainline" >> >materialism or physicalism or whatever is completely beside the >> >point. >> >> No, it is kind of an important point. Since it does not represent >> mainline material or physicalism Glenn's argument does not refute >> mainline materialism or physicalism. Since P1 does not represent the >> views of anyone here it does not refute our views. So all that Glenn >> has done is refute some strawman. >> >> >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty >> >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to >> >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) >> >> Who are some of those "plenty"? >> > >Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being >explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of >physics. Once that has been ruled out as implausible, we could move >onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. So you are going to attack some strawman and when that is stomped to death you will consider going after something substantial. Ok, consider the straw demolished. Now to substance: why the insistence of a current explanation? Why the instance of physics alone? -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:45:48 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1184129148.852122.139830@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: [snip] >As I said, that's just a starting point. Though it would be useful to >help us be clear about what is actually being said. Once its shown to >be implausible, then it can clearly be seen that the physicalists >would have to be assuming that the human we experience being isn't >following the known laws of physics, But your argument does not do that. Again, a quark level of understanding of biology does not include reproduction, yet we can explain reproduction with laws of chemistry and biology. Your argument also insists on seeing subjective experience as explanandum alone rather than seeing it as both explanandum and explanation. Instead of attacking the straw you might consider looking at actual proposed arguments and seeing if you can find a flaw in them. >and to start looking at the type >of 'laws' that would be required for their position to not be >implausible, Science has been doing this for ages. Look up chemistry, biology, anatomy, systems, etc. >and how similar it would have to be to us being a >spiritual being consciously influencing the human we experience being. Nope. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 11 Jul, 05:33, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all >> >> >> >(observable) behavior. >> >> >> >> Whose premise is this? >> >> >> >It's someone2's. <...> >> >> >> >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty >> >> >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to >> >> >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) >> >> >> Who are some of those "plenty"? >> >> >Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being >> >explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of >> >physics. Once that has been ruled out as implausible, we could move >> >onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. >> >> Should it be limited to the (as-of-2007 so-called) known laws of >> physics, and if so, why? There might be a reason, but let's have it. >> > >As I said, that's just a starting point. Though it would be useful to >help us be clear about what is actually being said. Yes, what's been said, so far, is that theoretical physicists are not working directly on the role of conscious experience in decision making, and have not developed any theories on it. That's a big "duh". So, go ahead, please move on to the general case. >Once its shown to >be implausible, then it can clearly be seen that the physicalists >would have to be assuming that the human we experience being isn't >following the known laws of physics, and to start looking at the type >of 'laws' that would be required for their position to not be >implausible, <...> And proudly so. It is the very essence of science to look for "laws" (as you wisely put it in quotes) that yield plausible, naturalistic explanations of what we observe. Implausibility can be viewed as an opportunity -- an "area for further investigation" as my graduate advisor said should be discussed in every thesis. ><...> and how similar it would have to be to us being a >spiritual being consciously influencing the human we experience being. If physics finds it useful to introduce something analogous to, say, dark matter, to explain conscious experience. it will not shy away from so doing. Then, just as the Church embraced Big Bang theory because it is consistent with the creation myth, you and your colleagues may be able to call that similar to and a vindication of "spiritual being" as a substance. But you if you hitch your wagon to that star, you will have to recognize that the star may fall -- because physics, and science in general, is provisional and subject to change. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On 11 Jul, 14:30, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:30:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > > <1184124611.997740.64...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On 11 Jul, 03:18, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:04:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> in <1184119474.349100.186...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> in <1184086495.252400.43...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein > >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would > >> >> >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the > >> >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they > >> >> >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). > > >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me > > >> >> >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, > > >> >> >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. > > >> >> >> >> >but I think I > >> >> >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make > >> >> >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- > >> >> >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) > >> >> >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; > > >> >> >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep > >> >> >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither > >> >> >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural > >> >> >> >> expiation will somehow work. > > >> >> >> >> >that is the > >> >> >> >> >Materialistic premise. > > >> >> >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced > >> >> >> >> materialism. > > >> >> >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence > >> >> >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. > > >> >> >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations > >> >> >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. > > >> >> >> >> >The > >> >> >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of > >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. > > >> >> >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an > >> >> >> >> explanation. > > >> >> >> >> >So under the > >> >> >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed > >> >> >> >> >behavior. > > >> >> >> >> And here you are wrong. > > >> >> >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at > >> >> >> >windmills, sir. > > >> >> >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. > > >> >> >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. > > >> >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all > >> >> >(observable) behavior. > > >> >> Whose premise is this? > > >> >It's someone2's. > > >> >"Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics..." > > >> >I'm sorry, but your asking this shows that you simply never understood > >> >the argument from the very beginning. > > >> I was under the impression that he put that forth as the supposed > >> materialist argument. If that is what he actually asserts then I agree > >> that I don't understand what is going on. I thought that Glenn was > >> trying to refute materialism by showing that materialism can't explain > >> conscious experience. > > >> ><snip> > > >> >> No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for > >> >> any phenomenon either. > > >> >Thus reproduction does not influence any behavior (under the other > >> >premises). > > >> Which is clearly silly. So the argument is useless. > > >> >> >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. > > >> ><snip> > > >> >I note that you also seem to have forgotten (if you ever understood) > >> >that the above is only the "pre-reductio" part of someone2's > >> >argument. > > >> No, I do understand that, that was sort of my point above. I asked > >> whose premise it was because I saw it as part of the reductio and I > >> reject the premise. So the reductio is useless is it reduces a > >> strawman. > > >> >The whole point of the argument _was_ the rejection of P1 > >> >via reductio ad absurdum. (Whether P1 represents "mainline" > >> >materialism or physicalism or whatever is completely beside the > >> >point. > > >> No, it is kind of an important point. Since it does not represent > >> mainline material or physicalism Glenn's argument does not refute > >> mainline materialism or physicalism. Since P1 does not represent the > >> views of anyone here it does not refute our views. So all that Glenn > >> has done is refute some strawman. > > >> >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty > >> >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to > >> >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) > > >> Who are some of those "plenty"? > > >Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being > >explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of > >physics. Once that has been ruled out as implausible, we could move > >onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. > > So you are going to attack some strawman and when that is stomped to > death you will consider going after something substantial. > > Ok, consider the straw demolished. Now to substance: why the > insistence of a current explanation? Why the instance of physics > alone? > So you admit that it is implausible that we are explainable as simply biological organisms following the known laws of physics? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On 11 Jul, 16:24, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > > > >On 11 Jul, 05:33, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >> >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all > >> >> >> >(observable) behavior. > > >> >> >> Whose premise is this? > > >> >> >It's someone2's. > <...> > > >> >> >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty > >> >> >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to > >> >> >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) > > >> >> Who are some of those "plenty"? > > >> >Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being > >> >explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of > >> >physics. Once that has been ruled out as implausible, we could move > >> >onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. > > >> Should it be limited to the (as-of-2007 so-called) known laws of > >> physics, and if so, why? There might be a reason, but let's have it. > > >As I said, that's just a starting point. Though it would be useful to > >help us be clear about what is actually being said. > > Yes, what's been said, so far, is that theoretical physicists are not > working directly on the role of conscious experience in decision > making, and have not developed any theories on it. That's a big "duh". > So, go ahead, please move on to the general case. > > >Once its shown to > >be implausible, then it can clearly be seen that the physicalists > >would have to be assuming that the human we experience being isn't > >following the known laws of physics, and to start looking at the type > >of 'laws' that would be required for their position to not be > >implausible, <...> > > And proudly so. It is the very essence of science to look for "laws" > (as you wisely put it in quotes) that yield plausible, naturalistic > explanations of what we observe. Implausibility can be viewed as an > opportunity -- an "area for further investigation" as my graduate > advisor said should be discussed in every thesis. > > ><...> and how similar it would have to be to us being a > >spiritual being consciously influencing the human we experience being. > > If physics finds it useful to introduce something analogous to, say, > dark matter, to explain conscious experience. it will not shy away > from so doing. Then, just as the Church embraced Big Bang theory > because it is consistent with the creation myth, you and your > colleagues may be able to call that similar to and a vindication of > "spiritual being" as a substance. > > But you if you hitch your wagon to that star, you will have to > recognize that the star may fall -- because physics, and science in > general, is provisional and subject to change. > It was the Roman Catholic Priest, Georges Lema Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:20:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1184174459.983437.198610@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 11 Jul, 14:30, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:30:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1184124611.997740.64...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On 11 Jul, 03:18, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:04:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> in <1184119474.349100.186...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> in <1184086495.252400.43...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com >> >> >> >> >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein >> >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would >> >> >> >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the >> >> >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they >> >> >> >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me >> >> >> >> >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, >> >> >> >> >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. >> >> >> >> >> >> >but I think I >> >> >> >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make >> >> >> >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- >> >> >> >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) >> >> >> >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; >> >> >> >> >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep >> >> >> >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither >> >> >> >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural >> >> >> >> >> expiation will somehow work. >> >> >> >> >> >> >that is the >> >> >> >> >> >Materialistic premise. >> >> >> >> >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced >> >> >> >> >> materialism. >> >> >> >> >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence >> >> >> >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. >> >> >> >> >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations >> >> >> >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >The >> >> >> >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of >> >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. >> >> >> >> >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an >> >> >> >> >> explanation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >So under the >> >> >> >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed >> >> >> >> >> >behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> And here you are wrong. >> >> >> >> >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at >> >> >> >> >windmills, sir. >> >> >> >> >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. >> >> >> >> >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. >> >> >> >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all >> >> >> >(observable) behavior. >> >> >> >> Whose premise is this? >> >> >> >It's someone2's. >> >> >> >"Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics..." >> >> >> >I'm sorry, but your asking this shows that you simply never understood >> >> >the argument from the very beginning. >> >> >> I was under the impression that he put that forth as the supposed >> >> materialist argument. If that is what he actually asserts then I agree >> >> that I don't understand what is going on. I thought that Glenn was >> >> trying to refute materialism by showing that materialism can't explain >> >> conscious experience. >> >> >> ><snip> >> >> >> >> No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for >> >> >> any phenomenon either. >> >> >> >Thus reproduction does not influence any behavior (under the other >> >> >premises). >> >> >> Which is clearly silly. So the argument is useless. >> >> >> >> >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. >> >> >> ><snip> >> >> >> >I note that you also seem to have forgotten (if you ever understood) >> >> >that the above is only the "pre-reductio" part of someone2's >> >> >argument. >> >> >> No, I do understand that, that was sort of my point above. I asked >> >> whose premise it was because I saw it as part of the reductio and I >> >> reject the premise. So the reductio is useless is it reduces a >> >> strawman. >> >> >> >The whole point of the argument _was_ the rejection of P1 >> >> >via reductio ad absurdum. (Whether P1 represents "mainline" >> >> >materialism or physicalism or whatever is completely beside the >> >> >point. >> >> >> No, it is kind of an important point. Since it does not represent >> >> mainline material or physicalism Glenn's argument does not refute >> >> mainline materialism or physicalism. Since P1 does not represent the >> >> views of anyone here it does not refute our views. So all that Glenn >> >> has done is refute some strawman. >> >> >> >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty >> >> >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to >> >> >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) >> >> >> Who are some of those "plenty"? >> >> >Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being >> >explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of >> >physics. Once that has been ruled out as implausible, we could move >> >onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. >> >> So you are going to attack some strawman and when that is stomped to >> death you will consider going after something substantial. >> >> Ok, consider the straw demolished. Now to substance: why the >> insistence of a current explanation? Why the instance of physics >> alone? >> > >So you admit that it is implausible that we are explainable as simply >biological organisms following the known laws of physics? To the same extent that I can't "explain" reproduction using the laws of physics, I need to use chemistry and biology as well. Glenn, you keep ignoring the objections and you keep repeating yourself. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Elroy Willis Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in alt.atheism > What about considering that we are a spiritual being experiencing > being human, and which influences the human we experience being? When does the spirit first enter the human body, and where does it reside while inside it? -- Elroy Willis http://www.elroysemporium.com Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On 11 Jul, 18:49, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:20:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > > <1184174459.983437.198...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On 11 Jul, 14:30, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:30:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> <1184124611.997740.64...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >On 11 Jul, 03:18, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:04:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> in <1184119474.349100.186...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:54:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> >> in <1184086495.252400.43...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> >> >> in <1184074825.201767.205...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , jien...@aol.com > > >> >> >> >> >> in <1184011451.680502.65...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, Matt Silberstein > >> >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:40:25 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> >> >> >> >> <1183120825.782515.196...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >If we were like the robot, simply meat machines, then the same would > >> >> >> >> >> >> >hold for us. In which case it would have to be a coincidence the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences the 'meat machine' talked [about] actually existed (they > >> >> >> >> >> >> >couldn't have been influencing the behaviour). > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this still makes no sense to me > > >> >> >> >> >> >You snipped what "the same" referred (was agreed?) to, > > >> >> >> >> >> Because that was not relevant to my question. > > >> >> >> >> >> >but I think I > >> >> >> >> >> >can take a cut a further explanation in hopes it might help you make > >> >> >> >> >> >sense of it. The context of all of this, to remind, is that a present- > >> >> >> >> >> >laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all (observable) > >> >> >> >> >> >behavior, in particular the behavior of any given human; > > >> >> >> >> >> No one claims that we a current natural (I have no idea why you keep > >> >> >> >> >> referring to physics only) explanation for all behavior. But neither > >> >> >> >> >> is their particularly good reasons to think that some non-natural > >> >> >> >> >> expiation will somehow work. > > >> >> >> >> >> >that is the > >> >> >> >> >> >Materialistic premise. > > >> >> >> >> >> You might look up Physicalism, an idea that has pretty much replaced > >> >> >> >> >> materialism. > > >> >> >> >> >> >So (the argument goes) there is no influence > >> >> >> >> >> >upon the behavior by anything not within-the-laws-of-physics. > > >> >> >> >> >> That is, we can explain behavior with naturalistic explanations > >> >> >> >> >> asserting naturalistic causes. > > >> >> >> >> >> >The > >> >> >> >> >> >laws of physics as presently constituted make no use whatsoever of > >> >> >> >> >> >conscious experiences as explanatory phenomena. > > >> >> >> >> >> That is, science sees conscious experience as an explanandum, not an > >> >> >> >> >> explanation. > > >> >> >> >> >> >So under the > >> >> >> >> >> >Materialist premise, conscious experiences do not influence observed > >> >> >> >> >> >behavior. > > >> >> >> >> >> And here you are wrong. > > >> >> >> >> >It follows directly from the premises, so you are tilting at > >> >> >> >> >windmills, sir. > > >> >> >> >> No, it does not follow from the premises as I explained below. > > >> >> >> >Then you are Strawmanning the argument as I presented it above. > > >> >> >> >P1) A present-laws-of-physics explanation completely explains all > >> >> >> >(observable) behavior. > > >> >> >> Whose premise is this? > > >> >> >It's someone2's. > > >> >> >"Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics..." > > >> >> >I'm sorry, but your asking this shows that you simply never understood > >> >> >the argument from the very beginning. > > >> >> I was under the impression that he put that forth as the supposed > >> >> materialist argument. If that is what he actually asserts then I agree > >> >> that I don't understand what is going on. I thought that Glenn was > >> >> trying to refute materialism by showing that materialism can't explain > >> >> conscious experience. > > >> >> ><snip> > > >> >> >> No present law of physics uses reproduction as an explanatory way for > >> >> >> any phenomenon either. > > >> >> >Thus reproduction does not influence any behavior (under the other > >> >> >premises). > > >> >> Which is clearly silly. So the argument is useless. > > >> >> >> >C) Conscious experiences do not influence any observed behavior. > > >> >> ><snip> > > >> >> >I note that you also seem to have forgotten (if you ever understood) > >> >> >that the above is only the "pre-reductio" part of someone2's > >> >> >argument. > > >> >> No, I do understand that, that was sort of my point above. I asked > >> >> whose premise it was because I saw it as part of the reductio and I > >> >> reject the premise. So the reductio is useless is it reduces a > >> >> strawman. > > >> >> >The whole point of the argument _was_ the rejection of P1 > >> >> >via reductio ad absurdum. (Whether P1 represents "mainline" > >> >> >materialism or physicalism or whatever is completely beside the > >> >> >point. > > >> >> No, it is kind of an important point. Since it does not represent > >> >> mainline material or physicalism Glenn's argument does not refute > >> >> mainline materialism or physicalism. Since P1 does not represent the > >> >> views of anyone here it does not refute our views. So all that Glenn > >> >> has done is refute some strawman. > > >> >> >There are plenty of people who accept P1 as true and plenty > >> >> >more who think P1 is probable; the argument is a solid attempt to > >> >> >dissuade _them_. If the shoe (doesn't) fit(s)...) > > >> >> Who are some of those "plenty"? > > >> >Well it can be used to show the implausibility of humans being > >> >explainable as biological mechanisms following the known laws of > >> >physics. Once that has been ruled out as implausible, we could move > >> >onto what the 'mainline' physicalists are suggesting. > > >> So you are going to attack some strawman and when that is stomped to > >> death you will consider going after something substantial. > > >> Ok, consider the straw demolished. Now to substance: why the > >> insistence of a current explanation? Why the instance of physics > >> alone? > > >So you admit that it is implausible that we are explainable as simply > >biological organisms following the known laws of physics? > > To the same extent that I can't "explain" reproduction using the laws > of physics, I need to use chemistry and biology as well. Glenn, you > keep ignoring the objections and you keep repeating yourself. > The the biology of reproduction, as in the fertalisation of the egg, can be reduced to chemistry, and the chemistry of reproduction can be reduced to physics, so it seems. There may be gaps in what we know, but the point is that it is implausible that we can be reduced to biology, and chemistry and physics, for the reasons that I have pointed out. 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.