Guest raven1 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:31:55 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote: >On 4 Jun, 16:57, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 4, 5:32 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 4 Jun, 05:25, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:04:34 -0700, someone2 >> >> > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> > > >On 3 Jun, 23:55, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:31:42 -0700, someone2 >> >> > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> > > >> >On 3 Jun, 17:20, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:53:43 -0700, someone2 >> >> > > >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> >On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 >> >> > > >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> > > >> >> >> >following: >> >> > > >> >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> > > >> >> >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> > > >> >> >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >> > > >> >> >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a >> > > >> >> >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> > > >> >> >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> > > >> >> >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >> > > >> >> >> >did, which isn't plausible. >> >> > > >> >> >> I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from >> > > >> >> >> the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an >> > > >> >> >> argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with >> > > >> >> >> "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. >> >> > > >> >> >The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it >> > > >> >> >doesn't, >> >> > > >> >> It simply doesn't. How do you think that it does? >> >> > > >> >> Let's reduce it to an actual syllogism for illustration purposes: >> >> > > >> >> P1: "A mechanism can have its behavior explained without invoking >> > > >> >> consciousness" >> >> > > >> >> Okay so far? Am I fairly encapsulating your first premise? >> >> > > >> >> P2: (on which you're already de-railing, since it is a subset of P1as >> > > >> >> you phrased it, but doesn't logically follow from it) "Whether or not >> > > >> >> a mechanism is conscious has no effect on its behavior". This is >> > > >> >> unsupported, to say the least; you haven't demonstrated that >> > > >> >> consciousness has no effect on behavior, just assumed it. >> >> > > >> >> C: Sentence three is word salad, but the next sentence gives the idea >> > > >> >> that you're implying that because of P1 and P2, that there must be >> > > >> >> some kind of "Ghost In The Machine", which simply doesn't follow. >> >> > > >> >> >and what part of sentance three are you having problems in >> > > >> >> >comprehending? >> >> > > >> >> What the Hell you were trying to say in English. The words all mean >> > > >> >> something, but their combination is nonsensical. >> >> > > >> >If having subjective experiences did affect behaviour (your objection >> > > >> >to P2), >> >> > > >> My objection is that you have neither demonstrated that consciousness >> > > >> has no affect on behavior, nor pointed out why this would be an issue >> > > >> in the first place, other than your own personal incredulity. >> >> > > >> > then how could behaviour be explained without taking it into >> > > >> >account (P1)? >> >> > > >> As you haven't demonstrated P1 either, the ball is in your court, but >> > > >> again, it does not follow from either premise that some kind of >> > > >> immaterial agent is necessary for consciousness. >> > > >> -- >> >> > > >I demonstrated it given P1, which is why you are unable to say why if >> > > >P1 were true then P2 wouldn't be, even though you eroneously claimed >> > > >P2 didn't follow. So will you admit you were wrong, and that P2 does >> > > >follow P1, or will you avoid facing it? >> >> > > Sorry, but it doesn't. You really need to brush up on logic, as well >> > > as the English language. >> >> > > >You are free to say why you would object to P1, or perhaps the >> > > >original wording you based P1 on: >> >> > > >------- >> > > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> > > >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> > > >conscious (had no subjective experiences). >> >> > > Anything could hypothetically be explained with any arbitrary >> > > assumption. It's up to you to demonstrate that your particular >> > > assumption ought to be given credence. >> >> > > >I'd be interested to hear why I couldn't simply explain the >> > > >behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the physical mechanism >> > > >following the laws of physics (which don't reference subjective >> > > >experiences), with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective >> > > >experiences. >> >> > > Indeed you could. But why would you? And how would you ever determine >> > > if you were right? >> >> > > >I wouldn't worry as of yet about your inability to understand the >> > > >ramifications, just try to concentrate on understanding the point at >> > > >hand, then we can go onto the ramifications after you comprehend some >> > > >simple truths. >> >> > > I understand your argument quite well at this point, I just find it to >> > > be poppycock. >> >> > You might think you understand it, but you don't. I'll reword P1 for >> > you: >> >> > The known laws of physics do not have subjective experiences as a >> > variable which influences behaviour, >> >> That is not the case with quantum physics. The observer does influence >> the behaviour of quantum particles. And the quantum world is a member >> of the known laws of physics. >> >> > therefore any physical mechanism >> > which follows the known laws of physics could be explained in terms >> > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics with the >> > assumption that there were no subjective experiences, even if this >> > assumption were incorrect. >> >> > Do you agree that the above is a factual statement? > >If you were to regard the Cophenhagen interpretation as correct, even >then, there is no reference to subjective experiences. There is reference to a conscious observer. -- "O Sybilli, si ergo Fortibus es in ero O Nobili! Themis trux Sivat sinem? Causen Dux" Quote
Guest raven1 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:33:43 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote: >On 4 Jun, 17:51, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:32:20 -0700, someone2 >> >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >On 4 Jun, 05:25, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:04:34 -0700, someone2 >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >On 3 Jun, 23:55, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:31:42 -0700, someone2 >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On 3 Jun, 17:20, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:53:43 -0700, someone2 >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 >> >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> >> >> >> >> >following: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> >> >> >> >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> >> >> >> >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >> >> >> >> >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a >> >> >> >> >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> >> >> >> >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> >> >> >> >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >> >> >> >> >> >did, which isn't plausible. >> >> >> >> >> >> I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from >> >> >> >> >> the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an >> >> >> >> >> argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with >> >> >> >> >> "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. >> >> >> >> >> >The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it >> >> >> >> >doesn't, >> >> >> >> >> It simply doesn't. How do you think that it does? >> >> >> >> >> Let's reduce it to an actual syllogism for illustration purposes: >> >> >> >> >> P1: "A mechanism can have its behavior explained without invoking >> >> >> >> consciousness" >> >> >> >> >> Okay so far? Am I fairly encapsulating your first premise? >> >> >> >> >> P2: (on which you're already de-railing, since it is a subset of P1as >> >> >> >> you phrased it, but doesn't logically follow from it) "Whether or not >> >> >> >> a mechanism is conscious has no effect on its behavior". This is >> >> >> >> unsupported, to say the least; you haven't demonstrated that >> >> >> >> consciousness has no effect on behavior, just assumed it. >> >> >> >> >> C: Sentence three is word salad, but the next sentence gives the idea >> >> >> >> that you're implying that because of P1 and P2, that there must be >> >> >> >> some kind of "Ghost In The Machine", which simply doesn't follow. >> >> >> >> >> >and what part of sentance three are you having problems in >> >> >> >> >comprehending? >> >> >> >> >> What the Hell you were trying to say in English. The words all mean >> >> >> >> something, but their combination is nonsensical. >> >> >> >> >If having subjective experiences did affect behaviour (your objection >> >> >> >to P2), >> >> >> >> My objection is that you have neither demonstrated that consciousness >> >> >> has no affect on behavior, nor pointed out why this would be an issue >> >> >> in the first place, other than your own personal incredulity. >> >> >> >> > then how could behaviour be explained without taking it into >> >> >> >account (P1)? >> >> >> >> As you haven't demonstrated P1 either, the ball is in your court, but >> >> >> again, it does not follow from either premise that some kind of >> >> >> immaterial agent is necessary for consciousness. >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >I demonstrated it given P1, which is why you are unable to say why if >> >> >P1 were true then P2 wouldn't be, even though you eroneously claimed >> >> >P2 didn't follow. So will you admit you were wrong, and that P2 does >> >> >follow P1, or will you avoid facing it? >> >> >> Sorry, but it doesn't. You really need to brush up on logic, as well >> >> as the English language. >> >> >> >You are free to say why you would object to P1, or perhaps the >> >> >original wording you based P1 on: >> >> >> >------- >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). >> >> >> Anything could hypothetically be explained with any arbitrary >> >> assumption. It's up to you to demonstrate that your particular >> >> assumption ought to be given credence. >> >> >> >I'd be interested to hear why I couldn't simply explain the >> >> >behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the physical mechanism >> >> >following the laws of physics (which don't reference subjective >> >> >experiences), with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective >> >> >experiences. >> >> >> Indeed you could. But why would you? And how would you ever determine >> >> if you were right? >> >> >> >I wouldn't worry as of yet about your inability to understand the >> >> >ramifications, just try to concentrate on understanding the point at >> >> >hand, then we can go onto the ramifications after you comprehend some >> >> >simple truths. >> >> >> I understand your argument quite well at this point, I just find it to >> >> be poppycock. >> >> >You might think you understand it, but you don't. >> >> Actually, I'm far from certain that you understand it... >> >> > I'll reword P1 for >> >you: >> >> >The known laws of physics do not have subjective experiences as a >> >variable which influences behaviour, therefore any physical mechanism >> >which follows the known laws of physics could be explained in terms >> >of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics with the >> >assumption that there were no subjective experiences, even if this >> >assumption were incorrect. >> >> >Do you agree that the above is a factual statement? >> >> No. Read a bit on QM. >> -- > >There is nothing in QM that affects the statement. You are more than >welcome to show your misunderstanding on the subject by pointing out >where you think it does. See my reply to you immediately above. -- "O Sybilli, si ergo Fortibus es in ero O Nobili! Themis trux Sivat sinem? Causen Dux" Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180977907.518177.127880@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On 4 Jun, 16:07, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1180915714.304693.138900@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 4 Jun, 00:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1180903459.945467.317500@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 21:38, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> >> >> >> > following: >> >> >> >> >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, >> >> >> >> > could >> >> >> >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it >> >> >> >> > wasn't >> >> >> >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). >> >> >> >> >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of its >> >> >> >> behavior >> >> >> >> would necessarily include that consciousness. >> >> >> >> >> > Which means that whether it >> >> >> >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. >> >> >> >> >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would >> >> >> >> necessarily >> >> >> >> include >> >> >> >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. >> >> >> >> >> > Therefore if we were simply a >> >> >> >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> >> >> >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour >> >> >> >> > claimed >> >> >> >> > we >> >> >> >> > did, which isn't plausible. >> >> >> >> >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, it's >> >> >> >> not >> >> >> >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. >> >> >> >> > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply >> >> >> > followed >> >> >> > the laws of physics was conscious, >> >> >> >> Who said you had to? >> >> >> >> > why couldn't I explain it simply in >> >> >> > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > assumption that it wasn't? >> >> >> >> If you fully describe the behavior of the mechanism in terms of a >> >> >> physical >> >> >> mechanism following the laws of physics, then you are describing >> >> >> all >> >> >> the >> >> >> events that contribute to that behavior. If the mechanism is >> >> >> conscious, >> >> >> the >> >> >> consciousness will be included in the description of events in >> >> >> terms >> >> >> of >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness >> >> >> is >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness is >> >> >> just >> >> >> our >> >> >> word that labels a particular VARIETY of physical mechanisms >> >> >> following >> >> >> the >> >> >> laws of physics. >> >> >> > While I you can believe that the mechanism is responsible for our >> >> > subjective experiences, you avoided explaining why I couldn't >> >> > explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the >> >> > physical >> >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption that >> >> > there were no subjective experiences, or could I? >> >> >> I did not say you couldn't explain the behaviour of the mechanism >> >> simply >> >> in >> >> terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with >> >> the >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, and I defy you >> >> to >> >> point out where I did. >> >> >> What I DID say is that in explaining the behaviour of the mechanism >> >> simply >> >> in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with >> >> the >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, you would, of >> >> necessity, include in that explanation the physical events that >> >> constitute >> >> consciousness if they occurred. >> >> >> Unless, of course, you arbitrarily want to avoid describing those >> >> physical >> >> events that constitute consciousness, and affect behavior, and leave >> >> your >> >> explanation incomplete. You are free to do that. >> >> > So you admit, that the behaviour of the mechanism could be explained >> > with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective experiences. >> >> Sure. But if it did have subjective experiences, those experiences would >> be >> included in the explanation in terms of physical mechanisms following the >> laws of physics. In other words, you could explain the behavior with a >> rote >> description of physical events, unaware that you are describing >> subjective >> experiences and their effect on behavior, in terms of physical events. >> >> > Can you follow that this being the case, whether it did or didn't have >> > any subjective experiences couldn't influence the behaviour, for if it >> > did, its behaviour could not be explained without taking into account >> > whether it did or didn't have any subjective experiences? >> >> If it has subjective experiences, then they are part of its behavior, and >> any explanation that failed to include them would be incomplete, by >> definition. >> > > So only knowledge of the mechanism that you would regard as > responsible for the subjective experiences (if indeed there were > any)would be sufficient to explain the behaviour. "Only"? I never suggested that was the only factor that effects behavior. I'm saying that if you want a complete explanation of behavior you have to account for all factors. And are you attempting to separate subjective experience form the mechanism responsible for it? > No knowledge of > whether there were any subjective experiences or not would be > required. True. > So for any given mechanism, whether it were experienced or not, > wouldn't influence the behaviour. Of course it would affect the behavior. Haven't you listened to a word I've said? > So if we were to be regarded as a > biological mechanism we couldn't be talking about our subjective > experiences because they actually existed. Our subjective experiences actually exist as material patterns in brains. These material patterns affect behavior. Is this impossible for you to understand? > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that it > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an alternative > universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the > same. No. If you disallow the material process of consciousness and subjective experience, then you've obviously got a universe that behaves differently from the one we're in. You're trying to violate the principle of identity, which pretty much hoses logic completely. > The objection that if it followed the same known laws of > physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of > physics don't reference subjective experiences, We do not note any subjective experiences in the absence of physical brains. Thus we are justified in holding the tentative conclusion that physical brains are required for subjective experience. Since we note that manipulation of the physical brain produces changes in subjective experience, we are justified in holding the tentative conclusion that subjective experience depends on the arrangement of matter in the physical brain. > thus it is > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the > same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective > experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known laws > of physics to be altered. So this is a "Consciousness of the Gaps" argument? -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest raven1 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:54:10 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote: >On 4 Jun, 18:37, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:25:07 -0700, someone2 >> >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >On 4 Jun, 16:07, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1180915714.304693.138900@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 4 Jun, 00:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:1180903459.945467.317500@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 21:38, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> >> >> >> >> > following: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, >> >> >> >> >> > could >> >> >> >> >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> >> >> >> >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). >> >> >> >> >> >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of its >> >> >> >> >> behavior >> >> >> >> >> would necessarily include that consciousness. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Which means that whether it >> >> >> >> >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. >> >> >> >> >> >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would >> >> >> >> >> necessarily >> >> >> >> >> include >> >> >> >> >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Therefore if we were simply a >> >> >> >> >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> >> >> >> >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> >> >> >> >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour >> >> >> >> >> > claimed >> >> >> >> >> > we >> >> >> >> >> > did, which isn't plausible. >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, it's not >> >> >> >> >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. >> >> >> >> >> > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply followed >> >> >> >> > the laws of physics was conscious, >> >> >> >> >> Who said you had to? >> >> >> >> >> > why couldn't I explain it simply in >> >> >> >> > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics with >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > assumption that it wasn't? >> >> >> >> >> If you fully describe the behavior of the mechanism in terms of a >> >> >> >> physical >> >> >> >> mechanism following the laws of physics, then you are describing all >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> events that contribute to that behavior. If the mechanism is >> >> >> >> conscious, >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> consciousness will be included in the description of events in terms >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness is >> >> >> >> just >> >> >> >> our >> >> >> >> word that labels a particular VARIETY of physical mechanisms following >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> laws of physics. >> >> >> >> > While I you can believe that the mechanism is responsible for our >> >> >> > subjective experiences, you avoided explaining why I couldn't >> >> >> > explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the physical >> >> >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption that >> >> >> > there were no subjective experiences, or could I? >> >> >> >> I did not say you couldn't explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply >> >> >> in >> >> >> terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with the >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, and I defy you to >> >> >> point out where I did. >> >> >> >> What I DID say is that in explaining the behaviour of the mechanism >> >> >> simply >> >> >> in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with >> >> >> the >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, you would, of >> >> >> necessity, include in that explanation the physical events that >> >> >> constitute >> >> >> consciousness if they occurred. >> >> >> >> Unless, of course, you arbitrarily want to avoid describing those >> >> >> physical >> >> >> events that constitute consciousness, and affect behavior, and leave your >> >> >> explanation incomplete. You are free to do that. >> >> >> > So you admit, that the behaviour of the mechanism could be explained >> >> > with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective experiences. >> >> >> Sure. But if it did have subjective experiences, those experiences would be >> >> included in the explanation in terms of physical mechanisms following the >> >> laws of physics. In other words, you could explain the behavior with a rote >> >> description of physical events, unaware that you are describing subjective >> >> experiences and their effect on behavior, in terms of physical events. >> >> >> > Can you follow that this being the case, whether it did or didn't have >> >> > any subjective experiences couldn't influence the behaviour, for if it >> >> > did, its behaviour could not be explained without taking into account >> >> > whether it did or didn't have any subjective experiences? >> >> >> If it has subjective experiences, then they are part of its behavior, and >> >> any explanation that failed to include them would be incomplete, by >> >> definition. >> >> >So only knowledge of the mechanism that you would regard as >> >responsible for the subjective experiences (if indeed there were >> >any)would be sufficient to explain the behaviour. No knowledge of >> >whether there were any subjective experiences or not would be >> >required. >> >> >So for any given mechanism, whether it were experienced or not, >> >wouldn't influence the behaviour. So if we were to be regarded as a >> >biological mechanism we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> >experiences because they actually existed. >> >> >To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that it >> >would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an alternative >> >universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there >> >were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the >> >same. The objection that if it followed the same known laws of >> >physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if >> >it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of >> >physics don't reference subjective experiences, thus it is >> >conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the >> >same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective >> >experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known laws >> >of physics to be altered. >> >> This is close to word salad. >> -- >> > >Though I am having a conversation with you elsewhere on this thread >(I'm still awaiting your response), out of curiousity, what bit were >you unable to comprehend? Again, exactly what the Hell you're trying to say in English. The words all have meanings, but their combination is clumsy in parts, and gibberish in others. -- "O Sybilli, si ergo Fortibus es in ero O Nobili! Themis trux Sivat sinem? Causen Dux" Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:31 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 4 Jun, 16:57, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 5:32 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 4 Jun, 05:25, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:04:34 -0700, someone2 > > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > >On 3 Jun, 23:55, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:31:42 -0700, someone2 > > > > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > >> >On 3 Jun, 17:20, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:53:43 -0700, someone2 > > > > > >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> >On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > > > > >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > > > >> >> >> >following: > > > > > >> >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > > >> >> >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > > >> >> >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > > > >> >> >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > > > >> >> >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > > > >> >> >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > > > >> >> >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > > > >> >> >> >did, which isn't plausible. > > > > > >> >> >> I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from > > > > >> >> >> the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an > > > > >> >> >> argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with > > > > >> >> >> "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. > > > > > >> >> >The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it > > > > >> >> >doesn't, > > > > > >> >> It simply doesn't. How do you think that it does? > > > > > >> >> Let's reduce it to an actual syllogism for illustration purposes: > > > > > >> >> P1: "A mechanism can have its behavior explained without invoking > > > > >> >> consciousness" > > > > > >> >> Okay so far? Am I fairly encapsulating your first premise? > > > > > >> >> P2: (on which you're already de-railing, since it is a subset of P1as > > > > >> >> you phrased it, but doesn't logically follow from it) "Whether or not > > > > >> >> a mechanism is conscious has no effect on its behavior". This is > > > > >> >> unsupported, to say the least; you haven't demonstrated that > > > > >> >> consciousness has no effect on behavior, just assumed it. > > > > > >> >> C: Sentence three is word salad, but the next sentence gives the idea > > > > >> >> that you're implying that because of P1 and P2, that there must be > > > > >> >> some kind of "Ghost In The Machine", which simply doesn't follow. > > > > > >> >> >and what part of sentance three are you having problems in > > > > >> >> >comprehending? > > > > > >> >> What the Hell you were trying to say in English. The words all mean > > > > >> >> something, but their combination is nonsensical. > > > > > >> >If having subjective experiences did affect behaviour (your objection > > > > >> >to P2), > > > > > >> My objection is that you have neither demonstrated that consciousness > > > > >> has no affect on behavior, nor pointed out why this would be an issue > > > > >> in the first place, other than your own personal incredulity. > > > > > >> > then how could behaviour be explained without taking it into > > > > >> >account (P1)? > > > > > >> As you haven't demonstrated P1 either, the ball is in your court, but > > > > >> again, it does not follow from either premise that some kind of > > > > >> immaterial agent is necessary for consciousness. > > > > >> -- > > > > > >I demonstrated it given P1, which is why you are unable to say why if > > > > >P1 were true then P2 wouldn't be, even though you eroneously claimed > > > > >P2 didn't follow. So will you admit you were wrong, and that P2 does > > > > >follow P1, or will you avoid facing it? > > > > > Sorry, but it doesn't. You really need to brush up on logic, as well > > > > as the English language. > > > > > >You are free to say why you would object to P1, or perhaps the > > > > >original wording you based P1 on: > > > > > >------- > > > > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > > >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > > >conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > > > > Anything could hypothetically be explained with any arbitrary > > > > assumption. It's up to you to demonstrate that your particular > > > > assumption ought to be given credence. > > > > > >I'd be interested to hear why I couldn't simply explain the > > > > >behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > >following the laws of physics (which don't reference subjective > > > > >experiences), with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective > > > > >experiences. > > > > > Indeed you could. But why would you? And how would you ever determine > > > > if you were right? > > > > > >I wouldn't worry as of yet about your inability to understand the > > > > >ramifications, just try to concentrate on understanding the point at > > > > >hand, then we can go onto the ramifications after you comprehend some > > > > >simple truths. > > > > > I understand your argument quite well at this point, I just find it to > > > > be poppycock. > > > > You might think you understand it, but you don't. I'll reword P1 for > > > you: > > > > The known laws of physics do not have subjective experiences as a > > > variable which influences behaviour, > > > That is not the case with quantum physics. The observer does influence > > the behaviour of quantum particles. And the quantum world is a member > > of the known laws of physics. > > > > therefore any physical mechanism > > > which follows the known laws of physics could be explained in terms > > > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics with the > > > assumption that there were no subjective experiences, even if this > > > assumption were incorrect. > > > > Do you agree that the above is a factual statement? > > If you were to regard the Cophenhagen interpretation as correct, even > then, there is no reference to subjective experiences.- I didn't know the Copenhagen interpretation was in dispute, and it seems to me that subjectivity is the whole point of it. The outcome depends upon the subjective experience of the observer. Do you doubt the Copenhagen interpretation? Quote
Guest Andrew Haley Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In alt.atheism Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:31 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> On 4 Jun, 16:57, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> If you were to regard the Cophenhagen interpretation as correct, even >> then, there is no reference to subjective experiences.- > I didn't know the Copenhagen interpretation was in dispute, It's been in dispute since the day it was first postulated. > and it seems to me that subjectivity is the whole point of it. The > outcome depends upon the subjective experience of the observer. Then you disagree with Heisenberg, who said "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.' -- Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137 Quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation Andrew. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >following: > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >did, which isn't plausible. I understand the statement, but it is wrong. It is just an assertion. If consciousness, subjective experience, is physical, then it is physical. And that which we experience is physical. -- 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 Hatter Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Jun 3, 1:33 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1180891542.225420.150960@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > Would an atheist scientist or philosopher care to try to help raven1 > > out here, or can you see where you too were deceived? > > What deception is it you are talking about .. your post was not coherent > enough to be deceptive. Let me boil it down to its essence, the route where we all know he's taking "We don't understand everything, therefore God exists." It is very transparent whitewash over "god of the gaps" argument. He will whine that it isn't. Hatter Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 someone2 wrote: > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > following: This is going to be one of these endless discussions because we (TINW) don't go along with the plot that someone2 wnats us to take on board. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 someone2 wrote: > On 3 Jun, 18:14, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >>> I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >>> following: >> It depend on how well you explain it >> >>> Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >>> have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >>> conscious (had no subjective experiences). >> There's you first mistake, assuming that consciousness if outside the laws >> of physics. >> >> Secondly you assume that the laws of physics controlls reality .. that is >> not the cse .. the "laws" of physics attempt to model and explain reality. >> That something happens which is outside the scope of those model and >> explanations does not make that something impossible, nor does it invalidate >> the "laws" >> >> So the rest of your arguments and conclusions can be ignored, as they are >> based upon faulty premises. > > I have answered you elsewhere, and perhaps you can explain there how > the physical world we experience is not governed by rules. wtf? He said no such thing When are you going to realize, we're not following your plot? > Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 19:07, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:31:55 -0700, someone2 > > > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >On 4 Jun, 16:57, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 4, 5:32 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > >> > On 4 Jun, 05:25, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:04:34 -0700, someone2 > > >> > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> > > >On 3 Jun, 23:55, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > >> > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:31:42 -0700, someone2 > > >> > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >On 3 Jun, 17:20, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:53:43 -0700, someone2 > > >> > > >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> >On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > >> > > >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >> > > >> >> >> >following: > > >> > > >> >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >> > > >> >> >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >> > > >> >> >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > >> > > >> >> >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > >> > > >> >> >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> > > >> >> >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >> > > >> >> >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >> > > >> >> >> >did, which isn't plausible. > > >> > > >> >> >> I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from > >> > > >> >> >> the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an > >> > > >> >> >> argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with > >> > > >> >> >> "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. > > >> > > >> >> >The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it > >> > > >> >> >doesn't, > > >> > > >> >> It simply doesn't. How do you think that it does? > > >> > > >> >> Let's reduce it to an actual syllogism for illustration purposes: > > >> > > >> >> P1: "A mechanism can have its behavior explained without invoking > >> > > >> >> consciousness" > > >> > > >> >> Okay so far? Am I fairly encapsulating your first premise? > > >> > > >> >> P2: (on which you're already de-railing, since it is a subset of P1as > >> > > >> >> you phrased it, but doesn't logically follow from it) "Whether or not > >> > > >> >> a mechanism is conscious has no effect on its behavior". This is > >> > > >> >> unsupported, to say the least; you haven't demonstrated that > >> > > >> >> consciousness has no effect on behavior, just assumed it. > > >> > > >> >> C: Sentence three is word salad, but the next sentence gives the idea > >> > > >> >> that you're implying that because of P1 and P2, that there must be > >> > > >> >> some kind of "Ghost In The Machine", which simply doesn't follow. > > >> > > >> >> >and what part of sentance three are you having problems in > >> > > >> >> >comprehending? > > >> > > >> >> What the Hell you were trying to say in English. The words all mean > >> > > >> >> something, but their combination is nonsensical. > > >> > > >> >If having subjective experiences did affect behaviour (your objection > >> > > >> >to P2), > > >> > > >> My objection is that you have neither demonstrated that consciousness > >> > > >> has no affect on behavior, nor pointed out why this would be an issue > >> > > >> in the first place, other than your own personal incredulity. > > >> > > >> > then how could behaviour be explained without taking it into > >> > > >> >account (P1)? > > >> > > >> As you haven't demonstrated P1 either, the ball is in your court, but > >> > > >> again, it does not follow from either premise that some kind of > >> > > >> immaterial agent is necessary for consciousness. > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >I demonstrated it given P1, which is why you are unable to say why if > >> > > >P1 were true then P2 wouldn't be, even though you eroneously claimed > >> > > >P2 didn't follow. So will you admit you were wrong, and that P2 does > >> > > >follow P1, or will you avoid facing it? > > >> > > Sorry, but it doesn't. You really need to brush up on logic, as well > >> > > as the English language. > > >> > > >You are free to say why you would object to P1, or perhaps the > >> > > >original wording you based P1 on: > > >> > > >------- > >> > > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >> > > >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >> > > >conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > >> > > Anything could hypothetically be explained with any arbitrary > >> > > assumption. It's up to you to demonstrate that your particular > >> > > assumption ought to be given credence. > > >> > > >I'd be interested to hear why I couldn't simply explain the > >> > > >behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the physical mechanism > >> > > >following the laws of physics (which don't reference subjective > >> > > >experiences), with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective > >> > > >experiences. > > >> > > Indeed you could. But why would you? And how would you ever determine > >> > > if you were right? > > >> > > >I wouldn't worry as of yet about your inability to understand the > >> > > >ramifications, just try to concentrate on understanding the point at > >> > > >hand, then we can go onto the ramifications after you comprehend some > >> > > >simple truths. > > >> > > I understand your argument quite well at this point, I just find it to > >> > > be poppycock. > > >> > You might think you understand it, but you don't. I'll reword P1 for > >> > you: > > >> > The known laws of physics do not have subjective experiences as a > >> > variable which influences behaviour, > > >> That is not the case with quantum physics. The observer does influence > >> the behaviour of quantum particles. And the quantum world is a member > >> of the known laws of physics. > > >> > therefore any physical mechanism > >> > which follows the known laws of physics could be explained in terms > >> > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics with the > >> > assumption that there were no subjective experiences, even if this > >> > assumption were incorrect. > > >> > Do you agree that the above is a factual statement? > > >If you were to regard the Cophenhagen interpretation as correct, even > >then, there is no reference to subjective experiences. > > There is reference to a conscious observer. > Really where does it mention the observer must be conscious? Are you suggesting that when observed in the 2-slit experiment for example, that the collapse of the wave into a particle would not have happened, if there was no one in the room, and the results were only recorded by a camera? Basically, you don't know what you're talking about, and you've bet your soul on it that you were right, yet you can't even follow the reasoning when it is pointed out to you that your world view perspective is implausible. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 19:10, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1180977907.518177.127880@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 4 Jun, 16:07, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1180915714.304693.138900@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 4 Jun, 00:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1180903459.945467.317500@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 3 Jun, 21:38, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >> >> >> >> > following: > > >> >> >> >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, > >> >> >> >> > could > >> >> >> >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it > >> >> >> >> > wasn't > >> >> >> >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > >> >> >> >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of its > >> >> >> >> behavior > >> >> >> >> would necessarily include that consciousness. > > >> >> >> >> > Which means that whether it > >> >> >> >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. > > >> >> >> >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would > >> >> >> >> necessarily > >> >> >> >> include > >> >> >> >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. > > >> >> >> >> > Therefore if we were simply a > >> >> >> >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our > >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >> >> >> >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour > >> >> >> >> > claimed > >> >> >> >> > we > >> >> >> >> > did, which isn't plausible. > > >> >> >> >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, it's > >> >> >> >> not > >> >> >> >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. > > >> >> >> > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply > >> >> >> > followed > >> >> >> > the laws of physics was conscious, > > >> >> >> Who said you had to? > > >> >> >> > why couldn't I explain it simply in > >> >> >> > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics > >> >> >> > with > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > assumption that it wasn't? > > >> >> >> If you fully describe the behavior of the mechanism in terms of a > >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> mechanism following the laws of physics, then you are describing > >> >> >> all > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> events that contribute to that behavior. If the mechanism is > >> >> >> conscious, > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> consciousness will be included in the description of events in > >> >> >> terms > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness is > >> >> >> just > >> >> >> our > >> >> >> word that labels a particular VARIETY of physical mechanisms > >> >> >> following > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> laws of physics. > > >> >> > While I you can believe that the mechanism is responsible for our > >> >> > subjective experiences, you avoided explaining why I couldn't > >> >> > explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the > >> >> > physical > >> >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption that > >> >> > there were no subjective experiences, or could I? > > >> >> I did not say you couldn't explain the behaviour of the mechanism > >> >> simply > >> >> in > >> >> terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with > >> >> the > >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, and I defy you > >> >> to > >> >> point out where I did. > > >> >> What I DID say is that in explaining the behaviour of the mechanism > >> >> simply > >> >> in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with > >> >> the > >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, you would, of > >> >> necessity, include in that explanation the physical events that > >> >> constitute > >> >> consciousness if they occurred. > > >> >> Unless, of course, you arbitrarily want to avoid describing those > >> >> physical > >> >> events that constitute consciousness, and affect behavior, and leave > >> >> your > >> >> explanation incomplete. You are free to do that. > > >> > So you admit, that the behaviour of the mechanism could be explained > >> > with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective experiences. > > >> Sure. But if it did have subjective experiences, those experiences would > >> be > >> included in the explanation in terms of physical mechanisms following the > >> laws of physics. In other words, you could explain the behavior with a > >> rote > >> description of physical events, unaware that you are describing > >> subjective > >> experiences and their effect on behavior, in terms of physical events. > > >> > Can you follow that this being the case, whether it did or didn't have > >> > any subjective experiences couldn't influence the behaviour, for if it > >> > did, its behaviour could not be explained without taking into account > >> > whether it did or didn't have any subjective experiences? > > >> If it has subjective experiences, then they are part of its behavior, and > >> any explanation that failed to include them would be incomplete, by > >> definition. > > > So only knowledge of the mechanism that you would regard as > > responsible for the subjective experiences (if indeed there were > > any)would be sufficient to explain the behaviour. > > "Only"? I never suggested that was the only factor that effects behavior. > I'm saying that if you want a complete explanation of behavior you have to > account for all factors. > > And are you attempting to separate subjective experience form the mechanism > responsible for it? > > > No knowledge of > > whether there were any subjective experiences or not would be > > required. > > True. > > > So for any given mechanism, whether it were experienced or not, > > wouldn't influence the behaviour. > > Of course it would affect the behavior. Haven't you listened to a word I've > said? > > > So if we were to be regarded as a > > biological mechanism we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > experiences because they actually existed. > > Our subjective experiences actually exist as material patterns in brains. > These material patterns affect behavior. Is this impossible for you to > understand? > > > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that it > > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an alternative > > universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there > > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the > > same. > > No. If you disallow the material process of consciousness and subjective > experience, then you've obviously got a universe that behaves differently > from the one we're in. You're trying to violate the principle of identity, > which pretty much hoses logic completely. > > > The objection that if it followed the same known laws of > > physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if > > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of > > physics don't reference subjective experiences, > > We do not note any subjective experiences in the absence of physical brains. > Thus we are justified in holding the tentative conclusion that physical > brains are required for subjective experience. Since we note that > manipulation of the physical brain produces changes in subjective > experience, we are justified in holding the tentative conclusion that > subjective experience depends on the arrangement of matter in the physical > brain. > > > thus it is > > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the > > same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective > > experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known laws > > of physics to be altered. > > So this is a "Consciousness of the Gaps" argument? > Do you accept that you could conceptually due to the known laws of physics not referencing subjective experiences, have a two universes which both followed the same known laws of physics, and yet in one, a given mechanism gave rise to subjective experiences, and in the other it didn't? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 19:10, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:54:10 -0700, someone2 > > > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >On 4 Jun, 18:37, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:25:07 -0700, someone2 > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >On 4 Jun, 16:07, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1180915714.304693.138900@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 4 Jun, 00:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:1180903459.945467.317500@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 21:38, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >>news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >> >> >> >> >> > following: > > >> >> >> >> >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, > >> >> >> >> >> > could > >> >> >> >> >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >> >> >> >> >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > >> >> >> >> >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of its > >> >> >> >> >> behavior > >> >> >> >> >> would necessarily include that consciousness. > > >> >> >> >> >> > Which means that whether it > >> >> >> >> >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. > > >> >> >> >> >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would > >> >> >> >> >> necessarily > >> >> >> >> >> include > >> >> >> >> >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. > > >> >> >> >> >> > Therefore if we were simply a > >> >> >> >> >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> >> >> >> >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >> >> >> >> >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour > >> >> >> >> >> > claimed > >> >> >> >> >> > we > >> >> >> >> >> > did, which isn't plausible. > > >> >> >> >> >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, it's not > >> >> >> >> >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. > > >> >> >> >> > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply followed > >> >> >> >> > the laws of physics was conscious, > > >> >> >> >> Who said you had to? > > >> >> >> >> > why couldn't I explain it simply in > >> >> >> >> > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics with > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > assumption that it wasn't? > > >> >> >> >> If you fully describe the behavior of the mechanism in terms of a > >> >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> >> mechanism following the laws of physics, then you are describing all > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> events that contribute to that behavior. If the mechanism is > >> >> >> >> conscious, > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> consciousness will be included in the description of events in terms > >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness > >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness is > >> >> >> >> just > >> >> >> >> our > >> >> >> >> word that labels a particular VARIETY of physical mechanisms following > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> laws of physics. > > >> >> >> > While I you can believe that the mechanism is responsible for our > >> >> >> > subjective experiences, you avoided explaining why I couldn't > >> >> >> > explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the physical > >> >> >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption that > >> >> >> > there were no subjective experiences, or could I? > > >> >> >> I did not say you couldn't explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply > >> >> >> in > >> >> >> terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with the > >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, and I defy you to > >> >> >> point out where I did. > > >> >> >> What I DID say is that in explaining the behaviour of the mechanism > >> >> >> simply > >> >> >> in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, you would, of > >> >> >> necessity, include in that explanation the physical events that > >> >> >> constitute > >> >> >> consciousness if they occurred. > > >> >> >> Unless, of course, you arbitrarily want to avoid describing those > >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> events that constitute consciousness, and affect behavior, and leave your > >> >> >> explanation incomplete. You are free to do that. > > >> >> > So you admit, that the behaviour of the mechanism could be explained > >> >> > with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective experiences. > > >> >> Sure. But if it did have subjective experiences, those experiences would be > >> >> included in the explanation in terms of physical mechanisms following the > >> >> laws of physics. In other words, you could explain the behavior with a rote > >> >> description of physical events, unaware that you are describing subjective > >> >> experiences and their effect on behavior, in terms of physical events. > > >> >> > Can you follow that this being the case, whether it did or didn't have > >> >> > any subjective experiences couldn't influence the behaviour, for if it > >> >> > did, its behaviour could not be explained without taking into account > >> >> > whether it did or didn't have any subjective experiences? > > >> >> If it has subjective experiences, then they are part of its behavior, and > >> >> any explanation that failed to include them would be incomplete, by > >> >> definition. > > >> >So only knowledge of the mechanism that you would regard as > >> >responsible for the subjective experiences (if indeed there were > >> >any)would be sufficient to explain the behaviour. No knowledge of > >> >whether there were any subjective experiences or not would be > >> >required. > > >> >So for any given mechanism, whether it were experienced or not, > >> >wouldn't influence the behaviour. So if we were to be regarded as a > >> >biological mechanism we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> >experiences because they actually existed. > > >> >To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that it > >> >would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an alternative > >> >universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there > >> >were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the > >> >same. The objection that if it followed the same known laws of > >> >physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if > >> >it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of > >> >physics don't reference subjective experiences, thus it is > >> >conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the > >> >same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective > >> >experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known laws > >> >of physics to be altered. > > >> This is close to word salad. > >> -- > > >Though I am having a conversation with you elsewhere on this thread > >(I'm still awaiting your response), out of curiousity, what bit were > >you unable to comprehend? > > Again, exactly what the Hell you're trying to say in English. The > words all have meanings, but their combination is clumsy in parts, and > gibberish in others. > -- > Hmm, it seems that you aren't just incapable of following reason, but also incapable of following sentances which most people would have no trouble with. To highlight the issue to yourself, mark on a scale of 1-10 how difficult you think the sentance was to understand. Then, write the sentance down, and show it to people you know, and ask if they would be capable of deciphering it for you. When they have done so, ask them to give on a scale of 1-10 how difficult it was for them, and you will see the problem is with you. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 19:14, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:31 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4 Jun, 16:57, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 5:32 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > On 4 Jun, 05:25, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:04:34 -0700, someone2 > > > > > > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > >On 3 Jun, 23:55, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:31:42 -0700, someone2 > > > > > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >On 3 Jun, 17:20, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:53:43 -0700, someone2 > > > > > > >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> >On 3 Jun, 16:49, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, someone2 > > > > > > >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > > > > >> >> >> >following: > > > > > > >> >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > > > >> >> >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > > > >> >> >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > > > > > >> >> >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > > > > > >> >> >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > > > > > >> >> >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > > > > > >> >> >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > > > > > >> >> >> >did, which isn't plausible. > > > > > > >> >> >> I understand the gist of it, but the conclusion does not follow from > > > > > >> >> >> the premises, sentence three is gobbledygook, and sentence four is an > > > > > >> >> >> argument from personal incredulity (which would scan much better with > > > > > >> >> >> "implied" substituted for "claimed"). Try again. > > > > > > >> >> >The conclusion does follow from the premises. Where do you think it > > > > > >> >> >doesn't, > > > > > > >> >> It simply doesn't. How do you think that it does? > > > > > > >> >> Let's reduce it to an actual syllogism for illustration purposes: > > > > > > >> >> P1: "A mechanism can have its behavior explained without invoking > > > > > >> >> consciousness" > > > > > > >> >> Okay so far? Am I fairly encapsulating your first premise? > > > > > > >> >> P2: (on which you're already de-railing, since it is a subset of P1as > > > > > >> >> you phrased it, but doesn't logically follow from it) "Whether or not > > > > > >> >> a mechanism is conscious has no effect on its behavior". This is > > > > > >> >> unsupported, to say the least; you haven't demonstrated that > > > > > >> >> consciousness has no effect on behavior, just assumed it. > > > > > > >> >> C: Sentence three is word salad, but the next sentence gives the idea > > > > > >> >> that you're implying that because of P1 and P2, that there must be > > > > > >> >> some kind of "Ghost In The Machine", which simply doesn't follow. > > > > > > >> >> >and what part of sentance three are you having problems in > > > > > >> >> >comprehending? > > > > > > >> >> What the Hell you were trying to say in English. The words all mean > > > > > >> >> something, but their combination is nonsensical. > > > > > > >> >If having subjective experiences did affect behaviour (your objection > > > > > >> >to P2), > > > > > > >> My objection is that you have neither demonstrated that consciousness > > > > > >> has no affect on behavior, nor pointed out why this would be an issue > > > > > >> in the first place, other than your own personal incredulity. > > > > > > >> > then how could behaviour be explained without taking it into > > > > > >> >account (P1)? > > > > > > >> As you haven't demonstrated P1 either, the ball is in your court, but > > > > > >> again, it does not follow from either premise that some kind of > > > > > >> immaterial agent is necessary for consciousness. > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >I demonstrated it given P1, which is why you are unable to say why if > > > > > >P1 were true then P2 wouldn't be, even though you eroneously claimed > > > > > >P2 didn't follow. So will you admit you were wrong, and that P2 does > > > > > >follow P1, or will you avoid facing it? > > > > > > Sorry, but it doesn't. You really need to brush up on logic, as well > > > > > as the English language. > > > > > > >You are free to say why you would object to P1, or perhaps the > > > > > >original wording you based P1 on: > > > > > > >------- > > > > > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > > > > > >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > > > > > >conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > > > > > Anything could hypothetically be explained with any arbitrary > > > > > assumption. It's up to you to demonstrate that your particular > > > > > assumption ought to be given credence. > > > > > > >I'd be interested to hear why I couldn't simply explain the > > > > > >behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > > >following the laws of physics (which don't reference subjective > > > > > >experiences), with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective > > > > > >experiences. > > > > > > Indeed you could. But why would you? And how would you ever determine > > > > > if you were right? > > > > > > >I wouldn't worry as of yet about your inability to understand the > > > > > >ramifications, just try to concentrate on understanding the point at > > > > > >hand, then we can go onto the ramifications after you comprehend some > > > > > >simple truths. > > > > > > I understand your argument quite well at this point, I just find it to > > > > > be poppycock. > > > > > You might think you understand it, but you don't. I'll reword P1 for > > > > you: > > > > > The known laws of physics do not have subjective experiences as a > > > > variable which influences behaviour, > > > > That is not the case with quantum physics. The observer does influence > > > the behaviour of quantum particles. And the quantum world is a member > > > of the known laws of physics. > > > > > therefore any physical mechanism > > > > which follows the known laws of physics could be explained in terms > > > > of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics with the > > > > assumption that there were no subjective experiences, even if this > > > > assumption were incorrect. > > > > > Do you agree that the above is a factual statement? > > > If you were to regard the Cophenhagen interpretation as correct, even > > then, there is no reference to subjective experiences.- > > I didn't know the Copenhagen interpretation was in dispute, and it > seems to me that subjectivity is the whole point of it. The outcome > depends upon the subjective experience of the observer. Do you doubt > the Copenhagen interpretation? > Yes. Here is an example email correspondance between two physics professors, the converstation is actually about why the concept of quantum randomness at all, when the objections, and proofs of the necessity for randomness were shown to be unfounded by Bohmian mechanics. http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/weingold.htm You'll notice where Weinberg comments: ------ It is not true that the only alternative to Bohm's version of quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation, for which I share your reservations. These days most physicists who think about it at all understand quantum mechanics in terms of the Everett many-histories approach. In any case, the basic reason for not paying attention to the Bohm approach is not some sort of ideological rigidity, but much simpler --- it is just that we are all too busy with our own work to spend time on something that doesn't seem likely to help us make progress with our real problems. ------ Though I am comfortable with you believing that it has been shown that there are events for which there is no cause within the physical. Anyway the point was, there are no references to subjective experiences within QM. Did you seriously think that in the 2-slit experiment for example that it meant the wave wouldn't collapse into a particle on hitting the screen (being observed) if it wasn't being observed by any conscious being, and that the results were only recorded by video camera? I'm starting to get the picture though, many of you on this board have bet your souls that you were right to deny God's existance, because you thought it was the intelligent thing to do, and that it would make you look intelligent, but you didn't even understand what you were signing up to. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 19:56, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > In alt.atheism Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 10:31 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On 4 Jun, 16:57, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> If you were to regard the Cophenhagen interpretation as correct, even > >> then, there is no reference to subjective experiences.- > > I didn't know the Copenhagen interpretation was in dispute, > > It's been in dispute since the day it was first postulated. > > > and it seems to me that subjectivity is the whole point of it. The > > outcome depends upon the subjective experience of the observer. > > Then you disagree with Heisenberg, who said > > "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be > misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are > to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, > rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., > processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the > observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, > i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is > absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the > interpretation of quantum theory.' > > -- Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137 > Quoted inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation > On the bright side, it isn't just what I write that people on this board have trouble understanding, they don't even understand what they are quoting. Do you notice that Heisenberg says: ---- ....,and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being;... ---- You surely weren't thinking that the apparatus had subjective experiences? The observer isn't referencing an observer which has subjective experiences. As I have said to other people here, did you seriously think that in the two slit experiment if the results were only recorded on video camera, that the wave wouldn't collapse into a particle if there wasn't a conscious observer in the room? I can see now why so many of you have a problem following things, you didn't really understand what was being said, you were just a bunch of intelligent wanabees, who bet your souls in the hope that other people might think you were smart, when all you were doing was allowing yourselves to be manipulated like cattle. When you take the planks out of your eyes and see how you were deceived, then maybe you could help the world become a better place, and then experience Heaven. On the other hand, maybe you can't understand how silly your choices appear. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 20:06, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > <1180875033.790773.206...@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >following: > > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >did, which isn't plausible. > > I understand the statement, but it is wrong. It is just an assertion. > If consciousness, subjective experience, is physical, then it is > physical. And that which we experience is physical. > I understand you don't grasp it yet, maybe you even bet your soul that we were just a biological mechanism that followed the known laws of physics, and that God didn't exist. Did you agree by the way with: --- Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't conscious (had no subjective experiences). --- Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 21:19, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 1:33 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >news:1180891542.225420.150960@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > Would an atheist scientist or philosopher care to try to help raven1 > > > out here, or can you see where you too were deceived? > > > What deception is it you are talking about .. your post was not coherent > > enough to be deceptive. > > Let me boil it down to its essence, the route where we all know he's > taking > > "We don't understand everything, therefore God exists." > > It is very transparent whitewash over "god of the gaps" argument. He > will whine that it isn't. > That wasn't the essence of the argument, you are wrong. Go back, try to follow it through, and then have another go. Take it as a comprehension test if you like. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 21:53, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > someone2 wrote: > > I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > > following: > > This is going to be one of these endless discussions because we (TINW) > don't go along with the plot that someone2 wnats us to take on board. So rather than face reason, you just run. To me that seems somewhat pathetic. Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180992269.825596.105660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On 4 Jun, 19:10, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1180977907.518177.127880@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 4 Jun, 16:07, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1180915714.304693.138900@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 4 Jun, 00:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:1180903459.945467.317500@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 21:38, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand >> >> >> >> >> >the >> >> >> >> >> > following: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of >> >> >> >> >> > physics, >> >> >> >> >> > could >> >> >> >> >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it >> >> >> >> >> > wasn't >> >> >> >> >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). >> >> >> >> >> >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of >> >> >> >> >> its >> >> >> >> >> behavior >> >> >> >> >> would necessarily include that consciousness. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Which means that whether it >> >> >> >> >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. >> >> >> >> >> >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would >> >> >> >> >> necessarily >> >> >> >> >> include >> >> >> >> >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Therefore if we were simply a >> >> >> >> >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be >> >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> >> >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour >> >> >> >> >> > claimed >> >> >> >> >> > we >> >> >> >> >> > did, which isn't plausible. >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, >> >> >> >> >> it's >> >> >> >> >> not >> >> >> >> >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. >> >> >> >> >> > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply >> >> >> >> > followed >> >> >> >> > the laws of physics was conscious, >> >> >> >> >> Who said you had to? >> >> >> >> >> > why couldn't I explain it simply in >> >> >> >> > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics >> >> >> >> > with >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > assumption that it wasn't? >> >> >> >> >> If you fully describe the behavior of the mechanism in terms of >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> physical >> >> >> >> mechanism following the laws of physics, then you are describing >> >> >> >> all >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> events that contribute to that behavior. If the mechanism is >> >> >> >> conscious, >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> consciousness will be included in the description of events in >> >> >> >> terms >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> just >> >> >> >> our >> >> >> >> word that labels a particular VARIETY of physical mechanisms >> >> >> >> following >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> laws of physics. >> >> >> >> > While I you can believe that the mechanism is responsible for our >> >> >> > subjective experiences, you avoided explaining why I couldn't >> >> >> > explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the >> >> >> > physical >> >> >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption that >> >> >> > there were no subjective experiences, or could I? >> >> >> >> I did not say you couldn't explain the behaviour of the mechanism >> >> >> simply >> >> >> in >> >> >> terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with >> >> >> the >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, and I defy >> >> >> you >> >> >> to >> >> >> point out where I did. >> >> >> >> What I DID say is that in explaining the behaviour of the mechanism >> >> >> simply >> >> >> in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, >> >> >> with >> >> >> the >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, you would, of >> >> >> necessity, include in that explanation the physical events that >> >> >> constitute >> >> >> consciousness if they occurred. >> >> >> >> Unless, of course, you arbitrarily want to avoid describing those >> >> >> physical >> >> >> events that constitute consciousness, and affect behavior, and >> >> >> leave >> >> >> your >> >> >> explanation incomplete. You are free to do that. >> >> >> > So you admit, that the behaviour of the mechanism could be explained >> >> > with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective experiences. >> >> >> Sure. But if it did have subjective experiences, those experiences >> >> would >> >> be >> >> included in the explanation in terms of physical mechanisms following >> >> the >> >> laws of physics. In other words, you could explain the behavior with a >> >> rote >> >> description of physical events, unaware that you are describing >> >> subjective >> >> experiences and their effect on behavior, in terms of physical events. >> >> >> > Can you follow that this being the case, whether it did or didn't >> >> > have >> >> > any subjective experiences couldn't influence the behaviour, for if >> >> > it >> >> > did, its behaviour could not be explained without taking into >> >> > account >> >> > whether it did or didn't have any subjective experiences? >> >> >> If it has subjective experiences, then they are part of its behavior, >> >> and >> >> any explanation that failed to include them would be incomplete, by >> >> definition. >> >> > So only knowledge of the mechanism that you would regard as >> > responsible for the subjective experiences (if indeed there were >> > any)would be sufficient to explain the behaviour. >> >> "Only"? I never suggested that was the only factor that effects behavior. >> I'm saying that if you want a complete explanation of behavior you have >> to >> account for all factors. >> >> And are you attempting to separate subjective experience form the >> mechanism >> responsible for it? >> >> > No knowledge of >> > whether there were any subjective experiences or not would be >> > required. >> >> True. >> >> > So for any given mechanism, whether it were experienced or not, >> > wouldn't influence the behaviour. >> >> Of course it would affect the behavior. Haven't you listened to a word >> I've >> said? >> >> > So if we were to be regarded as a >> > biological mechanism we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> > experiences because they actually existed. >> >> Our subjective experiences actually exist as material patterns in brains. >> These material patterns affect behavior. Is this impossible for you to >> understand? >> >> > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that it >> > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an alternative >> > universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there >> > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the >> > same. >> >> No. If you disallow the material process of consciousness and subjective >> experience, then you've obviously got a universe that behaves differently >> from the one we're in. You're trying to violate the principle of >> identity, >> which pretty much hoses logic completely. >> >> > The objection that if it followed the same known laws of >> > physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if >> > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of >> > physics don't reference subjective experiences, >> >> We do not note any subjective experiences in the absence of physical >> brains. >> Thus we are justified in holding the tentative conclusion that physical >> brains are required for subjective experience. Since we note that >> manipulation of the physical brain produces changes in subjective >> experience, we are justified in holding the tentative conclusion that >> subjective experience depends on the arrangement of matter in the >> physical >> brain. >> >> > thus it is >> > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the >> > same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective >> > experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known laws >> > of physics to be altered. >> >> So this is a "Consciousness of the Gaps" argument? >> > > Do you accept that you could conceptually due to the known laws of > physics not referencing subjective experiences, have a two universes > which both followed the same known laws of physics, and yet in one, > a given mechanism gave rise to subjective experiences, and in the > other it didn't? No. I'm a materialist, and you're asking me to abandon the principle of identity. You're asking me to abandon logic. I will not do so. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:16:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1180995378.126317.72550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 4 Jun, 20:06, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> <1180875033.790773.206...@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >> >following: >> >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we >> >did, which isn't plausible. >> >> I understand the statement, but it is wrong. It is just an assertion. >> If consciousness, subjective experience, is physical, then it is >> physical. And that which we experience is physical. >> > >I understand you don't grasp it yet, Can you distinguish between not grasping and disagreeing? >maybe you even bet your soul that >we were just a biological mechanism that followed the known laws of >physics, and that God didn't exist. > >Did you agree by the way with: >--- >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't >conscious (had no subjective experiences). >--- No, I don't. That statement contains an implicit denial that subjective experience is a useful explanation of a physical phenomena. -- 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 Denis Loubet Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180992517.017642.21650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On 4 Jun, 19:10, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:54:10 -0700, someone2 >> >> >> >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >On 4 Jun, 18:37, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:25:07 -0700, someone2 >> >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >On 4 Jun, 16:07, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:1180915714.304693.138900@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 4 Jun, 00:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:1180903459.945467.317500@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 21:38, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can >> >> >> >> >> >> >understand the >> >> >> >> >> >> > following: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, >> >> >> >> >> >> > could >> >> >> >> >> >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it >> >> >> >> >> >> > wasn't >> >> >> >> >> >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation >> >> >> >> >> >> of its >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior >> >> >> >> >> >> would necessarily include that consciousness. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Which means that whether it >> >> >> >> >> >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would >> >> >> >> >> >> necessarily >> >> >> >> >> >> include >> >> >> >> >> >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Therefore if we were simply a >> >> >> >> >> >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to >> >> >> >> >> >> > be a >> >> >> >> >> >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour >> >> >> >> >> >> > claimed >> >> >> >> >> >> > we >> >> >> >> >> >> > did, which isn't plausible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, >> >> >> >> >> >> it's not >> >> >> >> >> >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply >> >> >> >> >> > followed >> >> >> >> >> > the laws of physics was conscious, >> >> >> >> >> >> Who said you had to? >> >> >> >> >> >> > why couldn't I explain it simply in >> >> >> >> >> > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of >> >> >> >> >> > physics with >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> > assumption that it wasn't? >> >> >> >> >> >> If you fully describe the behavior of the mechanism in terms >> >> >> >> >> of a >> >> >> >> >> physical >> >> >> >> >> mechanism following the laws of physics, then you are >> >> >> >> >> describing all >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> events that contribute to that behavior. If the mechanism is >> >> >> >> >> conscious, >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> consciousness will be included in the description of events >> >> >> >> >> in terms >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. >> >> >> >> >> Consciousness >> >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. >> >> >> >> >> Consciousness is >> >> >> >> >> just >> >> >> >> >> our >> >> >> >> >> word that labels a particular VARIETY of physical mechanisms >> >> >> >> >> following >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> laws of physics. >> >> >> >> >> > While I you can believe that the mechanism is responsible for >> >> >> >> > our >> >> >> >> > subjective experiences, you avoided explaining why I >> >> >> >> > couldn't >> >> >> >> > explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the >> >> >> >> > physical >> >> >> >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> > there were no subjective experiences, or could I? >> >> >> >> >> I did not say you couldn't explain the behaviour of the >> >> >> >> mechanism simply >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, >> >> >> >> with the >> >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, and I defy >> >> >> >> you to >> >> >> >> point out where I did. >> >> >> >> >> What I DID say is that in explaining the behaviour of the >> >> >> >> mechanism >> >> >> >> simply >> >> >> >> in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of >> >> >> >> physics, with >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, you would, >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> necessity, include in that explanation the physical events that >> >> >> >> constitute >> >> >> >> consciousness if they occurred. >> >> >> >> >> Unless, of course, you arbitrarily want to avoid describing >> >> >> >> those >> >> >> >> physical >> >> >> >> events that constitute consciousness, and affect behavior, and >> >> >> >> leave your >> >> >> >> explanation incomplete. You are free to do that. >> >> >> >> > So you admit, that the behaviour of the mechanism could be >> >> >> > explained >> >> >> > with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective >> >> >> > experiences. >> >> >> >> Sure. But if it did have subjective experiences, those experiences >> >> >> would be >> >> >> included in the explanation in terms of physical mechanisms >> >> >> following the >> >> >> laws of physics. In other words, you could explain the behavior >> >> >> with a rote >> >> >> description of physical events, unaware that you are describing >> >> >> subjective >> >> >> experiences and their effect on behavior, in terms of physical >> >> >> events. >> >> >> >> > Can you follow that this being the case, whether it did or didn't >> >> >> > have >> >> >> > any subjective experiences couldn't influence the behaviour, for >> >> >> > if it >> >> >> > did, its behaviour could not be explained without taking into >> >> >> > account >> >> >> > whether it did or didn't have any subjective experiences? >> >> >> >> If it has subjective experiences, then they are part of its >> >> >> behavior, and >> >> >> any explanation that failed to include them would be incomplete, by >> >> >> definition. >> >> >> >So only knowledge of the mechanism that you would regard as >> >> >responsible for the subjective experiences (if indeed there were >> >> >any)would be sufficient to explain the behaviour. No knowledge of >> >> >whether there were any subjective experiences or not would be >> >> >required. >> >> >> >So for any given mechanism, whether it were experienced or not, >> >> >wouldn't influence the behaviour. So if we were to be regarded as a >> >> >biological mechanism we couldn't be talking about our subjective >> >> >experiences because they actually existed. >> >> >> >To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that it >> >> >would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an >> >> >alternative >> >> >universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there >> >> >were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the >> >> >same. The objection that if it followed the same known laws of >> >> >physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if >> >> >it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of >> >> >physics don't reference subjective experiences, thus it is >> >> >conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the >> >> >same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective >> >> >experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known laws >> >> >of physics to be altered. >> >> >> This is close to word salad. >> >> -- >> >> >Though I am having a conversation with you elsewhere on this thread >> >(I'm still awaiting your response), out of curiousity, what bit were >> >you unable to comprehend? >> >> Again, exactly what the Hell you're trying to say in English. The >> words all have meanings, but their combination is clumsy in parts, and >> gibberish in others. >> -- >> > > Hmm, it seems that you aren't just incapable of following reason, but > also incapable of following sentances which most people would have no > trouble with. Yet it is odd that you're the only person who thinks so. I agree with raven1. I find your sentences clumsey and loaded with unspoken assumptions. > To highlight the issue to yourself, mark on a scale of > 1-10 how difficult you think the sentance was to understand. Then, > write the sentance down, and show it to people you know, and ask if > they would be capable of deciphering it for you. When they have done > so, ask them to give on a scale of 1-10 how difficult it was for them, > and you will see the problem is with you. I also find you condecending and rude. By the way, "most people" know how to spell sentence. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 someone2 wrote: > On 4 Jun, 21:53, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >> someone2 wrote: >>> I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the >>> following: >> This is going to be one of these endless discussions because we (TINW) >> don't go along with the plot that someone2 wnats us to take on board. > > So rather than face reason, you just run. To me that seems somewhat > pathetic. You're playing games just as you did in TO, you're dishonest. > Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 23:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1180992269.825596.105660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 4 Jun, 19:10, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1180977907.518177.127880@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 4 Jun, 16:07, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1180915714.304693.138900@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 4 Jun, 00:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:1180903459.945467.317500@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 21:38, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >>news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand > >> >> >> >> >> >the > >> >> >> >> >> > following: > > >> >> >> >> >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of > >> >> >> >> >> > physics, > >> >> >> >> >> > could > >> >> >> >> >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it > >> >> >> >> >> > wasn't > >> >> >> >> >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > >> >> >> >> >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation of > >> >> >> >> >> its > >> >> >> >> >> behavior > >> >> >> >> >> would necessarily include that consciousness. > > >> >> >> >> >> > Which means that whether it > >> >> >> >> >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. > > >> >> >> >> >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would > >> >> >> >> >> necessarily > >> >> >> >> >> include > >> >> >> >> >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. > > >> >> >> >> >> > Therefore if we were simply a > >> >> >> >> >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our > >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to be > >> >> >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> >> >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour > >> >> >> >> >> > claimed > >> >> >> >> >> > we > >> >> >> >> >> > did, which isn't plausible. > > >> >> >> >> >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, > >> >> >> >> >> it's > >> >> >> >> >> not > >> >> >> >> >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. > > >> >> >> >> > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply > >> >> >> >> > followed > >> >> >> >> > the laws of physics was conscious, > > >> >> >> >> Who said you had to? > > >> >> >> >> > why couldn't I explain it simply in > >> >> >> >> > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics > >> >> >> >> > with > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > assumption that it wasn't? > > >> >> >> >> If you fully describe the behavior of the mechanism in terms of > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> >> mechanism following the laws of physics, then you are describing > >> >> >> >> all > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> events that contribute to that behavior. If the mechanism is > >> >> >> >> conscious, > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> consciousness will be included in the description of events in > >> >> >> >> terms > >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness > >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. Consciousness > >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> just > >> >> >> >> our > >> >> >> >> word that labels a particular VARIETY of physical mechanisms > >> >> >> >> following > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> laws of physics. > > >> >> >> > While I you can believe that the mechanism is responsible for our > >> >> >> > subjective experiences, you avoided explaining why I couldn't > >> >> >> > explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the > >> >> >> > physical > >> >> >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption that > >> >> >> > there were no subjective experiences, or could I? > > >> >> >> I did not say you couldn't explain the behaviour of the mechanism > >> >> >> simply > >> >> >> in > >> >> >> terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, with > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, and I defy > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> point out where I did. > > >> >> >> What I DID say is that in explaining the behaviour of the mechanism > >> >> >> simply > >> >> >> in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, > >> >> >> with > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, you would, of > >> >> >> necessity, include in that explanation the physical events that > >> >> >> constitute > >> >> >> consciousness if they occurred. > > >> >> >> Unless, of course, you arbitrarily want to avoid describing those > >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> events that constitute consciousness, and affect behavior, and > >> >> >> leave > >> >> >> your > >> >> >> explanation incomplete. You are free to do that. > > >> >> > So you admit, that the behaviour of the mechanism could be explained > >> >> > with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective experiences. > > >> >> Sure. But if it did have subjective experiences, those experiences > >> >> would > >> >> be > >> >> included in the explanation in terms of physical mechanisms following > >> >> the > >> >> laws of physics. In other words, you could explain the behavior with a > >> >> rote > >> >> description of physical events, unaware that you are describing > >> >> subjective > >> >> experiences and their effect on behavior, in terms of physical events. > > >> >> > Can you follow that this being the case, whether it did or didn't > >> >> > have > >> >> > any subjective experiences couldn't influence the behaviour, for if > >> >> > it > >> >> > did, its behaviour could not be explained without taking into > >> >> > account > >> >> > whether it did or didn't have any subjective experiences? > > >> >> If it has subjective experiences, then they are part of its behavior, > >> >> and > >> >> any explanation that failed to include them would be incomplete, by > >> >> definition. > > >> > So only knowledge of the mechanism that you would regard as > >> > responsible for the subjective experiences (if indeed there were > >> > any)would be sufficient to explain the behaviour. > > >> "Only"? I never suggested that was the only factor that effects behavior. > >> I'm saying that if you want a complete explanation of behavior you have > >> to > >> account for all factors. > > >> And are you attempting to separate subjective experience form the > >> mechanism > >> responsible for it? > > >> > No knowledge of > >> > whether there were any subjective experiences or not would be > >> > required. > > >> True. > > >> > So for any given mechanism, whether it were experienced or not, > >> > wouldn't influence the behaviour. > > >> Of course it would affect the behavior. Haven't you listened to a word > >> I've > >> said? > > >> > So if we were to be regarded as a > >> > biological mechanism we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> > experiences because they actually existed. > > >> Our subjective experiences actually exist as material patterns in brains. > >> These material patterns affect behavior. Is this impossible for you to > >> understand? > > >> > To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that it > >> > would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an alternative > >> > universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there > >> > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the > >> > same. > > >> No. If you disallow the material process of consciousness and subjective > >> experience, then you've obviously got a universe that behaves differently > >> from the one we're in. You're trying to violate the principle of > >> identity, > >> which pretty much hoses logic completely. > > >> > The objection that if it followed the same known laws of > >> > physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if > >> > it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of > >> > physics don't reference subjective experiences, > > >> We do not note any subjective experiences in the absence of physical > >> brains. > >> Thus we are justified in holding the tentative conclusion that physical > >> brains are required for subjective experience. Since we note that > >> manipulation of the physical brain produces changes in subjective > >> experience, we are justified in holding the tentative conclusion that > >> subjective experience depends on the arrangement of matter in the > >> physical > >> brain. > > >> > thus it is > >> > conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the > >> > same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective > >> > experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known laws > >> > of physics to be altered. > > >> So this is a "Consciousness of the Gaps" argument? > > > Do you accept that you could conceptually due to the known laws of > > physics not referencing subjective experiences, have a two universes > > which both followed the same known laws of physics, and yet in one, > > a given mechanism gave rise to subjective experiences, and in the > > other it didn't? > > No. > > I'm a materialist, and you're asking me to abandon the principle of > identity. You're asking me to abandon logic. > > I will not do so. > Sit in denial if you like, but it is conceptually possible to consider two universes following the same known laws of physics, and yet one having subjective experiences and the other not, because the laws of physics don't reference whether anything subjectively experiences. So you can sit there not being able to even face thinking about it because it would show your whole world perspective to be implausible, but it seems to me pathetic and cowardly to not be able to face reason. When you feel brave enough, maybe you'll read it again, and consider the possibility, and how it highlights how you had been deceived. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 23:28, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:16:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > > <1180995378.126317.72...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On 4 Jun, 20:06, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:50:33 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> <1180875033.790773.206...@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can understand the > >> >following: > > >> >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >> >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >> >conscious (had no subjective experiences). Which means that whether it > >> >did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. Therefore if we were simply a > >> >biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> >experiences because of their existance. It would have to be a > >> >coincidence that we actually experienced what our behaviour claimed we > >> >did, which isn't plausible. > > >> I understand the statement, but it is wrong. It is just an assertion. > >> If consciousness, subjective experience, is physical, then it is > >> physical. And that which we experience is physical. > > >I understand you don't grasp it yet, > > Can you distinguish between not grasping and disagreeing? > > >maybe you even bet your soul that > >we were just a biological mechanism that followed the known laws of > >physics, and that God didn't exist. > > >Did you agree by the way with: > >--- > >Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of physics, could > >have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it wasn't > >conscious (had no subjective experiences). > >--- > > No, I don't. That statement contains an implicit denial that > subjective experience is a useful explanation of a physical phenomena. > So why wouldn't I be able to explain a mechanism that follows the known laws of physics, in terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics with the assumption that it had no subjective experiences? As the added assumption that it had no subjective experiences wouldn't affect the explanation, because the known laws of physics don't reference whether it would have or not. [by the way, in reality, it isn't that what we experience doesn't affect our behaviour, it is that we aren't simply biological mechanisms that follow the known laws of physics. But don't get distracted by this, just answer the question, and see how implausible the world view you bet your soul on, thinking it made you seem intelligent, was.] Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 23:33, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1180992517.017642.21650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 4 Jun, 19:10, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:54:10 -0700, someone2 > > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >On 4 Jun, 18:37, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:25:07 -0700, someone2 > > >> >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >> >On 4 Jun, 16:07, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:1180915714.304693.138900@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 4 Jun, 00:44, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:1180903459.945467.317500@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 21:38, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >>news:1180891870.230456.185600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> > On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >> >>news:1180875033.790773.206010@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >I was wondering how many on the atheist page can > >> >> >> >> >> >> >understand the > >> >> >> >> >> >> > following: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Any mechanism which simply followed the known laws of > >> >> >> >> >> >> > physics, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > could > >> >> >> >> >> >> > have its behaviour explained with the assumption that it > >> >> >> >> >> >> > wasn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> > conscious (had no subjective experiences). > > >> >> >> >> >> >> No. If the mechanism was conscious, then the explanation > >> >> >> >> >> >> of its > >> >> >> >> >> >> behavior > >> >> >> >> >> >> would necessarily include that consciousness. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Which means that whether it > >> >> >> >> >> >> > did or didn't couldn't affect behaviour. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Which is nonsense. The explanation of its behavior would > >> >> >> >> >> >> necessarily > >> >> >> >> >> >> include > >> >> >> >> >> >> the operation of its consciousness if it was conscious. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Therefore if we were simply a > >> >> >> >> >> >> > biological mechanism, we couldn't be talking about our > >> >> >> >> >> >> > subjective > >> >> >> >> >> >> > experiences because of their existance. It would have to > >> >> >> >> >> >> > be a > >> >> >> >> >> >> > coincidence that we actually experienced what our > >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviour > >> >> >> >> >> >> > claimed > >> >> >> >> >> >> > we > >> >> >> >> >> >> > did, which isn't plausible. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, since you obviously don't understand what you wrote, > >> >> >> >> >> >> it's not > >> >> >> >> >> >> surprising that you've reached incorrect conclusions. > > >> >> >> >> >> > Why would I be required to assume any mechanism that simply > >> >> >> >> >> > followed > >> >> >> >> >> > the laws of physics was conscious, > > >> >> >> >> >> Who said you had to? > > >> >> >> >> >> > why couldn't I explain it simply in > >> >> >> >> >> > terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of > >> >> >> >> >> > physics with > >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> > assumption that it wasn't? > > >> >> >> >> >> If you fully describe the behavior of the mechanism in terms > >> >> >> >> >> of a > >> >> >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> >> >> mechanism following the laws of physics, then you are > >> >> >> >> >> describing all > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> events that contribute to that behavior. If the mechanism is > >> >> >> >> >> conscious, > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> consciousness will be included in the description of events > >> >> >> >> >> in terms > >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. > >> >> >> >> >> Consciousness > >> >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> physical mechanisms following the laws of physics. > >> >> >> >> >> Consciousness is > >> >> >> >> >> just > >> >> >> >> >> our > >> >> >> >> >> word that labels a particular VARIETY of physical mechanisms > >> >> >> >> >> following > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> laws of physics. > > >> >> >> >> > While I you can believe that the mechanism is responsible for > >> >> >> >> > our > >> >> >> >> > subjective experiences, you avoided explaining why I > >> >> >> >> > couldn't > >> >> >> >> > explain the behaviour of the mechanism simply in terms of the > >> >> >> >> > physical > >> >> >> >> > mechanism following the laws of physics, with the assumption > >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> > there were no subjective experiences, or could I? > > >> >> >> >> I did not say you couldn't explain the behaviour of the > >> >> >> >> mechanism simply > >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of physics, > >> >> >> >> with the > >> >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, and I defy > >> >> >> >> you to > >> >> >> >> point out where I did. > > >> >> >> >> What I DID say is that in explaining the behaviour of the > >> >> >> >> mechanism > >> >> >> >> simply > >> >> >> >> in terms of the physical mechanism following the laws of > >> >> >> >> physics, with > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> assumption that there were no subjective experiences, you would, > >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> necessity, include in that explanation the physical events that > >> >> >> >> constitute > >> >> >> >> consciousness if they occurred. > > >> >> >> >> Unless, of course, you arbitrarily want to avoid describing > >> >> >> >> those > >> >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> >> events that constitute consciousness, and affect behavior, and > >> >> >> >> leave your > >> >> >> >> explanation incomplete. You are free to do that. > > >> >> >> > So you admit, that the behaviour of the mechanism could be > >> >> >> > explained > >> >> >> > with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective > >> >> >> > experiences. > > >> >> >> Sure. But if it did have subjective experiences, those experiences > >> >> >> would be > >> >> >> included in the explanation in terms of physical mechanisms > >> >> >> following the > >> >> >> laws of physics. In other words, you could explain the behavior > >> >> >> with a rote > >> >> >> description of physical events, unaware that you are describing > >> >> >> subjective > >> >> >> experiences and their effect on behavior, in terms of physical > >> >> >> events. > > >> >> >> > Can you follow that this being the case, whether it did or didn't > >> >> >> > have > >> >> >> > any subjective experiences couldn't influence the behaviour, for > >> >> >> > if it > >> >> >> > did, its behaviour could not be explained without taking into > >> >> >> > account > >> >> >> > whether it did or didn't have any subjective experiences? > > >> >> >> If it has subjective experiences, then they are part of its > >> >> >> behavior, and > >> >> >> any explanation that failed to include them would be incomplete, by > >> >> >> definition. > > >> >> >So only knowledge of the mechanism that you would regard as > >> >> >responsible for the subjective experiences (if indeed there were > >> >> >any)would be sufficient to explain the behaviour. No knowledge of > >> >> >whether there were any subjective experiences or not would be > >> >> >required. > > >> >> >So for any given mechanism, whether it were experienced or not, > >> >> >wouldn't influence the behaviour. So if we were to be regarded as a > >> >> >biological mechanism we couldn't be talking about our subjective > >> >> >experiences because they actually existed. > > >> >> >To highlight the point, though here I'm sure you would object that it > >> >> >would be forbidden to even contemplate it, if there was an > >> >> >alternative > >> >> >universe, which followed the same known laws of physics, but there > >> >> >were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the > >> >> >same. The objection that if it followed the same known laws of > >> >> >physics, then it would automatically be subjectively experienced, if > >> >> >it was in the other universe, doesn't hold, as the known laws of > >> >> >physics don't reference subjective experiences, thus it is > >> >> >conceptually possible to consider to mechanisms both following the > >> >> >same laws of physics as known to us, but with one having subjective > >> >> >experiences and one not, without the need for any of the known laws > >> >> >of physics to be altered. > > >> >> This is close to word salad. > >> >> -- > > >> >Though I am having a conversation with you elsewhere on this thread > >> >(I'm still awaiting your response), out of curiousity, what bit were > >> >you unable to comprehend? > > >> Again, exactly what the Hell you're trying to say in English. The > >> words all have meanings, but their combination is clumsy in parts, and > >> gibberish in others. > >> -- > > > Hmm, it seems that you aren't just incapable of following reason, but > > also incapable of following sentances which most people would have no > > trouble with. > > Yet it is odd that you're the only person who thinks so. > > I agree with raven1. I find your sentences clumsey and loaded with unspoken > assumptions. > > > To highlight the issue to yourself, mark on a scale of > > 1-10 how difficult you think the sentance was to understand. Then, > > write the sentance down, and show it to people you know, and ask if > > they would be capable of deciphering it for you. When they have done > > so, ask them to give on a scale of 1-10 how difficult it was for them, > > and you will see the problem is with you. > > I also find you condecending and rude. > > By the way, "most people" know how to spell sentence. > So how hard did you find it to understand Denis, on a scale of 1-10, or couldn't you? 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.