Guest someone2 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On 11 Jul, 18:53, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@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? > You are looking at it upside down. You are a spiritual being, presented with the physical world, based at least in part, on what the neural state represents. As to when we first experience being a human, I don't know. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:07:21 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1184177241.098513.76250@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: [snip] >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. But many of us have pointed out serious flaws in your reasons. Chemistry may well reduce to physics, but that does not mean that our understanding of biology can be reduced to physics. I have asked you many times if you mean "naturalism" when you write "present laws of physics", but you have ignored that question. I have pointed out that you insist that conscious experience is an explanandum rather than both explanandum and explanation, but you ignore that as well. All you have done is show that some strawman argument fails. You have not shown that anyone holds to the strawman, no less than that the strawman is the best available physicalist 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 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >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 someone2 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On 11 Jul, 19:51, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:07:21 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > <1184177241.098513.76...@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >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. > > But many of us have pointed out serious flaws in your reasons. > Chemistry may well reduce to physics, but that does not mean that our > understanding of biology can be reduced to physics. I have asked you > many times if you mean "naturalism" when you write "present laws of > physics", but you have ignored that question. I have pointed out that > you insist that conscious experience is an explanandum rather than > both explanandum and explanation, but you ignore that as well. All you > have done is show that some strawman argument fails. You have not > shown that anyone holds to the strawman, no less than that the > strawman is the best available physicalist argument. > So you are saying that biology doesn't reduce to chemistry? I think you'll find biology assumes that the biological mechanism is made up of chemicals, and that the chemical reactions are explainable by chemistry, and chemistry by physics. Are you asking me to show that there are people that believes that? Have you ever done any natural sciences? What I am pointing out, is that any mechanism biological or otherwise that simply follows the known laws of physics couldn't be influenced by whether it consciously experiences or not. Since it is implausible that the behaviour of the humans we experience being is uninfluenced by us having conscious experiences, it is implausible that we are simply biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 11 Jul, 18:53, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@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? >> > >You are looking at it upside down. You are a spiritual being, >presented with the physical world, based at least in part, on what the >neural state represents. As to when we first experience being a human, >I don't know. This makes me revisit the idea that you are espousing subjective idealism. Possibly you are espousing mind-body dualism. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 On 11 Jul, 19:57, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >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 12:59:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1184183956.023911.247760@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: [snip] >If we were found not to be following the known laws of physics, and it >is implausible that we are (even though it might never be shown), You have yet to approach showing it is implausible. In fact, you seem to work really hard at avoiding all of the evidence that says we are simply physical beings. In particular you ignore all of the evidence of the ways that subjective experience is affected/determined by physical phenomena. >I >don't think that there would be a problem in science regarding us as >spiritual beings influencing the human we experience being. Unless you >are stating that through bias science will never have an understanding >of reality. From a scientific POV what does "spiritual being" mean? >Already we know that on quantum events there is either events with no >cause within the physical (quantum randomness, in orthodox quantum >mechanics), or "spooky interaction" at a distance where everything >physical effects everything physical regardless of distance (as >suggested in bohmian mechanics). It is already known that the "spooky >interaction at a distance", as I think Einstein called it, exists for >quantum entanglement. I understand this lead Bohm to suggest that the >physical isn't really seperated. Which has no actually connection to consciousness, not more than it does to cinder blocks or photosynthesis. >Though I can see that there could be a school of thought that could >explain brain not following the known laws of physics because of some >"special complicated configuration", What in the world does that mean? I don't know of anyone who suggests anything like this. >though they could always attempt >to show this on an artificial neural network as in the example, hoping >that they will stumble upon a complicated configuration where either >unexpected messages started appearing, Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that. >or the nodes didn't give the >same outputs in the network, as they would have in the lab, Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that either. >given the >same inputs. I guess atheists are betting their soul (not that they >believe they have one), that either this is the case, or that their >whole conscious experience was a coincidental deception, and that >nothing they experienced influenced the behaviour of the human they >experienced being. Again, none of the alternatives you propose are those I see in the literature. They are all straw. Consciousness is the product of biology. "Complicated" is a subjective determination, not a property of a thing in the world. Things are "complicated" if the perceiver has trouble understanding them. You have yet to justify this "coincidental" claim. Our consciousness relates to actions in the external world because it is connected, and affected by, that external world. -- 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, 19:57, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >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 12:46:05 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1184183165.044160.249950@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 11 Jul, 19:51, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:07:21 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> <1184177241.098513.76...@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >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. >> >> But many of us have pointed out serious flaws in your reasons. >> Chemistry may well reduce to physics, but that does not mean that our >> understanding of biology can be reduced to physics. I have asked you >> many times if you mean "naturalism" when you write "present laws of >> physics", but you have ignored that question. I have pointed out that >> you insist that conscious experience is an explanandum rather than >> both explanandum and explanation, but you ignore that as well. All you >> have done is show that some strawman argument fails. You have not >> shown that anyone holds to the strawman, no less than that the >> strawman is the best available physicalist argument. >> > >So you are saying that biology doesn't reduce to chemistry? There is stuff in the world which has a consistency of behavior. Physics, chemistry, and biology are human activities that explore aspects of that consistency. As such the science that is biology may not reduce to the science that is chemistry. That is, we may not be able to deduce the "laws" of biology from the "laws" of chemistry though, in both cases, the scientists are studying stuff in the world. >I think you'll find biology assumes You misspelled observes. >that the biological mechanism is >made up of chemicals, and that the chemical reactions are explainable >by chemistry, and chemistry by physics. Are you asking me to show that >there are people that believes that? Have you ever done any natural >sciences? One of the apparent laws of evolution is that on island we will tend to find similar organisms to the mainland but those organisms will be smaller, less likely to fly, and will have expanded to fill ecological roles they don't fill on the mainland. I don't see how we can generate that law from the laws of physics. The organisms/chemicals/atoms don't care, they just behave, well, naturally. >What I am pointing out, is that any mechanism biological or otherwise >that simply follows the known laws of physics couldn't be influenced >by whether it consciously experiences or not. And that makes an error of composition. The atoms are not conscious, the chemicals are not conscious. But consciousness seems to be a property of some of the organisms made up of chemicals (which are made up of atoms). It is entirely possible, common and expected even, for sets to have properties that the members don't have. For me to understand the behavior of a chimp, Washoe for example, I have to take the Washoe's subjective experience into account. I can understand how Washoe's blood clots without considering subjective experience, but if I want to understand how she got cut I probably need to consider the SE. SE is a property of the organism, not of the components. > Since it is implausible >that the behaviour of the humans we experience being is uninfluenced >by us having conscious experiences, it is implausible that we are >simply biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics. To understand my SE we really need to understand brain chemistry and brain activity and such. Serotonin is not conscious, but it sure affects subjective experience. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184183165.044160.249950@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > What I am pointing out, is that any mechanism biological or otherwise > that simply follows the known laws of physics couldn't be influenced > by whether it consciously experiences or not. You are not "pointing out" that .. you are assuming it and have provided no argument to show that it is true. > Since it is implausible You've not shown that .. so the rest of your statement can be ignored [snip] Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 "Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message news:mpq9939mvcit3h46749bc7l29kujo3uqsp@4ax.com... > someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >>On 11 Jul, 05:33, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >>> 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. They aren't working on the color of my breadbox. Thatdoesn't mean it cannot be explained Theoretical physisics do not develop theories at levels of detail that don't directly concerne them . .Eg they say nothing about biology, even though biology is just chemstiry which is just physics, Your argument does not work > That's a big "duh". It is indeed for you > 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. You have not shown any implusibility .. you merely assum and assert it. >><...> 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. They have not done that, nor does there appearto be any need for that. you're in afanatsy world here (not surprising from a theist) > Then, just as the Church embraced Big Bang theory > because it is consistent with the creation myth, Really .. you think that the big bang theory is embraced but the church? > you and your > colleagues may be able to call that similar to and a vindication of > "spiritual being" as a substance. All on the wild assumption (yet again) that there is such a thing. Please ... keep this grounded in logica and rationality > 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 is subject to improvement .. that is why it is superior to religion Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184175124.806532.275910@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [snip] >Did you consider the bit you snipped about how the physicalists would >have to "start looking at the type of 'laws' that would be required >for their position to not be implausible"? You have still to show that their position IS implausible. You're jumping the gun here > How do you suggest they are going to explain the biological mechanism > not following the known laws of physics There is no such thing Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 On 11 Jul, 21:45, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:59:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > <1184183956.023911.247...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >If we were found not to be following the known laws of physics, and it > >is implausible that we are (even though it might never be shown), > > You have yet to approach showing it is implausible. In fact, you seem > to work really hard at avoiding all of the evidence that says we are > simply physical beings. In particular you ignore all of the evidence > of the ways that subjective experience is affected/determined by > physical phenomena. > > >I > >don't think that there would be a problem in science regarding us as > >spiritual beings influencing the human we experience being. Unless you > >are stating that through bias science will never have an understanding > >of reality. > > From a scientific POV what does "spiritual being" mean? > > >Already we know that on quantum events there is either events with no > >cause within the physical (quantum randomness, in orthodox quantum > >mechanics), or "spooky interaction" at a distance where everything > >physical effects everything physical regardless of distance (as > >suggested in bohmian mechanics). It is already known that the "spooky > >interaction at a distance", as I think Einstein called it, exists for > >quantum entanglement. I understand this lead Bohm to suggest that the > >physical isn't really seperated. > > Which has no actually connection to consciousness, not more than it > does to cinder blocks or photosynthesis. > > >Though I can see that there could be a school of thought that could > >explain brain not following the known laws of physics because of some > >"special complicated configuration", > > What in the world does that mean? I don't know of anyone who suggests > anything like this. > > >though they could always attempt > >to show this on an artificial neural network as in the example, hoping > >that they will stumble upon a complicated configuration where either > >unexpected messages started appearing, > > Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that. > > >or the nodes didn't give the > >same outputs in the network, as they would have in the lab, > > Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that either. > > >given the > >same inputs. I guess atheists are betting their soul (not that they > >believe they have one), that either this is the case, or that their > >whole conscious experience was a coincidental deception, and that > >nothing they experienced influenced the behaviour of the human they > >experienced being. > > Again, none of the alternatives you propose are those I see in the > literature. They are all straw. Consciousness is the product of > biology. "Complicated" is a subjective determination, not a property > of a thing in the world. Things are "complicated" if the perceiver has > trouble understanding them. You have yet to justify this > "coincidental" claim. Our consciousness relates to actions in the > external world because it is connected, and affected by, that external > world. > It was shown to be implausible with the simple scenario I gave, which showed that what we consciously experience couldn't influence a biological mechanism which simply followed the laws of physics. If you still can't comprehend why, I'll go through it with you. Perhaps it is best if you can see this clearly before we continue. As you ask about several other topics, and haven't yet understood some basic truths. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 On 11 Jul, 21:55, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 11 Jul, 19:57, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >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 someone2 Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 On 12 Jul, 01:46, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1184183165.044160.249950@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > What I am pointing out, is that any mechanism biological or otherwise > > that simply follows the known laws of physics couldn't be influenced > > by whether it consciously experiences or not. > > You are not "pointing out" that .. you are assuming it and have provided no > argument to show that it is true. > > > Since it is implausible > > You've not shown that .. so the rest of your statement can be ignored [snip] Yes I have. I don't assume it in the argument. I simply put forward a simple scenario, and show that the behaviour of the artificial neural network in the scenario is that as expected if it wasn't experienced, and influenced by what was experienced. So while schools of thought such as behaviourism would 'imbue' it with consciousness because of its behaviour, it isn't showing any signs of any influence of anything being experienced. It is implausible that we don't influence the human we experience being based upon what we (consciously) experience. So it is implausible that we are explainable like the robot in the scenario as simply a biological mechanism following the known laws of physics, and without the assumption that we are simply a biological mechanism following the known laws of physics, what reason would you have to consider anything simply following the known laws of physics to be consciously experiencing? Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:07:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1184206043.831834.51980@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 11 Jul, 21:45, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:59:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> <1184183956.023911.247...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >If we were found not to be following the known laws of physics, and it >> >is implausible that we are (even though it might never be shown), >> >> You have yet to approach showing it is implausible. In fact, you seem >> to work really hard at avoiding all of the evidence that says we are >> simply physical beings. In particular you ignore all of the evidence >> of the ways that subjective experience is affected/determined by >> physical phenomena. >> >> >I >> >don't think that there would be a problem in science regarding us as >> >spiritual beings influencing the human we experience being. Unless you >> >are stating that through bias science will never have an understanding >> >of reality. >> >> From a scientific POV what does "spiritual being" mean? >> >> >Already we know that on quantum events there is either events with no >> >cause within the physical (quantum randomness, in orthodox quantum >> >mechanics), or "spooky interaction" at a distance where everything >> >physical effects everything physical regardless of distance (as >> >suggested in bohmian mechanics). It is already known that the "spooky >> >interaction at a distance", as I think Einstein called it, exists for >> >quantum entanglement. I understand this lead Bohm to suggest that the >> >physical isn't really seperated. >> >> Which has no actually connection to consciousness, not more than it >> does to cinder blocks or photosynthesis. >> >> >Though I can see that there could be a school of thought that could >> >explain brain not following the known laws of physics because of some >> >"special complicated configuration", >> >> What in the world does that mean? I don't know of anyone who suggests >> anything like this. >> >> >though they could always attempt >> >to show this on an artificial neural network as in the example, hoping >> >that they will stumble upon a complicated configuration where either >> >unexpected messages started appearing, >> >> Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that. >> >> >or the nodes didn't give the >> >same outputs in the network, as they would have in the lab, >> >> Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that either. >> >> >given the >> >same inputs. I guess atheists are betting their soul (not that they >> >believe they have one), that either this is the case, or that their >> >whole conscious experience was a coincidental deception, and that >> >nothing they experienced influenced the behaviour of the human they >> >experienced being. >> >> Again, none of the alternatives you propose are those I see in the >> literature. They are all straw. Consciousness is the product of >> biology. "Complicated" is a subjective determination, not a property >> of a thing in the world. Things are "complicated" if the perceiver has >> trouble understanding them. You have yet to justify this >> "coincidental" claim. Our consciousness relates to actions in the >> external world because it is connected, and affected by, that external >> world. >> > >It was shown to be implausible with the simple scenario I gave, which >showed that what we consciously experience couldn't influence a >biological mechanism which simply followed the laws of physics. If you >still can't comprehend why, I'll go through it with you. No, it does not show that it is implausible. Roughly speaking you assert that robots can't be conscious, therefore human consciousness isn't physical. A problem with that is that we don't know that robots can't, some day, have subjective experience. People who actually work on this tend to think that they will someday. You add to this problem the fallacy of composition: just because a component of X does not have property Y does not mean that X does not have property Y. >Perhaps it is best if you can see this clearly before we continue. As >you ask about several other topics, and haven't yet understood some >basic truths. Sorry, but my disagreement does not constitute my lack of understanding. -- 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 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 11 Jul, 21:55, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: You said, >> > I guess atheists are betting their soul (not that they >> >believe they have one), that either this is the case, or that their >> >whole conscious experience was a coincidental deception, and that >> >nothing they experienced influenced the behaviour of the human they >> >experienced being. >> >> That's what you think? I think most atheists hold to "folk psychology" >> on this score, at least, their behavior seems to suggest this. After >> all, most of the time our mental processes concern things like what to >> have for dinner. >> > >Well the spiritual can be considered as reality by science, but it >isn't a product of the physical world we experience. That would be an >upside down way of looking at reality. If by 'natural world' you mean >the nature of reality, then yes it can be acknowledged by science, but >science is just simply the study of the rules we find in the physical >world we are presented with. If you were presented with Heaven, or >Hell for that matter, the rules (if any) of the presentation wouldn't >be the same. So science as such wouldn't exist. Wrong IMO. See below. >It only exists in >regards to the physical world we are being presented with. Actually, (I think) Heaven or Hell would be quite amenable to scientific examination, to formulate theories about how either of them operates -- depending on which one we are in, and how interested we are, and whether we have the leisure for such a pursuit. I guess we will have the time. Right? ;-) > >You seem to be suggesting that the majority of atheists haven't even >thought as far as I had suggested, I don't mean to suggest that, I mean only to suggest that most of our conscious decisions, theistic or not, are quite mundane, >...and yet led away from God's >existance. Is that because they trusted in the so called 'intelligent' >who were biased against the acknowledgement of God's existance, and >were applauded for their deceptive use of language to cover up simple >truths? Did they do so because they thought they were bound to be able >to hide behind the deceptions, because the 'intelligent' atheists >assured them they weren't wrong, and that by repeating like parrots >the polished deceptions that these people propagated that they too >would seem intelligent? No. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said: >"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message >news:mpq9939mvcit3h46749bc7l29kujo3uqsp@4ax.com... >> someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >>>On 11 Jul, 05:33, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >>>> 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. > >They aren't working on the color of my breadbox. Thatdoesn't mean it cannot >be explained True. > >Theoretical physisics do not develop theories at levels of detail that don't >directly concerne them . .Eg they say nothing about biology, even though >biology is just chemstiry which is just physics, > >Your argument does not work What argument do you think I am making here? > >> That's a big "duh". > >It is indeed for you > >> 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. > >You have not shown any implusibility .. you merely assum and assert it. > >>><...> 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. > >They have not done that, nor does there appearto be any need for that. >you're in afanatsy world here (not surprising from a theist) Me, a theist? > >> Then, just as the Church embraced Big Bang theory >> because it is consistent with the creation myth, > >Really .. you think that the big bang theory is embraced but the church? Yes, the Roman Catholics. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html But it is not ex cathedra dogma, I'll grant that. > >> you and your >> colleagues may be able to call that similar to and a vindication of >> "spiritual being" as a substance. > >All on the wild assumption (yet again) that there is such a thing. Please >.. keep this grounded in logica and rationality > >> 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 is subject to improvement .. that is why it is superior to religion > Most pizzas are, too. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >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? If it is consciously influencing outside the lab, I don't know what would change this, in the lab. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 On 12 Jul, 05:27, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:07:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > > <1184206043.831834.51...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On 11 Jul, 21:45, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:59:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> <1184183956.023911.247...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> [snip] > > >> >If we were found not to be following the known laws of physics, and it > >> >is implausible that we are (even though it might never be shown), > > >> You have yet to approach showing it is implausible. In fact, you seem > >> to work really hard at avoiding all of the evidence that says we are > >> simply physical beings. In particular you ignore all of the evidence > >> of the ways that subjective experience is affected/determined by > >> physical phenomena. > > >> >I > >> >don't think that there would be a problem in science regarding us as > >> >spiritual beings influencing the human we experience being. Unless you > >> >are stating that through bias science will never have an understanding > >> >of reality. > > >> From a scientific POV what does "spiritual being" mean? > > >> >Already we know that on quantum events there is either events with no > >> >cause within the physical (quantum randomness, in orthodox quantum > >> >mechanics), or "spooky interaction" at a distance where everything > >> >physical effects everything physical regardless of distance (as > >> >suggested in bohmian mechanics). It is already known that the "spooky > >> >interaction at a distance", as I think Einstein called it, exists for > >> >quantum entanglement. I understand this lead Bohm to suggest that the > >> >physical isn't really seperated. > > >> Which has no actually connection to consciousness, not more than it > >> does to cinder blocks or photosynthesis. > > >> >Though I can see that there could be a school of thought that could > >> >explain brain not following the known laws of physics because of some > >> >"special complicated configuration", > > >> What in the world does that mean? I don't know of anyone who suggests > >> anything like this. > > >> >though they could always attempt > >> >to show this on an artificial neural network as in the example, hoping > >> >that they will stumble upon a complicated configuration where either > >> >unexpected messages started appearing, > > >> Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that. > > >> >or the nodes didn't give the > >> >same outputs in the network, as they would have in the lab, > > >> Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that either. > > >> >given the > >> >same inputs. I guess atheists are betting their soul (not that they > >> >believe they have one), that either this is the case, or that their > >> >whole conscious experience was a coincidental deception, and that > >> >nothing they experienced influenced the behaviour of the human they > >> >experienced being. > > >> Again, none of the alternatives you propose are those I see in the > >> literature. They are all straw. Consciousness is the product of > >> biology. "Complicated" is a subjective determination, not a property > >> of a thing in the world. Things are "complicated" if the perceiver has > >> trouble understanding them. You have yet to justify this > >> "coincidental" claim. Our consciousness relates to actions in the > >> external world because it is connected, and affected by, that external > >> world. > > >It was shown to be implausible with the simple scenario I gave, which > >showed that what we consciously experience couldn't influence a > >biological mechanism which simply followed the laws of physics. If you > >still can't comprehend why, I'll go through it with you. > > No, it does not show that it is implausible. Roughly speaking you > assert that robots can't be conscious, therefore human consciousness > isn't physical. A problem with that is that we don't know that robots > can't, some day, have subjective experience. People who actually work > on this tend to think that they will someday. You add to this problem > the fallacy of composition: just because a component of X does not > have property Y does not mean that X does not have property Y. > > >Perhaps it is best if you can see this clearly before we continue. As > >you ask about several other topics, and haven't yet understood some > >basic truths. > > Sorry, but my disagreement does not constitute my lack of > understanding. > No disagreement doesn't. You have however totally misunderstood. I'm not saying that because a component of X does not have property Y that X does not have property Y. I'll write out the scenario again, and the options, maybe by selecting one, you will see what I am driving at, though jien has explained it to you, as well as myself yet you don't seem to be able to understand, maybe it is your preconceived notion of what is being said, is blinding you to what actually is being said. 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. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 On 12 Jul, 06:50, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >On 11 Jul, 21:55, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > You said, > > > > > > >> > I guess atheists are betting their soul (not that they > >> >believe they have one), that either this is the case, or that their > >> >whole conscious experience was a coincidental deception, and that > >> >nothing they experienced influenced the behaviour of the human they > >> >experienced being. > > >> That's what you think? I think most atheists hold to "folk psychology" > >> on this score, at least, their behavior seems to suggest this. After > >> all, most of the time our mental processes concern things like what to > >> have for dinner. > > >Well the spiritual can be considered as reality by science, but it > >isn't a product of the physical world we experience. That would be an > >upside down way of looking at reality. If by 'natural world' you mean > >the nature of reality, then yes it can be acknowledged by science, but > >science is just simply the study of the rules we find in the physical > >world we are presented with. If you were presented with Heaven, or > >Hell for that matter, the rules (if any) of the presentation wouldn't > >be the same. So science as such wouldn't exist. > > Wrong IMO. See below. > > >It only exists in > >regards to the physical world we are being presented with. > > Actually, (I think) Heaven or Hell would be quite amenable to > scientific examination, to formulate theories about how either of them > operates -- depending on which one we are in, and how interested we > are, and whether we have the leisure for such a pursuit. I guess we > will have the time. Right? ;-) > > > > >You seem to be suggesting that the majority of atheists haven't even > >thought as far as I had suggested, > > I don't mean to suggest that, I mean only to suggest that most of our > conscious decisions, theistic or not, are quite mundane, > > >...and yet led away from God's > >existance. Is that because they trusted in the so called 'intelligent' > >who were biased against the acknowledgement of God's existance, and > >were applauded for their deceptive use of language to cover up simple > >truths? Did they do so because they thought they were bound to be able > >to hide behind the deceptions, because the 'intelligent' atheists > >assured them they weren't wrong, and that by repeating like parrots > >the polished deceptions that these people propagated that they too > >would seem intelligent? > > No. > In the physical, Heaven, and Hell, you are being presented the conscious experiences by a spiritual source. Given that your brain is within the presentation, and so is not part of you, you are being optimistic about constructive thoughts coming to you when experiencing Hell. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 04:21:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1184239319.210411.129310@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 12 Jul, 05:27, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:07:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1184206043.831834.51...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On 11 Jul, 21:45, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:59:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> <1184183956.023911.247...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >If we were found not to be following the known laws of physics, and it >> >> >is implausible that we are (even though it might never be shown), >> >> >> You have yet to approach showing it is implausible. In fact, you seem >> >> to work really hard at avoiding all of the evidence that says we are >> >> simply physical beings. In particular you ignore all of the evidence >> >> of the ways that subjective experience is affected/determined by >> >> physical phenomena. >> >> >> >I >> >> >don't think that there would be a problem in science regarding us as >> >> >spiritual beings influencing the human we experience being. Unless you >> >> >are stating that through bias science will never have an understanding >> >> >of reality. >> >> >> From a scientific POV what does "spiritual being" mean? >> >> >> >Already we know that on quantum events there is either events with no >> >> >cause within the physical (quantum randomness, in orthodox quantum >> >> >mechanics), or "spooky interaction" at a distance where everything >> >> >physical effects everything physical regardless of distance (as >> >> >suggested in bohmian mechanics). It is already known that the "spooky >> >> >interaction at a distance", as I think Einstein called it, exists for >> >> >quantum entanglement. I understand this lead Bohm to suggest that the >> >> >physical isn't really seperated. >> >> >> Which has no actually connection to consciousness, not more than it >> >> does to cinder blocks or photosynthesis. >> >> >> >Though I can see that there could be a school of thought that could >> >> >explain brain not following the known laws of physics because of some >> >> >"special complicated configuration", >> >> >> What in the world does that mean? I don't know of anyone who suggests >> >> anything like this. >> >> >> >though they could always attempt >> >> >to show this on an artificial neural network as in the example, hoping >> >> >that they will stumble upon a complicated configuration where either >> >> >unexpected messages started appearing, >> >> >> Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that. >> >> >> >or the nodes didn't give the >> >> >same outputs in the network, as they would have in the lab, >> >> >> Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that either. >> >> >> >given the >> >> >same inputs. I guess atheists are betting their soul (not that they >> >> >believe they have one), that either this is the case, or that their >> >> >whole conscious experience was a coincidental deception, and that >> >> >nothing they experienced influenced the behaviour of the human they >> >> >experienced being. >> >> >> Again, none of the alternatives you propose are those I see in the >> >> literature. They are all straw. Consciousness is the product of >> >> biology. "Complicated" is a subjective determination, not a property >> >> of a thing in the world. Things are "complicated" if the perceiver has >> >> trouble understanding them. You have yet to justify this >> >> "coincidental" claim. Our consciousness relates to actions in the >> >> external world because it is connected, and affected by, that external >> >> world. >> >> >It was shown to be implausible with the simple scenario I gave, which >> >showed that what we consciously experience couldn't influence a >> >biological mechanism which simply followed the laws of physics. If you >> >still can't comprehend why, I'll go through it with you. >> >> No, it does not show that it is implausible. Roughly speaking you >> assert that robots can't be conscious, therefore human consciousness >> isn't physical. A problem with that is that we don't know that robots >> can't, some day, have subjective experience. People who actually work >> on this tend to think that they will someday. You add to this problem >> the fallacy of composition: just because a component of X does not >> have property Y does not mean that X does not have property Y. >> >> >Perhaps it is best if you can see this clearly before we continue. As >> >you ask about several other topics, and haven't yet understood some >> >basic truths. >> >> Sorry, but my disagreement does not constitute my lack of >> understanding. >> > >No disagreement doesn't. You have however totally misunderstood. I'm >not saying that because a component of X does not have property Y that >X does not have property Y. Actually you are. You have pointed out that a particular node is not conscious and that no node is conscious and then jump to the conclusion that no set of nodes can be conscious. That is either a fallacy of composition or a Sorities Heap. >I'll write out the scenario again, and the options, maybe by selecting >one, you will see what I am driving at, though jien has explained it >to you, as well as myself yet you don't seem to be able to understand, >maybe it is your preconceived notion of what is being said, is >blinding you to what actually is being said. Or maybe because you are 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, The 'complicated' is irrelevant and just messes up the presentation. >which drove a robot. The robot, due to its behaviour >(being a Turing Equivalent), Do you mean a Universal Turing Machine, what that term usually means, or do you mean passes the Turing Test? >caused some atheists What if a theist makes the came conclusion? >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: I would say that it passed the Turing Test and that it seemed to have all of the external qualities I can determine regarding conscious experience, so it likely had the same kind of conscious experience humans have. >A) The atheists, mentioned in the example, were wrong to consider it >to be consciously experiencing. Why? Nothing in the presentation leads to that. You had some stuff about logs, but I have no idea why that changes anything. I am no less conscious if someone is able to track all of my neurons/brain chemicals. >B) Were correct to say that was consciously experiencing, but that it >doesn't influence behaviour. Again, why? Nothing in the scenario leads me to that. >C) It might have been consciously experiencing, how could you tell, it >doesn't influence behaviour. I can't see making that conclusion. >D) It was consciously experiencing and that influenced its behaviour. Yep. >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. And now we have that fallacy of composition I referred to. The conscious experience is not the influence of a single node. I can do the same above with a single neuron in an active brain, that would not eliminate conscious experience for that person. >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. Lets try this: I have a computer with thousands of chips and I log all of the inputs and outputs and such. I run an OS and a newsreader on that computer. Now I take one of the chips and put it in a separate test rig and subject it to the same inputs and output it had in the computer. Would I say that the chip in the test rig was influenced by the OS/newsreader? Not really. I could argue, I suppose, in both this and your case, that the "influence" comes in the determination of the inputs for the node/chip. Sorry, but I do understand the argument and it is fallacious. -- 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 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >> >You seem to be suggesting that the majority of atheists haven't even >> >thought as far as I had suggested, >> >> I don't mean to suggest that, I mean only to suggest that most of our >> conscious decisions, theistic or not, are quite mundane, >> >> >...and yet led away from God's >> >existance. Is that because they trusted in the so called 'intelligent' >> >who were biased against the acknowledgement of God's existance, and >> >were applauded for their deceptive use of language to cover up simple >> >truths? Did they do so because they thought they were bound to be able >> >to hide behind the deceptions, because the 'intelligent' atheists >> >assured them they weren't wrong, and that by repeating like parrots >> >the polished deceptions that these people propagated that they too >> >would seem intelligent? >> >> No. >> > >In the physical, Heaven, and Hell, you are being presented the >conscious experiences by a spiritual source. Given that your brain is >within the presentation, and so is not part of you, you are being >optimistic about constructive thoughts coming to you when experiencing >Hell. So do you lean more toward Berkeley's or toward DesCartes' metaphysics: subjective idealism, or mind-body dualism? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 12 Jul, 05:27, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:07:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1184206043.831834.51...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On 11 Jul, 21:45, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:59:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> <1184183956.023911.247...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >If we were found not to be following the known laws of physics, and it >> >> >is implausible that we are (even though it might never be shown), >> >> >> You have yet to approach showing it is implausible. In fact, you seem >> >> to work really hard at avoiding all of the evidence that says we are >> >> simply physical beings. In particular you ignore all of the evidence >> >> of the ways that subjective experience is affected/determined by >> >> physical phenomena. >> >> >> >I >> >> >don't think that there would be a problem in science regarding us as >> >> >spiritual beings influencing the human we experience being. Unless you >> >> >are stating that through bias science will never have an understanding >> >> >of reality. >> >> >> From a scientific POV what does "spiritual being" mean? >> >> >> >Already we know that on quantum events there is either events with no >> >> >cause within the physical (quantum randomness, in orthodox quantum >> >> >mechanics), or "spooky interaction" at a distance where everything >> >> >physical effects everything physical regardless of distance (as >> >> >suggested in bohmian mechanics). It is already known that the "spooky >> >> >interaction at a distance", as I think Einstein called it, exists for >> >> >quantum entanglement. I understand this lead Bohm to suggest that the >> >> >physical isn't really seperated. >> >> >> Which has no actually connection to consciousness, not more than it >> >> does to cinder blocks or photosynthesis. >> >> >> >Though I can see that there could be a school of thought that could >> >> >explain brain not following the known laws of physics because of some >> >> >"special complicated configuration", >> >> >> What in the world does that mean? I don't know of anyone who suggests >> >> anything like this. >> >> >> >though they could always attempt >> >> >to show this on an artificial neural network as in the example, hoping >> >> >that they will stumble upon a complicated configuration where either >> >> >unexpected messages started appearing, >> >> >> Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that. >> >> >> >or the nodes didn't give the >> >> >same outputs in the network, as they would have in the lab, >> >> >> Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that either. >> >> >> >given the >> >> >same inputs. I guess atheists are betting their soul (not that they >> >> >believe they have one), that either this is the case, or that their >> >> >whole conscious experience was a coincidental deception, and that >> >> >nothing they experienced influenced the behaviour of the human they >> >> >experienced being. >> >> >> Again, none of the alternatives you propose are those I see in the >> >> literature. They are all straw. Consciousness is the product of >> >> biology. "Complicated" is a subjective determination, not a property >> >> of a thing in the world. Things are "complicated" if the perceiver has >> >> trouble understanding them. You have yet to justify this >> >> "coincidental" claim. Our consciousness relates to actions in the >> >> external world because it is connected, and affected by, that external >> >> world. >> >> >It was shown to be implausible with the simple scenario I gave, which >> >showed that what we consciously experience couldn't influence a >> >biological mechanism which simply followed the laws of physics. If you >> >still can't comprehend why, I'll go through it with you. >> >> No, it does not show that it is implausible. Roughly speaking you >> assert that robots can't be conscious, therefore human consciousness >> isn't physical. A problem with that is that we don't know that robots >> can't, some day, have subjective experience. People who actually work >> on this tend to think that they will someday. You add to this problem >> the fallacy of composition: just because a component of X does not >> have property Y does not mean that X does not have property Y. >> >> >Perhaps it is best if you can see this clearly before we continue. As >> >you ask about several other topics, and haven't yet understood some >> >basic truths. >> >> Sorry, but my disagreement does not constitute my lack of >> understanding. >> > >No disagreement doesn't. You have however totally misunderstood. I'm >not saying that because a component of X does not have property Y that >X does not have property Y. > >I'll write out the scenario again, and the options, maybe by selecting >one, you will see what I am driving at, though jien has explained it >to you, as well as myself yet you don't seem to be able to understand, >maybe it is your preconceived notion of what is being said, is >blinding you to what actually is being said. > >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. > > Suppose: There are two entities you can communicate with but cannot see or examine (yet). They might both be humans, be artificial neural networks, or be one of each. Suppose one is an artificial neural network and you deem the artificial neural network to be conscious, based on the results of a Turing test.. How would coming to know all about that artificial neural network's physical operation, change that opinion? Compare to: Suppose the other is a human and you deem the human to be conscious, based on the results of a Turing test. How would coming to know all about that human's physical operation, change that opinion? If your answer is different in the case of the human, explain why. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 On 12 Jul, 15:55, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 04:21:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > > <1184239319.210411.129...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On 12 Jul, 05:27, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:07:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> <1184206043.831834.51...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >On 11 Jul, 21:45, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:59:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> >> <1184183956.023911.247...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >If we were found not to be following the known laws of physics, and it > >> >> >is implausible that we are (even though it might never be shown), > > >> >> You have yet to approach showing it is implausible. In fact, you seem > >> >> to work really hard at avoiding all of the evidence that says we are > >> >> simply physical beings. In particular you ignore all of the evidence > >> >> of the ways that subjective experience is affected/determined by > >> >> physical phenomena. > > >> >> >I > >> >> >don't think that there would be a problem in science regarding us as > >> >> >spiritual beings influencing the human we experience being. Unless you > >> >> >are stating that through bias science will never have an understanding > >> >> >of reality. > > >> >> From a scientific POV what does "spiritual being" mean? > > >> >> >Already we know that on quantum events there is either events with no > >> >> >cause within the physical (quantum randomness, in orthodox quantum > >> >> >mechanics), or "spooky interaction" at a distance where everything > >> >> >physical effects everything physical regardless of distance (as > >> >> >suggested in bohmian mechanics). It is already known that the "spooky > >> >> >interaction at a distance", as I think Einstein called it, exists for > >> >> >quantum entanglement. I understand this lead Bohm to suggest that the > >> >> >physical isn't really seperated. > > >> >> Which has no actually connection to consciousness, not more than it > >> >> does to cinder blocks or photosynthesis. > > >> >> >Though I can see that there could be a school of thought that could > >> >> >explain brain not following the known laws of physics because of some > >> >> >"special complicated configuration", > > >> >> What in the world does that mean? I don't know of anyone who suggests > >> >> anything like this. > > >> >> >though they could always attempt > >> >> >to show this on an artificial neural network as in the example, hoping > >> >> >that they will stumble upon a complicated configuration where either > >> >> >unexpected messages started appearing, > > >> >> Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that. > > >> >> >or the nodes didn't give the > >> >> >same outputs in the network, as they would have in the lab, > > >> >> Why? I see no reason to look for anything like that either. > > >> >> >given the > >> >> >same inputs. I guess atheists are betting their soul (not that they > >> >> >believe they have one), that either this is the case, or that their > >> >> >whole conscious experience was a coincidental deception, and that > >> >> >nothing they experienced influenced the behaviour of the human they > >> >> >experienced being. > > >> >> Again, none of the alternatives you propose are those I see in the > >> >> literature. They are all straw. Consciousness is the product of > >> >> biology. "Complicated" is a subjective determination, not a property > >> >> of a thing in the world. Things are "complicated" if the perceiver has > >> >> trouble understanding them. You have yet to justify this > >> >> "coincidental" claim. Our consciousness relates to actions in the > >> >> external world because it is connected, and affected by, that external > >> >> world. > > >> >It was shown to be implausible with the simple scenario I gave, which > >> >showed that what we consciously experience couldn't influence a > >> >biological mechanism which simply followed the laws of physics. If you > >> >still can't comprehend why, I'll go through it with you. > > >> No, it does not show that it is implausible. Roughly speaking you > >> assert that robots can't be conscious, therefore human consciousness > >> isn't physical. A problem with that is that we don't know that robots > >> can't, some day, have subjective experience. People who actually work > >> on this tend to think that they will someday. You add to this problem > >> the fallacy of composition: just because a component of X does not > >> have property Y does not mean that X does not have property Y. > > >> >Perhaps it is best if you can see this clearly before we continue. As > >> >you ask about several other topics, and haven't yet understood some > >> >basic truths. > > >> Sorry, but my disagreement does not constitute my lack of > >> understanding. > > >No disagreement doesn't. You have however totally misunderstood. I'm > >not saying that because a component of X does not have property Y that > >X does not have property Y. > > Actually you are. You have pointed out that a particular node is not > conscious and that no node is conscious and then jump to the > conclusion that no set of nodes can be conscious. That is either a > fallacy of composition or a Sorities Heap. > > >I'll write out the scenario again, and the options, maybe by selecting > >one, you will see what I am driving at, though jien has explained it > >to you, as well as myself yet you don't seem to be able to understand, > >maybe it is your preconceived notion of what is being said, is > >blinding you to what actually is being said. > > Or maybe because you are 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, > > The 'complicated' is irrelevant and just messes up the presentation. > > >which drove a robot. The robot, due to its behaviour > >(being a Turing Equivalent), > > Do you mean a Universal Turing Machine, what that term usually means, > or do you mean passes the Turing Test? > > >caused some atheists > > What if a theist makes the came conclusion? > > >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: > > I would say that it passed the Turing Test and that it seemed to have > all of the external qualities I can determine regarding conscious > experience, so it likely had the same kind of conscious experience > humans have. > > >A) The atheists, mentioned in the example, were wrong to consider it > >to be consciously experiencing. > > Why? Nothing in the presentation leads to that. You had some stuff > about logs, but I have no idea why that changes anything. I am no less > conscious if someone is able to track all of my neurons/brain > chemicals. > > >B) Were correct to say that was consciously experiencing, but that it > >doesn't influence behaviour. > > Again, why? Nothing in the scenario leads me to that. > > >C) It might have been consciously experiencing, how could you tell, it > >doesn't influence behaviour. > > I can't see making that conclusion. > > >D) It was consciously experiencing and that influenced its behaviour. > > Yep. > > >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. > > And now we have that fallacy of composition I referred to. The > conscious experience is not the influence of a single node. I can do > the same above with a single neuron in an active brain, that would not > eliminate conscious experience for that person. > > >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. > > Lets try this: I have a computer with thousands of chips and I log all > of the inputs and outputs and such. I run an OS and a newsreader on > that computer. Now I take one of the chips and put it in a separate > test rig and subject it to the same inputs and output it had in the > computer. Would I say that the chip in the test rig was influenced by > the OS/newsreader? Not really. I could argue, I suppose, in both this > and your case, that the "influence" comes in the determination of the > inputs for the node/chip. > > Sorry, but I do understand the argument and it is fallacious. > You don't understand I am not saying that because one node isn't conscious, that the network can't be conscious. I told you this, but you continue to misunderstand. While you chose D, and weren't selecting D1, you avoided selecting D2. With your example of the computer with a thousand chips, running an OS and newsreader, the OS and newreader refer to software configurations. D is not asking whether the robot was influenced by the configuration of the nodes. D was asking whether you would be claiming that the robot being consciously experienced influenced the way it behaves. D2 is asking whether the influence you are talking about is such that the behaviour is the same as without the influence. 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.