Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 4 Jun, 23:38, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > 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. > I wasn't playing games in TO, I was trying to explain things to people so indoctrinated they were blinkered to reason. Why don't you attempt to take your blinkers off and face reason Martin, there's nothing to be frightened of. Could you follow that any mechanism following the known laws of physics, could be explained with the assumption that it had no subjective experiences? Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:50:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1180997454.328017.120350@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >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? Because that subjective experience is the physical experience. It is like explaining atoms moving in a space without discussing pressure. It is possible, I suppose, but the pressure is the physical process and subjective experience is the physical process. >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. But you are asserting that there is no subjective experience and there is no need to do that. If subjective experience (SE) is a physical process, then it is a physical process and a physical explanation would have to account for it. >[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. Can you give some examples of non-physical behavior? > 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.] If you are just trying to start a flame war I have no interest in continuing. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180958749.266087.193560@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On 4 Jun, 04:45, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "someone3" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1180907578.054811.105110@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Could you explain why a mechanism following the known laws of physics >> > couldn't be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the >> > known laws of physics? >> >> Because the known laws of physics are not complete. >> >> > Or is it that you think there is a reason that you would be unable to >> > do so with the assumption that the mechanism had no subjective >> > experiences? If so, please explain why I couldn't explain its >> > behaviour in in terms of the physical mechanism following the known >> > laws of physics (which don't reference any subjective experiences the >> > physical might or might not be having), with the assumption that it >> > didn't have any subjective experiences. >> >> Because the subjective experiences are part of the mechanism > > Ok you may say that the laws of physics aren't complete, but there are > known laws of physics. Yes .. so behaviours that follow the known laws ONLY are a subset of possibly behaviours > So you seem to have missed out that I > referred to the known laws of physics there. Not at all . I made a point of it > So in reference to > them, do you accept that any mechanism following following the known > laws of physics > could be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the > known laws of physics? Explained .. yes .. Predcited, no. > When you say 'the subjective experiences' are part of the mechanism, I > assume you are suggesting that a portion of the mechanism is > responsible for our subjective experiences. Have I understood you > correctly? Yes. If they were not, then we would not have them. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180958836.430905.132060@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > So did you accept that 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)? Seeing consciousness isn't described by the known laws of physics (or at least ,AFAIK, we do not yet know how to describe it), then you have eliminated it from the possible behaviours by definition. You're stating a tautology. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180960340.862937.232110@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > 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. Its a tautology .. it says nothing .. you say nothing Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180994417.661043.211650@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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: Did you notice that he was agreeing with you, and saying that it does NOT involve consciousness. You're so obsessed with your tautology, you cannot even see when people are agreeing with you Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> wrote in message news:46641e36$0$4653$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:4663dd39$0$1184$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au... >> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> wrote in message >> news:4663ab08$0$30600$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> >>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> news:46639f87$0$1183$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au... >>>> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> wrote in message >>>> news:46639616$0$16681$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>> >>>>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:46638ac0$0$1186$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au... >>>>>> "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:1180907578.054811.105110@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> Could you explain why a mechanism following the known laws of >>>>>>> physics >>>>>>> couldn't be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> known laws of physics? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the known laws of physics are not complete. >>>>> >>>>> The known laws of physics are complete enough to cover >>>>> everything that happens on Earth. >>>> >>>> Not really >>> >>> Give examples. >> >> Surely you jest.. you expect examples of things that we don't know? > > Are you equivocating? > You can't name something you don't know? If I could, then it wouldn't be something i don't know > How can you say the known laws of physics are not complete > enough to cover everything that happens on Earth? Do you know everything that happens on earth? If so, please name all the thing that you know. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180992517.017642.21650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Hmm, it seems that you aren't just incapable of following reason It seems you have trouble in communicating. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180997568.637839.148010@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > So how hard did you find it to understand Denis, on a scale of 1-10, > or couldn't you? You've already performed you little scoring experiment yourself .. you've made your statements in your posts, and multiple people have complained about how poorly and clumsily it is written. The problem is with you. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180977907.518177.127880@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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. If you know the mechanism, and the mechanism encodes the experience, then the experience is already taken into account > So for any given mechanism, whether it were experienced or not, How do you experience a mechanism? > wouldn't influence the behaviour. the mechanism wouldn't influence the behaviour of what? > So if we were to be regarded as a > biological mechanism we couldn't be talking about our subjective > experiences because they actually existed. Why can't we talk about thing that acutally existed? And how is that related to us being biological mechanisms? > 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, Why not just say "Consider a hypothetical universe" .. you're overly verbose. > which followed the same known laws of physics, but there > were no subjective experiences associated with it, it would act the > same. That is only vaid if you are considering the subset of mechanisms and behaviours that have no consciousness and subjective experience (like a rock falling). The alternative universe you describe would not have (for example) any people (or not people as we understand the term) > 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 There's your tautology again, you are eliminating all mechanisms and behaviours that involve consciousness and subjective experience and then attempting to extrapolate the results onto the rest. > 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, They would not then be the same mechanisms under the same conditions. > without the need for any of the known laws > of physics to be altered. Noone is suggesting altering the known law of physics (unless of course it is found the laws do not correctly model reality, then they are adjusted or rejected .. that's the scientific method). Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180992269.825596.105660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > 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? Then it would not be the same mechanism with the same inputs and the same behaviours. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On 5 Jun, 00:33, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:50:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > > <1180997454.328017.120...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >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? > > Because that subjective experience is the physical experience. It is > like explaining atoms moving in a space without discussing pressure. > It is possible, I suppose, but the pressure is the physical process > and subjective experience is the physical process. > > >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. > > But you are asserting that there is no subjective experience and there > is no need to do that. If subjective experience (SE) is a physical > process, then it is a physical process and a physical explanation > would have to account for it. > > >[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. > > Can you give some examples of non-physical behavior? > > > 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.] > > If you are just trying to start a flame war I have no interest in > continuing. > I'm just trying to get you to take your blinkers off. Pressure is just aggregate behaviour of the underlying physical. As you say, the physical behaviour could be explained conceptually without it, as there is an explanation for why the aggregate behaviour causes pressure. Pressure is just a label for the aggregate behaviour. Subjective experiences are not just a label given to certain physical activity, it is a label describing the experiences that exist. You know they exist, you experience them. The concept that physical activity is directly responsible for the subjective experiences is just an explanation for them that has been put forward. Anyway, it is not about whether the assumption that there were no subjective experiences or not was correct, it is about whether it is possible to explain the behaviour without reference to them (i.e. in terms of a physical mechanism following the laws of physics) or not. If the behaviour can be explained without reference to them, then the explanation can contain the added assumption that there were no subjective experiences associated with the mechanism, as it does affect the explanation, as it wouldn't be mentioned as to whether there were or weren't any associated subjective experiences. So do you accept that conceptually any mechanism following the known laws of physics could be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, and that this will not reference whether there are any associated subjective experiences or not? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180997004.586680.126950@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > Sit in denial if you like, That's your position .. you stubbornly cling to your tautologies as if they held some meaning. > 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, Of course .. you could have a second universe with no matter in it. Or maybe just a single particle. > because the laws of > physics don't reference whether anything subjectively experiences. We may not know how to fully apply the laws of physics top subjective experiences (or that there may be laws of physics which are as yet undiscovered) That does not mean that consciousness and subjective experience is outside reality, and not subject to whatever 'laws' there are (whether known or unknown). > 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, Your little though experiment of a universe without consciousness or subjective experience has no bearing on the existence of this universe where there IS consciousness and subjetive experience > but it seems to me pathetic and cowardly to not be able to face > reason. Again, you're describing yourself > When you feel brave enough, maybe you'll read it again, and > consider the possibility, and how it highlights how you had been > deceived. Maybe you could address the criticisms of your approach that many have made in instead of your continual nagging and repeated tautologies. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180978793.120483.254340@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > Hmm, you avoided the questions yet again. You've got to be joking > Or maybe you could point out where you answered either of the > questions: > > ------------ > Could you explain why a mechanism following the known laws of physics > couldn't be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the > known laws of physics? Idiot .. he already explicitly answered that .. you're trolling. Did you FAIL to read his reply where he said === The answer to your question "can any mechanism following the known laws of physics be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism without the assumption of a subjective experience" Is Yes. === Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180979426.242057.10150@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > I appologise, there was an answer to the question in the middle of > your response. Well . you've gone up one notch in respectability by admintting your mistake. > You replied: > ----- > The answer to your question "can any mechanism following the known > laws of physics be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > without the assumption of a subjective experience" Is Yes. > ----- > > Can you therefore see, that whether there were or weren't subjective > experiences in the case of a mechanism following the known laws of > physics, couldn't influence behaviour, otherwise the mechanism > couldn't be explained without taking them into account? That is simply a tautology .. you limit the domain to be maechanismas and behaviour without consciousness and subjective experience,, and then try to draw general conclusions from it. > So your belief > number 2 for example would have to be false for any mechanism strictly > following the known laws of physics. What is "belief number 2"? Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180995378.126317.72550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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, He grasps it perfectly. You don't Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180997454.328017.120350@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > 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? You can .. if you fully understand the mechanism and the laws the apply and how to apply them, and if your assumption is correct, that it had no subjective experiences. > As the added assumption that it had no > subjective experiences wouldn't affect the explanation, Oh .. so you are talking about a mechaismthat DOES have subjective experiences, and then ignoring those experiences when trying to explain its behaviour. Then you hav enot taken all the mechanism into account > because the > known laws of physics don't reference whether it would have or not. That consciousness exists means it is part of our physical universe and as such is subject to the same 'laws' (known or unknown) that apply. That is why physical injury can render you unconscious .. it is interference with the bilogical mechanism that implements and encodes consciousness. > [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.] So now we see your little game plan .. you're going to keep nagging and nagging for us to accept that we are not just biological mechanism so you can then put forward some theological point of view. Sorry.. that doesn't work. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:55:47 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1181001347.541683.77010@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On 5 Jun, 00:33, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:50:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1180997454.328017.120...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >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? >> >> Because that subjective experience is the physical experience. It is >> like explaining atoms moving in a space without discussing pressure. >> It is possible, I suppose, but the pressure is the physical process >> and subjective experience is the physical process. >> >> >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. >> >> But you are asserting that there is no subjective experience and there >> is no need to do that. If subjective experience (SE) is a physical >> process, then it is a physical process and a physical explanation >> would have to account for it. >> >> >[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. >> >> Can you give some examples of non-physical behavior? >> >> > 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.] >> >> If you are just trying to start a flame war I have no interest in >> continuing. >> > >I'm just trying to get you to take your blinkers off. Sorry, but you start with this false assumption that you are just so obviously right and anyone who disagrees is blind. >Pressure is just aggregate behaviour of the underlying physical. As, likely, is consciousness. > As >you say, the physical behaviour could be explained conceptually >without it, as there is an explanation for why the aggregate behaviour >causes pressure. Pressure is just a label for the aggregate behaviour. As, likely, is consciousness. I know that my subjective experience is affected by plenty of physical events. >Subjective experiences are not just a label given to certain physical >activity, You are asserting your conclusion. >it is a label describing the experiences that exist. As does pressure. >You >know they exist, you experience them. The concept that physical >activity is directly responsible for the subjective experiences is >just an explanation for them that has been put forward. Yes. Your point? >Anyway, it is not about whether the assumption that there were no >subjective experiences or not was correct, it is about whether it is >possible to explain the behaviour without reference to them (i.e. in >terms of a physical mechanism following the laws of physics) or not. I am confused, are you asking if it is possible to explain X without referring to X? >If the behaviour can be explained without reference to them, Can you explain pressure without reference to pressure? >then the >explanation can contain the added assumption that there were no >subjective experiences associated with the mechanism, That does not make sense. If I explain pressure without reference to pressure does that mean that pressure does not exist? >as it does >affect the explanation, as it wouldn't be mentioned as to whether >there were or weren't any associated subjective experiences. > >So do you accept that conceptually any mechanism following the known >laws of physics could be explained in terms of the physical mechanism >following the known laws of physics, and that this will not reference >whether there are any associated subjective experiences or not? If the subjective experience is the phenomenon to be explained then it makes sense to reference it in the explanation. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180995458.518306.199460@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > 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. I think maybe your argument is: "We don't understand everything, therefore the soul exists." Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180997791.596093.150350@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Could you follow that any mechanism following the known laws of > physics, could be explained with the assumption that it had no > subjective experiences? Only if the assumption is correct. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 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. Strawman .. that is not what I said .. Try READING the replies people make here. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun, 01:11, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:55:47 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > > > > > <1181001347.541683.77...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On 5 Jun, 00:33, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:50:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > >> <1180997454.328017.120...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >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? > > >> Because that subjective experience is the physical experience. It is > >> like explaining atoms moving in a space without discussing pressure. > >> It is possible, I suppose, but the pressure is the physical process > >> and subjective experience is the physical process. > > >> >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. > > >> But you are asserting that there is no subjective experience and there > >> is no need to do that. If subjective experience (SE) is a physical > >> process, then it is a physical process and a physical explanation > >> would have to account for it. > > >> >[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. > > >> Can you give some examples of non-physical behavior? > > >> > 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.] > > >> If you are just trying to start a flame war I have no interest in > >> continuing. > > >I'm just trying to get you to take your blinkers off. > > Sorry, but you start with this false assumption that you are just so > obviously right and anyone who disagrees is blind. > > >Pressure is just aggregate behaviour of the underlying physical. > > As, likely, is consciousness. > > > As > >you say, the physical behaviour could be explained conceptually > >without it, as there is an explanation for why the aggregate behaviour > >causes pressure. Pressure is just a label for the aggregate behaviour. > > As, likely, is consciousness. I know that my subjective experience is > affected by plenty of physical events. > > >Subjective experiences are not just a label given to certain physical > >activity, > > You are asserting your conclusion. > > >it is a label describing the experiences that exist. > > As does pressure. > > >You > >know they exist, you experience them. The concept that physical > >activity is directly responsible for the subjective experiences is > >just an explanation for them that has been put forward. > > Yes. Your point? > > >Anyway, it is not about whether the assumption that there were no > >subjective experiences or not was correct, it is about whether it is > >possible to explain the behaviour without reference to them (i.e. in > >terms of a physical mechanism following the laws of physics) or not. > > I am confused, are you asking if it is possible to explain X without > referring to X? > > >If the behaviour can be explained without reference to them, > > Can you explain pressure without reference to pressure? > > >then the > >explanation can contain the added assumption that there were no > >subjective experiences associated with the mechanism, > > That does not make sense. If I explain pressure without reference to > pressure does that mean that pressure does not exist? > > >as it does > >affect the explanation, as it wouldn't be mentioned as to whether > >there were or weren't any associated subjective experiences. > > >So do you accept that conceptually any mechanism following the known > >laws of physics could be explained in terms of the physical mechanism > >following the known laws of physics, and that this will not reference > >whether there are any associated subjective experiences or not? > > If the subjective experience is the phenomenon to be explained then it > makes sense to reference it in the explanation. > Sorry, I hadn't written it clearly enough. Do do you accept that conceptually the behaviour of any mechanism following the known laws of physics could be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, and that this will not reference whether there are any associated subjective experiences or not? Quote
Guest Richo Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 4, 10:21 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 4 Jun, 05:21, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 3, 10:50 pm, 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 think I understand it - but I do not agree with it. > > I think it is a false statement. > > Ok, we can go through it bit by bit. See Matt Silbersteins reply - he is saying exactly what I I would and so I will just watch the two of you to see if anything new occurs in this old battle. Mark Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181002573.602439.47070@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Sorry, I hadn't written it clearly enough. Not the first time > Do do you accept that conceptually the behaviour of any mechanism > following the known laws of physics could be explained in terms of the > physical mechanism > following the known laws of physics There's that tautology again > and that this will not reference > whether there are any associated subjective experiences or not? Only if there were no associated subjected experiences involved in the mechanism and behaviour. eg. if someone knocks me unconscious and pushes me out of a plane, then I will fall to the ground. If I am conscious, then the rate of descent is dependant on what actions I take (eg I may remember that I'm wearing a parachute and use that). The physical processes involved in remembering that I had a parachute and making the decision to use it and to control my muscles in order for my hand to pull on the chord that then causes the mechanism inside the parachute to (I hope) release the parachute etc, are all part of the mechanism as a whole. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun, 01:29, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:21 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4 Jun, 05:21, Richo <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Jun 3, 10:50 pm, 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 think I understand it - but I do not agree with it. > > > I think it is a false statement. > > > Ok, we can go through it bit by bit. > > See Matt Silbersteins reply - he is saying exactly what I I would and > so I will just watch the two of you to see if anything new occurs in > this old battle. > Well I'm glad that you are happy to follow the converstation, and the type of points you would like to see covered are being. 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.