Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 14, 2007 Posted July 14, 2007 "pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> said: >On 13 jul, 23:38, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> said: >> >> >I do not think that it will be possible for a Robot to pass the Turing >> >test this century. >> >but if it does, than it is certainly consciouss. >> >In fact consciousness is not enough to pass it! >> >> Tryhttp://www.jabberwacky.com/. >> >> It's a little difficult to see how to start, but plays a pretty good >> game. > >It is really bad! >totally ignoring previous sentences >Is there any memory attached?!? > Too bad. I keep hoping. I was somewhat more happy with its responses. It might have been at random, that it had a good streak for me. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 14, 2007 Posted July 14, 2007 Additional Reading: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/courses/intro/notes/turing.html And an example of something that I had a coherent 20 - 25 ply chat with: http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1 Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184206043.831834.51980@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > 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. You have NEVER shown that. Only assumed and asserted it We cannot continue until you proof this .. preferably in a single post (as you've been asked to do for weeks .. can't you manage it?) Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184239319.210411.129310@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > 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. Yes .. you were > I'll write out the scenario again oh god no .. don't you undersatnd that repeating something doesn't make it rght? > 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. There is no problem with D2. It does not, however, say anything about whether or not the robot have conscious experiences, as you seem to be implying. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184207035.437848.128580@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... >Well the spiritual can be considered as reality by science, What spiritual .. you're making assumptions about things for which there is no evidence. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184207546.313275.100440@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > 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. No .. you havne't > I don't assume it in the argument. Yes .. you do > 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. No .. you haven't > 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. You've not shown that > It is implausible that we don't influence the human > we experience being based upon what we (consciously) experience. So? > 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, You've not shown that. Gees > 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? You really haven't demonstrated anything that could lead you to the conclusions you draw. You've also yet to rise to the challenge of putting forward your argument in one single post. Come on .. try harder. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 On 15 Jul, 09:18, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1184239319.210411.129310@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. > > Yes .. you were > > > I'll write out the scenario again > > oh god no .. don't you undersatnd that repeating something doesn't make it > rght? > > > 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. > > There is no problem with D2. It does not, however, say anything about > whether or not the robot have conscious experiences, as you seem to be > implying. No, I was not saying because a component of X does not have property Y that X does not have property Y. Maybe you could point out where I have ever said that, and then find out that you have misunderstood. The scenario isn't about whether the robot has conscious experiences, it is about that whether it was considered to or not they couldn't be thought of as influencing its behaviour. Which is what D2 is highlighting, though you don't seem to see the problem in suggesting that the influence is the such that the behaviour would be the same without the influence. The problem is that it means the influence didn't affect behaviour, and therefore didn't influence behaviour. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 On 14 Jul, 00:05, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > > > > > >On 13 Jul, 20:01, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >On 13 Jul, 16:23, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >> >On 13 Jul, 06:19, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >> >> >On 12 Jul, 22:52, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: > > >> >> >> >> >Yes you that is experiencing does need to be distinguished from that > >> >> >> >> >which is providing you with the experiences. The experiences aren't > >> >> >> >> >generated by yourself, you don't know what the neural state represents > >> >> >> >> >for example. > > >> >> >> >> All readily seen to be God's ideas, under theistic idealism. > > >> >> >> >> Are we close to done, for now? > > >> >> >> >The post was about the implausibility of materialism, not about what > >> >> >> >reality actually is. Did you understand why it is implausible that we > >> >> >> >are a biological mechanism behaving according to the known laws of > >> >> >> >physics? > > >> >> >> It will never be entirely plausible IMO that we are a biological > >> >> >> mechanism behaving according to the KNOWN laws of physics, because we > >> >> >> will never, IMO, correctly know all the laws of physics. (History is > >> >> >> my guide, I could be wrong.) But this does not make materialism, IMO, > >> >> >> implausible. Nor does it make materialism plausible. > > >> >> >> How's that? Can I go? > > >> >> >That isn't what I meant though. A car could be said to follow the > >> >> >known laws of physics in the sense that they can be used to explain > >> >> >its behaviour, as could any of our technology. Did you understand that > >> >> >it is implausible that our behaviour can be explained in terms of the > >> >> >known laws of physics? > > >> >> I would like to hear your reason why, and then I might be able to > >> >> agree without reservation. > > >> >> For example if you said humans will never be able to go to the surface > >> >> of the Sun and run around only in bathing suits, and your reason is > >> >> that it would be too expensive, I'd say I agree we can't go to the Sun > >> >> and run around like that, but that's the wrong reason. So I need to > >> >> hear your reason why it is implausible that we will ever be able to > >> >> explain human behavior in terms of the known laws of physics, if > >> >> that's what you mean. > > >> >> >Also regarding your comment earlier when you said, "All readily seen > >> >> >to be God's ideas, under theistic idealism.", were you suggesting that > >> >> >we are just an idea of God's, and that therefore we are effectively > >> >> >God? If so, that is wrong, and certainly not what I am suggesting. > >> >> >That sounds like a Satanic inspiration. It would imply that nothing we > >> >> >could do could be unpleasing to God, and therefore would also be an > >> >> >insult to God given what some people chose to do. > > >> >> No, I am not saying anything firmly. I am saying that when I think > >> >> about theistic subjective idealism, with an omnipotent ex nihilo > >> >> creator sustainer deity, it leads me to that kind of mental image. > >> >> Your mileage may vary. You might have an entirely different idea of > >> >> theistic subjective idealism. But I am really just an amateur student > >> >> of such metaphysics. I haven't any firm stand on it. > > >> >Regarding my reason why it is implausible that our behaviour can be > >> >explained in terms of the known laws of physics, it has been explained > >> >to you again and again, by myself and others. It would mean that > >> >consciously experiencing wasn't influencing behaviour. Therefore it > >> >would have to be a coincidence that we have the conscious experiences > >> >the 'meat machine' is expresses in its behaviour. > > >> Yes you have, but we never seem to understand it to your satisfaction. > >> My understanding is that you think there is something non-physical > >> about humans that is essential to the influence they have on their > >> behavior, and that non-physcal element is not physically explainable > >> in itself, so physics can never possibly explain human behavior. So, > >> tell me what I don't understand. > > >> >As for your suggestion, which as I said, sounds like a satanistic > >> >inspiration, what objection do you have in the alteration of it, such > >> >that what we are experiencing is an unbiased presentation, neither > >> >Heaven, nor Hell, and the reason we are experiencing it is that our > >> >choices maybe observed in a context where we can choose between the > >> >following the spiritual nature of a loving, selfless, God, and a > >> >hateful, selfish Devil. The difference from what you were suggesting, > >> >is that what we choose to do does matter, and that if we murder, or > >> >cause suffering to others for example, it is not God doing it, it > >> >would be us. > > >> As I said, I don't have a firm stand on such metaphysical things. > > >When the issue seemed like it was going to be avoided, by you > >suggesting that we don't know the true laws of physics, and therefore > >we don't follow the known laws of physics, and I replied: > > >----------- > >That isn't what I meant though. A car could be said to follow the > >known laws of physics in the sense that they can be used to explain > >its behaviour, as could any of our technology. Did you understand that > >it is implausible that our behaviour can be explained in terms of the > >known laws of physics? > >----------- > > >To which you responded: > >----------- > >I would like to hear your reason why, and then I might be able to > >agree without reservation. > >----------- > > >Now you claim to have known and understood the reason why. > > No I didn't calim to know. I said "My understanding is..." and then > said. "So, tell me what I don't understand." > > So I didn't claim to understand. So you can tell me if I do > understand, or how I missed. > > >Though in > >your response above, you didn't face actually addressing the reasoning > >as to why it was implausible. Conscious experiences aren't an > >influencing factor in the known laws of physics. You understand that > >simple truth don't you? > > And they will never be? > You avoided the question of whether you acknowledge the simple truth, that according to the known laws of physics, whether anything is consiously experienced or not isn't relevent to behaviour. Do you acknowledge this simple truth. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184239599.421525.226230@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > 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. There goes any hope of rational discussion. Didn't think you'd be able to keep it up. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184255556.341932.327150@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > The physicalists turned reality upside down, as it was > prophesised they would do. Oh shit .. he's lost the plot now. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184367029.303432.142990@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > That isn't what I meant though. A car could be said to follow the > known laws of physics in the sense that they can be used to explain > its behaviour, as could any of our technology. Did you understand that > it is implausible that our behaviour can be explained in terms of the > known laws of physics? Answer: NO .. you've not demonstrated that. > Conscious experiences aren't an > influencing factor in the known laws of physics. So you assert .. but you have not shown that. You just keep saying it over and over again. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184367486.084536.326900@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On 13 Jul, 22:16, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > wrote: >> On 13 jul, 19:34, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> > On 13 Jul, 13:37, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> >> > wrote: >> >> > > On 12 jul, 17:44, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> > > > 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. >> >> > > You seemed to have been learning a lot since you stopped replying to >> > > me! >> > > You are really getting near to the essence of the subject, >> >> > > Now the funny thing is the node is not working differently when the >> > > whole network is consious then it would work when the whole network >> > > is >> > > not conscious. But the input of many of the nodes will be different >> > > when the network is conscious then when the network is not concious. >> >> > > A typical conscious remark would be: >> >> > > "That is the same story I heard yesterday, with the exception that >> > > yesterday the women was said to be pregnant, and today the women is >> > > said to have overweight" >> >> > > You will see some typical conscious components, like "yesterday" "I' >> > > and "same" >> > > In order to show consciousness to amount that could pass the turing >> > > test, >> > > the network would have to understand the concept of a selfe, >> > > it has to be able to react differently because of what happened in >> > > the >> > > past, >> > > and it has to "know" that it reacts differently because of what >> > > happened in the past. >> > > No single node would have to react differently in order to accomplish >> > > that, >> > > but many nodes will have to receive different input in order for the >> > > whole system to produce different output. >> >> > > The fact that you are now so clause to the essence >> > > is - in my opinion - a clear sign that you are very consciouss >> > > indeed:) >> >> > You unfortunately don't seemed to have learnt anything. >> >> > In the robot scenario, there was no influence of conscious experiences >> > in its behaviour, no matter what its behaviour was. A simple truth you >> > seem to have a problem coming to terms with. >> >> What it pity that you didn't think over my words before you replied. >> What you call a simple truth is not simple and not true. >> If the Robot passed the turing test, than the Robot is conscious >> If his conscious experiences didn't influence the output, >> than it wouldn't have passed the Turing test. >> It was you who were supposing the Robot past the Turing test, not me. >> I do not think that it will be possible for a Robot to pass the Turing >> test this century. >> but if it does, than it is certainly consciouss. >> In fact consciousness is not enough to pass it! >> >> I am conscious and you are conscious >> yet none of our synapses are. >> >> Maybe you will understand that some day >> > > You can believe that the robot was conscious, and make such claims, > like the atheists in the following example, and perhaps as such an > atheist you could explain where you think the influence it consciously > experiencing as you claim is to be seen. Its behaviour can be > explained without the need to believe in your claims, nor do your > claims add any explanitory value with regards to its behaviour. > > Here is the example: Stop with the fucking copy and paste of the same crap over and over PRESENT YOUR GODDAMNED ARGUMENT in one single post .. or are you incapable of a rational argument? I suggest the altter, going by the lack of evidence Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said: >On 14 Jul, 00:05, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 13 Jul, 20:01, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >On 13 Jul, 16:23, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >On 13 Jul, 06:19, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >On 12 Jul, 22:52, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Yes you that is experiencing does need to be distinguished from that >> >> >> >> >> >which is providing you with the experiences. The experiences aren't >> >> >> >> >> >generated by yourself, you don't know what the neural state represents >> >> >> >> >> >for example. >> >> >> >> >> >> All readily seen to be God's ideas, under theistic idealism. >> >> >> >> >> >> Are we close to done, for now? >> >> >> >> >> >The post was about the implausibility of materialism, not about what >> >> >> >> >reality actually is. Did you understand why it is implausible that we >> >> >> >> >are a biological mechanism behaving according to the known laws of >> >> >> >> >physics? >> >> >> >> >> It will never be entirely plausible IMO that we are a biological >> >> >> >> mechanism behaving according to the KNOWN laws of physics, because we >> >> >> >> will never, IMO, correctly know all the laws of physics. (History is >> >> >> >> my guide, I could be wrong.) But this does not make materialism, IMO, >> >> >> >> implausible. Nor does it make materialism plausible. >> >> >> >> >> How's that? Can I go? >> >> >> >> >That isn't what I meant though. A car could be said to follow the >> >> >> >known laws of physics in the sense that they can be used to explain >> >> >> >its behaviour, as could any of our technology. Did you understand that >> >> >> >it is implausible that our behaviour can be explained in terms of the >> >> >> >known laws of physics? >> >> >> >> I would like to hear your reason why, and then I might be able to >> >> >> agree without reservation. >> >> >> >> For example if you said humans will never be able to go to the surface >> >> >> of the Sun and run around only in bathing suits, and your reason is >> >> >> that it would be too expensive, I'd say I agree we can't go to the Sun >> >> >> and run around like that, but that's the wrong reason. So I need to >> >> >> hear your reason why it is implausible that we will ever be able to >> >> >> explain human behavior in terms of the known laws of physics, if >> >> >> that's what you mean. >> >> >> >> >Also regarding your comment earlier when you said, "All readily seen >> >> >> >to be God's ideas, under theistic idealism.", were you suggesting that >> >> >> >we are just an idea of God's, and that therefore we are effectively >> >> >> >God? If so, that is wrong, and certainly not what I am suggesting. >> >> >> >That sounds like a Satanic inspiration. It would imply that nothing we >> >> >> >could do could be unpleasing to God, and therefore would also be an >> >> >> >insult to God given what some people chose to do. >> >> >> >> No, I am not saying anything firmly. I am saying that when I think >> >> >> about theistic subjective idealism, with an omnipotent ex nihilo >> >> >> creator sustainer deity, it leads me to that kind of mental image. >> >> >> Your mileage may vary. You might have an entirely different idea of >> >> >> theistic subjective idealism. But I am really just an amateur student >> >> >> of such metaphysics. I haven't any firm stand on it. >> >> >> >Regarding my reason why it is implausible that our behaviour can be >> >> >explained in terms of the known laws of physics, it has been explained >> >> >to you again and again, by myself and others. It would mean that >> >> >consciously experiencing wasn't influencing behaviour. Therefore it >> >> >would have to be a coincidence that we have the conscious experiences >> >> >the 'meat machine' is expresses in its behaviour. >> >> >> Yes you have, but we never seem to understand it to your satisfaction. >> >> My understanding is that you think there is something non-physical >> >> about humans that is essential to the influence they have on their >> >> behavior, and that non-physcal element is not physically explainable >> >> in itself, so physics can never possibly explain human behavior. So, >> >> tell me what I don't understand. >> >> >> >As for your suggestion, which as I said, sounds like a satanistic >> >> >inspiration, what objection do you have in the alteration of it, such >> >> >that what we are experiencing is an unbiased presentation, neither >> >> >Heaven, nor Hell, and the reason we are experiencing it is that our >> >> >choices maybe observed in a context where we can choose between the >> >> >following the spiritual nature of a loving, selfless, God, and a >> >> >hateful, selfish Devil. The difference from what you were suggesting, >> >> >is that what we choose to do does matter, and that if we murder, or >> >> >cause suffering to others for example, it is not God doing it, it >> >> >would be us. >> >> >> As I said, I don't have a firm stand on such metaphysical things. >> >> >When the issue seemed like it was going to be avoided, by you >> >suggesting that we don't know the true laws of physics, and therefore >> >we don't follow the known laws of physics, and I replied: >> >> >----------- >> >That isn't what I meant though. A car could be said to follow the >> >known laws of physics in the sense that they can be used to explain >> >its behaviour, as could any of our technology. Did you understand that >> >it is implausible that our behaviour can be explained in terms of the >> >known laws of physics? >> >----------- >> >> >To which you responded: >> >----------- >> >I would like to hear your reason why, and then I might be able to >> >agree without reservation. >> >----------- >> >> >Now you claim to have known and understood the reason why. >> >> No I didn't calim to know. I said "My understanding is..." and then >> said. "So, tell me what I don't understand." >> >> So I didn't claim to understand. So you can tell me if I do >> understand, or how I missed. >> >> >Though in >> >your response above, you didn't face actually addressing the reasoning >> >as to why it was implausible. Conscious experiences aren't an >> >influencing factor in the known laws of physics. You understand that >> >simple truth don't you? >> >> And they will never be? >> > >You avoided the question of whether you acknowledge the simple truth, >that according to the known laws of physics, whether anything is >consiously experienced or not isn't relevent to behaviour. Do you >acknowledge this simple truth. It seems that we are each, in the other's eyes, avoiding questions. At least I do not say that the answers to my questions are "simple" truths. According to the known laws of physics, whether anything is consciously experienced or not isn't relevant to behavior. There, I've said it and I believe it. This is because among the known variables that appear in the equations of today's physics, there is no variable that quantizes (or even estimates of the relative intensity of) conscious experiences. Such sciences as psychology do this. Marketing people take advantage of studies showing preferences for colors and patterns, for example. Now, if you think that physics will never be able to explain human behavior, please tell me the reason. Is it, as I have suggested (but not claimed) that you believe there is something non-physical about humans that is active in their decisions about how to behave? There might be a very simple reason that I would have no reason to question. IOW, it's your turn to avoid avoiding the question. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said: >"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message <...> >> Conscious experiences aren't an >> influencing factor in the known laws of physics. > >So you assert .. but you have not shown that. You just keep saying it over >and over again. > Of course, that statement of it is backwards and basically unclear. I agree with "In the known laws of physics, conscious experiences aren't a factor". My reason is that AFAIK, there is no variable in the known equations of physics that is a measure of a conscious experience, like "subject's reported intensity of pain, on a scale of 1 - 10". I think someon2 needs to explain his reason for believing it is true. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184501230.392784.265460@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On 15 Jul, 09:18, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1184239319.210411.129310@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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. >> >> Yes .. you were >> >> > I'll write out the scenario again >> >> oh god no .. don't you undersatnd that repeating something doesn't make >> it >> rght? >> >> > 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. >> >> There is no problem with D2. It does not, however, say anything about >> whether or not the robot have conscious experiences, as you seem to be >> implying. > > No, I was not saying because a component of X does not have property Y > that X does not have property Y. Maybe you could point out where I > have ever said that, and then find out that you have misunderstood. There was a strong implication when you were showing some significane in a node behaving in the lab as it did in the 'conscious' robot. > The scenario isn't about whether the robot has conscious experiences, > it is about that whether it was considered to or not they couldn't be > thought of as influencing its behaviour. It can > Which is what D2 is > highlighting, though you don't seem to see the problem in suggesting > that the influence is the such that the behaviour would be the same > without the influence. The problem is that it means the influence > didn't affect behaviour, and therefore didn't influence behaviour. No .. it does not. You keep saying you have shown things, when you haven't. You keep assuming your own conclusions and asserting without proof. And you STILL cannot put forward your argument in on single post It has been WEEKS and still NOTHING Is it COWARDICE or just that you CANNOT DO IT. Well?? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message news:t5kk9317ssp1tgvlp121vgvq2tltlr277j@4ax.com... > "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said: > >>"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message > <...> >>> Conscious experiences aren't an >>> influencing factor in the known laws of physics. >> >>So you assert .. but you have not shown that. You just keep saying it >>over >>and over again. >> > Of course, that statement of it is backwards and basically unclear. I > agree with "In the known laws of physics, conscious experiences aren't > a factor". Only because physics is not (rather than cannot be) applied to matters involving the complexity of the human mind. > My reason is that AFAIK, there is no variable in the known > equations of physics that is a measure of a conscious experience, like > "subject's reported intensity of pain, on a scale of 1 - 10". There does not need to be. > I think someon2 needs to explain his reason for believing it is > true. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1184501643.812747.6170@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > You avoided the question of whether you acknowledge the simple truth, > that according to the known laws of physics, whether anything is > consiously experienced or not isn't relevent to behaviour. Because it is NOT a truth > Do you acknowledge this simple truth. No .. unless you can demonstrate that it is. You keep asserting it .. over and over .. but that does NOT make it true Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 "Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message news:h6jk93977gf21ft7qsfl74huvr8qb9ugpd@4ax.com... > According to the known laws of physics, whether anything is > consciously experienced or not isn't relevant to behavior. > There, I've said it and I believe it. Then you are looking at things too simplistically. > This is because among the known variables that appear in the equations > of today's physics, That doesn't mean it is not relevant. There are not single quantitative values for everything that physics can (potentially) explain. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said: >"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message >news:t5kk9317ssp1tgvlp121vgvq2tltlr277j@4ax.com... >> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said: >> >>>"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> <...> >>>> Conscious experiences aren't an >>>> influencing factor in the known laws of physics. >>> >>>So you assert .. but you have not shown that. You just keep saying it >>>over >>>and over again. >>> >> Of course, that statement of it is backwards and basically unclear. I >> agree with "In the known laws of physics, conscious experiences aren't >> a factor". > >Only because physics is not (rather than cannot be) applied to matters >involving the complexity of the human mind. Not at present, anyway. > >> My reason is that AFAIK, there is no variable in the known >> equations of physics that is a measure of a conscious experience, like >> "subject's reported intensity of pain, on a scale of 1 - 10". > >There does not need to be. I agree, for the present, at least,or even for all future time that includes physicists who would rather work on something else. ;-) Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said: >"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message >news:h6jk93977gf21ft7qsfl74huvr8qb9ugpd@4ax.com... >> According to the known laws of physics, whether anything is >> consciously experienced or not isn't relevant to behavior. >> There, I've said it and I believe it. > >Then you are looking at things too simplistically. Oh, I can think of examples where psychology can be linked with physics for the overall prediction of behavior. For example, the maximum velocity I am likely to attain in the next minute if I jump off the top of a 10-story building (my "velocity increasing behavior") can be calculated using physics, but also includes consideration of the conscious experiences that would induce me to decide to jump. But the physics of it is separate from the psychology of it, at least at present. > >> This is because among the known variables that appear in the equations >> of today's physics, > >That doesn't mean it is not relevant. > >There are not single quantitative values for everything that physics can >(potentially) explain. > I didn't say there were. Two conditions, at least, under which you are right: Some of the equations can be inequalities, in which there need only be a range of values. Some of the values are probabilistic. And also, both of these conditions can apply. For example the location of a particle might be calculated to be "less than 1 cm from point X, with 95% probability." Quote
Guest DuhIdiot Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Jul 15, 8:14 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> said: > > >"Jim07D7" <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in message > >news:h6jk93977gf21ft7qsfl74huvr8qb9ugpd@4ax.com... > >> According to the known laws of physics, whether anything is > >> consciously experienced or not isn't relevant to behavior. > >> There, I've said it and I believe it. > > >Then you are looking at things too simplistically. > > Oh, I can think of examples where psychology can be linked with > physics for the overall prediction of behavior. For example, the > maximum velocity I am likely to attain in the next minute if I jump > off the top of a 10-story building (my "velocity increasing behavior") > can be calculated using physics, but also includes consideration of > the conscious experiences that would induce me to decide to jump. But > the physics of it is separate from the psychology of it, at least at > present. > > >> This is because among the known variables that appear in the equations > >> of today's physics, > > >That doesn't mean it is not relevant. > > >There are not single quantitative values for everything that physics can > >(potentially) explain. > > I didn't say there were. Two conditions, at least, under which you are > right: Some of the equations can be inequalities, in which there need > only be a range of values. Some of the values are probabilistic. > > And also, both of these conditions can apply. For example the location > of a particle might be calculated to be "less than 1 cm from point X, > with 95% probability." Boys, boys, play nice now. The question of whether psychology will ever hand the ball off to physics is an interesting one, but does not need to be answered to shoot down Glenn's argument. I see no reason why our brain activity could not, in theory, be explained thoroughly, atom by atom and chemical bond by chemical bond, in purely physical terms. We are only prevented from formulating such an explanation, as far as I can tell, by the technical and ethical difficulties of the task, not by any inadequacy of our physics to handle the subject matter. If microscopic skull-dwelling elves have been discovered who facilitate our consciousness with tiny magic wands, somebody please fill me in-and get me their supervisor, because my elves are dumbasses. Such an explanation would be just the thing that Glenn says cannot exist: complete, purely physical, and with necessary reference to subjective experiences (in terms of their constituent chemical activity). This explanation would not include any vocabulary referring to the described events as conscious or purposeful. So what? The consciousness and purpose are in there, even if we don't yet know exactly which sextillions of atomic interactions comprise them. Neither consciousness, nor purpose, nor subjective experience is absent from the explanation, and thus none of them is implied to be uninfluential of or coincidental to behavior. Basically each individual act of cognition is in the position of your baseball from a few posts back, Jim. Just because the thing is not referred to as a "baseball", "sense impression", or "thought" in the explanation, doesn't mean it's not explained. To claim on those grounds that it isn't explained is to play word games. If that's all someone2 is up to here, then like I said, I'm gonna have to issue a warrant for stereo titty-twisters on the guy. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message news:lgdl93tf3iueugjrik4a5svbumfse7if4t@4ax.com... The point is that there is nothing so far presented that shows the consciousness and subjective experience CANNOT be explained by physics. That such an explanation would be incredibly complex, due to the complex nature of the human brain, does not mean it could not be done. Someone2 has still not demonstrated any of his assumptions and assertions are correct. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said: >"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message >news:lgdl93tf3iueugjrik4a5svbumfse7if4t@4ax.com... > >The point is that there is nothing so far presented that shows the >consciousness and subjective experience CANNOT be explained by physics. Well, I can't disagree with that fact, but that fact does not in itself support concluding that it CAN be explained by physics. > >That such an explanation would be incredibly complex, due to the complex >nature of the human brain, does not mean it could not be done. True. > >Someone2 has still not demonstrated any of his assumptions and assertions >are correct. > True. He has evaded doing that. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message news:jjvl93lfkc44pak9r5m0tiacav3n9upbqn@4ax.com... > "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said: > >>"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message >>news:lgdl93tf3iueugjrik4a5svbumfse7if4t@4ax.com... >> >>The point is that there is nothing so far presented that shows the >>consciousness and subjective experience CANNOT be explained by physics. > > Well, I can't disagree with that fact, but that fact does not in > itself support concluding that it CAN be explained by physics. That the individual processes and mechanisms gives good reason to assume the combintion of them can be. And regardless .. the burden of proof is on someone2 to show evidence why his claim is correct. >>That such an explanation would be incredibly complex, due to the complex >>nature of the human brain, does not mean it could not be done. > True. >> >>Someone2 has still not demonstrated any of his assumptions and assertions >>are correct. >> > True. He has evaded doing that. For quite a while. And despite being asked repeatedly to present his whole argument in one post. He seems incapable of that. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 DuhIdiot <jmashburn@alltel.net> said: >On Jul 15, 8:14 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: >> "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> said: >> >> >"Jim07D7" <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in message >> >news:h6jk93977gf21ft7qsfl74huvr8qb9ugpd@4ax.com... >> >> According to the known laws of physics, whether anything is >> >> consciously experienced or not isn't relevant to behavior. >> >> There, I've said it and I believe it. >> >> >Then you are looking at things too simplistically. >> >> Oh, I can think of examples where psychology can be linked with >> physics for the overall prediction of behavior. For example, the >> maximum velocity I am likely to attain in the next minute if I jump >> off the top of a 10-story building (my "velocity increasing behavior") >> can be calculated using physics, but also includes consideration of >> the conscious experiences that would induce me to decide to jump. But >> the physics of it is separate from the psychology of it, at least at >> present. >> >> >> This is because among the known variables that appear in the equations >> >> of today's physics, >> >> >That doesn't mean it is not relevant. >> >> >There are not single quantitative values for everything that physics can >> >(potentially) explain. >> >> I didn't say there were. Two conditions, at least, under which you are >> right: Some of the equations can be inequalities, in which there need >> only be a range of values. Some of the values are probabilistic. >> >> And also, both of these conditions can apply. For example the location >> of a particle might be calculated to be "less than 1 cm from point X, >> with 95% probability." > >Boys, boys, play nice now. The question of whether psychology will >ever hand the ball off to physics is an interesting one, but does not >need to be answered to shoot down Glenn's argument. Just to prove you aren't actually invisible, I'll respond to this. I think reductionism is an academically but not pragmatically interesting methodological challenge, but saying that everything "is" really just physics, is IMO metaphysical and therefore uninteresting (to me). > >I see no reason why our brain activity could not, in theory, be >explained thoroughly, atom by atom and chemical bond by chemical bond, >in purely physical terms. We are only prevented from formulating such >an explanation, as far as I can tell, by the technical and ethical >difficulties of the task, not by any inadequacy of our physics to >handle the subject matter. If microscopic skull-dwelling elves have >been discovered who facilitate our consciousness with tiny magic >wands, somebody please fill me in-and get me their supervisor, because >my elves are dumbasses. Agreed, a physics-level explanation is not ruled out. I see a subtle, easily missed but important distinction between "brain activity can in theory be explained using physics" and "brain activity is just physics". The former even allows of deism. I don't think Glenn is making these distinctions; I think he sees any hint of physicalism as a threat. > >Such an explanation would be just the thing that Glenn says cannot >exist: complete, purely physical, and with necessary reference to >subjective experiences (in terms of their constituent chemical >activity). This explanation would not include any vocabulary referring >to the described events as conscious or purposeful. So what? The >consciousness and purpose are in there, even if we don't yet know >exactly which sextillions of atomic interactions comprise them. >Neither consciousness, nor purpose, nor subjective experience is >absent from the explanation, and thus none of them is implied to be >uninfluential of or coincidental to behavior. That's right. Just as we might in theory explain a person's behavior in terms of physics, we might also, in theory, explain it in terms of physiology and, where appropriate, psychology. > >Basically each individual act of cognition is in the position of your >baseball from a few posts back, Jim. Just because the thing is not >referred to as a "baseball", "sense impression", or "thought" in the >explanation, doesn't mean it's not explained. To claim on those >grounds that it isn't explained is to play word games. If that's all >someone2 is up to here, then like I said, I'm gonna have to issue a >warrant for stereo titty-twisters on the guy. Getting volunteers might be difficult. ;-) 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.