Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:16:13 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1181002573.602439.47070@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: [snip] >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? > Sorry but that still seems to assume that subjective experience either does not exist or is not a physical phenomenon. If subjective experience is a physical phenomenon then our explanations will reference that experience. Perhaps the problem you have with wording this is that you have some bad assumptions. -- 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 "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:mje9631qjmesvo9dfcf9kq1q4vio19222p@4ax.com... > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:16:13 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in > <1181002573.602439.47070@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > [snip] > >>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? >> > Sorry but that still seems to assume that subjective experience either > does not exist or is not a physical phenomenon. And that in either case, subjective experience (and consciosuness) has no influence on behaviours. That is demonstrably untrue Quote
Deathbringer Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 3 Jun, 15:06, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> 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. > > Looks to me like the pro log for an argument along the lines, "If "A", > and "B", then "Z", with a large dose of argument from incredulity, > thrown in. If you can't understand it, I suggest that you spend some more time thinking about it. Let me see...to paraphrase as a test of my understanding: "Any mechanism that follows the laws of physics could have its behavior explained if it was in fact a mindless automaton or a random system. This means distinguishing between an automaton/random system and a conscious being is impossible." That part actually makes some sense. "Therefore, if we did not have souls, we couldn't be using the fact that we have subjective experiences to prove we have souls because we might just be preprogrammed automatons or random systems." Somewhat anti-Descartian, but still OK. "Therefore, we couldn't actually prove we were conscious yet essentially organic machines if we were completely organic." You never proved that we have a magical component that is conscious. You proved that we can't prove we have free will if we are purely organic. Note the logical counterargument; even if the soul was proven to exist we might still be robots or random systems, except now we're magical automatons. Accidentally disproving Descarte's famous axiom of "I think, therefore I am" in the general case was interesting, but I'm not sure that was your intent. Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180997004.586680.126950@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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, Thank you, I will keep adhering to logic. > 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, Well, I can conceive of a universe just like this one that doesn't have subjective experiences, but it would be trillions of years further along its timeline where proton decay has finally removed all matter from the universe. No matter, no subjective experiences. > because the laws of > physics don't reference whether anything subjectively experiences. How do you know they don't? If you record the actions of all the atoms in my brain, then you'll have a complete record of my subjective experiences if materialism is correct. > So > you can sit there not being able to even face thinking about it Actually, I just showed I can think about it. It's just stupid. > because it would show your whole world perspective to be implausible, You haven't managed to do that yet to anyone's satisfaction. It's just you making an assertion. No one else appears to agree with you. > but it seems to me pathetic and cowardly to not be able to face > reason. It is pathetic and cowardly not to be able to face reason, is that your excuse? > When you feel brave enough, maybe you'll read it again, and > consider the possibility, and how it highlights how you had been > deceived. By the same logic, you're terrified by materialism and can't face the truth. See how bland assertions don't get you anywhere? -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun, 02:23, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:16:13 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in > > <1181002573.602439.47...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >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? > > Sorry but that still seems to assume that subjective experience either > does not exist or is not a physical phenomenon. If subjective > experience is a physical phenomenon then our explanations will > reference that experience. Perhaps the problem you have with wording > this is that you have some bad assumptions. > It doesn't make any assumptions. It is a fact that the known laws of physics don't reference subjective experiences. So it is a fact that the behaviour of any mechanism following the known laws of physics can be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the said laws, and as they don't reference whether there are any associated subjective experiences, the explanation won't reference whether there are any associated subjective experiences. Since it is obvious you can't deny that the behaviour of any mechanism following the known laws of physics can conceptually be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, are you denying that it is a fact that the known laws of physics don't reference whether there are any associated subjective experiences? (anyway going to bed after replying to Duhlidiot as 4am here) Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181013500.267349.271410@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On 5 Jun, 02:23, Matt Silberstein > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:16:13 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 >> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> in >> >> <1181002573.602439.47...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >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? >> >> Sorry but that still seems to assume that subjective experience either >> does not exist or is not a physical phenomenon. If subjective >> experience is a physical phenomenon then our explanations will >> reference that experience. Perhaps the problem you have with wording >> this is that you have some bad assumptions. >> > > It doesn't make any assumptions. It is a fact that the known laws of > physics don't reference subjective experiences. What do you mean by "don't reference"? > So it is a fact that the behaviour of any mechanism > following the known laws of physics can > be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the said > laws, There's your tautology again. .. even when there's nothing to say .. you keep saying it > and as they don't reference whether there are any associated > subjective experiences, the explanation won't reference whether there > are any associated subjective experiences. That follows from your assertion, as a tautology .. as you've ensured you only include mechanisms and behaviour for which there is no subjective experience. However, your assertion is not shown correct. > Since it is obvious you can't deny that the behaviour of any mechanism > following the known laws of physics can conceptually be explained in > terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, There's that tautology again > are you denying that it is a fact You mean assertion. > that the known laws of physics don't > reference whether there are any associated subjective experiences? What do you mean by "don't reference"? Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1180997568.637839.148010@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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? Well, I can think of three possible reasons why you couldn't spell sentence: You were either careless, ignorant, or stupid, so it's not hard to understand why you might misspell sentence, it's just hard to pick the precise reason. Ok, I suppose there's four more reasons if I accept the possible permutations: you could be careless and ignorant, or ignorant and stupid, or careless and stupid, or even careless, and ignorant, and stupid. Hmmm... Careless is going too easy on you. Careless, ignorant, and stupid is too over the top. I'll give it a 7 that it's ignorance. How did I do? -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun, 04:17, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1180997004.586680.126950@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > 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, > > Thank you, I will keep adhering to logic. > > > 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, > > Well, I can conceive of a universe just like this one that doesn't have > subjective experiences, but it would be trillions of years further along its > timeline where proton decay has finally removed all matter from the > universe. No matter, no subjective experiences. > > > because the laws of > > physics don't reference whether anything subjectively experiences. > > How do you know they don't? If you record the actions of all the atoms in my > brain, then you'll have a complete record of my subjective experiences if > materialism is correct. > > > So > > you can sit there not being able to even face thinking about it > > Actually, I just showed I can think about it. It's just stupid. > > > because it would show your whole world perspective to be implausible, > > You haven't managed to do that yet to anyone's satisfaction. It's just you > making an assertion. No one else appears to agree with you. > > > but it seems to me pathetic and cowardly to not be able to face > > reason. > > It is pathetic and cowardly not to be able to face reason, is that your > excuse? > > > When you feel brave enough, maybe you'll read it again, and > > consider the possibility, and how it highlights how you had been > > deceived. > > By the same logic, you're terrified by materialism and can't face the truth. > > See how bland assertions don't get you anywhere? > Unlike you, I'm not afraid of following reason though. If you were to ask me to conceptually consider that God didn't exist for example to highlight a point you were making, I wouldn't turn around and reply that I couldn't, and that I'd refuse to, as you did about an alternative universe which followed the same known laws of physics but in which there were no subjective experiences. I'm sure if it had been a thought experiment which could have been used to pose a question about how could God exist, then you would have had no problem, but because it points out how your world view is implausible, you'd rather be deaf and blind about the matter, and not even consider it. You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it reasonably. It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example if a robot behaved as though it might have subjective experiences, i.e. it talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either (a) it did have, or (b) it didn't have. In one universe you could conceive of it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. In either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it would simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. The same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be simply biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even if you run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded bias. Quote
Guest Hatter Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 4, 6:17 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I told you he would whine. Hatter Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181044055.576591.170490@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > Unlike you, I'm not afraid of following reason though. You ceratinly seem to be .. you avoid it at all costs > If you were to > ask me to conceptually consider that God didn't exist for example to > highlight a point you were making, I wouldn't turn around and reply > that I couldn't, and that I'd refuse to, as you did about an > alternative universe which followed the same known laws of physics but > in which there were no subjective experiences. Noone refused to consider it. You're imagining things. > I'm sure if it had been > a thought experiment which could have been used to pose a question > about how could God exist, then you would have had no problem, but > because it points out how your world view is implausible, you'd rather > be deaf and blind about the matter, and not even consider it. You're talking about yourself again > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it > reasonably. Look at what reasonably .. you've not said anything, other than tautologies that don't require any "reason". > It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example if a > robot behaved as though it might have subjective experiences, i.e. it > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either (a) it > did have, or (b) it didn't have. What has a robot got to do with it? > In one universe you could conceive of > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. Do you have a robot with subjective experiences? > In > either though it would be acting just the same, Not if it didn't have the experiences. > as in both it would > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. Including those related to subjective experiences (assuming you have a robot that can) > The > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be simply > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even if you > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded bias. Yeup .. they may behave differently with vs without the experiences. Do you actually have some point to your posts? And why is it you fail repeatedly to respond to my replies .. afraid? Quote
Guest pbamvv@worldonline.nl Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 4 jun, 19:39, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 4 Jun, 18:08, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > wrote: > > > On 3 jun, 23:52, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 3 Jun, 22:46, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > wrote: > > > > > On 3 jun, 22:23, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 21:11, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 21:09, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 20:03, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 16:01, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 14:50, 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. > > > > > > > > > > > Pardon? > > > > > > > > > > "Which means that wheter it did or didn't" > > > > > > > > > > did or didn't what? > > > > > > > > > > > If a cameraman goes out with soldiers to make pictures of the war, > > > > > > > > > > the behaviour of the soldiers during intense combat can be explained > > > > > > > > > > without references to the camera. > > > > > > > > > > Thus - according to you it - would be a coincidence if the camera > > > > > > > > > > would have recorded what actually happened? > > > > > > > > > > > Funny way of reasoning:) > > > > > > > > > > > In "consciousness explained" Dennet actually describes conciousness as > > > > > > > > > > the narative our brain stores of what has happened. So comparing it > > > > > > > > > > whith the camera is not a silly thing to do. Of course unlike the > > > > > > > > > > camera our consiousness does not consist of raw data, but is also > > > > > > > > > > build up from conclusions our mind has been making during or after the > > > > > > > > > > facts that are described happened. This is very usefull for our > > > > > > > > > > actions during the events (supposing someone is aiming to kill you > > > > > > > > > > provedes a better guidline for soldiers) that merely concluding that > > > > > > > > > > certain sounds present themselves to our ears), but somewhat spoiling > > > > > > > > > > our memory as far as reliability is concerned. (someone might be > > > > > > > > > > playing a tape of bullets flying around instead of really shooting). > > > > > > > > > > > If you have any real problems with materialism, > > > > > > > > > > you may present them to me, > > > > > > > > > > I know of no problems so far, > > > > > > > > > > and am willing the learn wether one is serious enough to ponder about. > > > > > > > > > > Your analogy was poor. The soldiers behaviour isn't affected by > > > > > > > > > whether unknown to them the cameraman was filming. So if they were > > > > > > > > > talking about the cameraman filming, it would only be a coincidence > > > > > > > > > that there was a cameraman filming. > > > > > > > > > > You couldn't be talking about anything you experience, and about your > > > > > > > > > subjective experiences, because you actually had subjective > > > > > > > > > experiences was the point. It would only be a coincidence that you had > > > > > > > > > the subjective experiences that you were discussing. It would also > > > > > > > > > have to be a deception that your behaviour was influenced by anything > > > > > > > > > you subjectively experienced, so on top of it being a coincidence, it > > > > > > > > > wouldn't even fit with our actual experience.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > > > > > > > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > > > > > > > > > You evidently seem to think that soldiers bother to talk to the > > > > > > > > cameraman when bullets are flying. I do not think that is the case. > > > > > > > > But any analogy is poor. > > > > > > > > Let's suppose there is no cameramen but only a hidden camera inside a > > > > > > > > helmet, of which even the soldier wearing the helmet is oblivious. > > > > > > > > The effect of the camera would be minimal, > > > > > > > > yet the story it's picture would tell would not be false. > > > > > > > > > Why could I not be talking about my experiences > > > > > > > > Why can't a camera work? > > > > > > > > You give me no serious reason for this impromptu statement. > > > > > > > > > Again if ourt consience (as Dennett suggest) is only a narrative > > > > > > > > that doesn't mean it is totally coincidental if the narrative is > > > > > > > > somewhat correct. > > > > > > > > Experiences lead to actions - even by robots - > > > > > > > > if these actions are that monitored > > > > > > > > than the narrative made by the monitor too is a result of those > > > > > > > > experiences. > > > > > > > > > Futrhermore materialsm doesn't mean consious experciences do not > > > > > > > > influence our decissions. In my example the camera would not influence > > > > > > > > the decissions of the soldiers, but if the rewind and look at the > > > > > > > > pictures, they may find some information about the position of the > > > > > > > > enemy and plan their future actions accordingly. > > > > > > > > > Likewise a robot may learn from it's experciences by using a > > > > > > > > background program that is modifying the foreground program to work > > > > > > > > more efficiently, by analizing the data collected by a monitoring > > > > > > > > unit. > > > > > > > > > Of course at present it may be more efficient to have the analyzing > > > > > > > > done by a human, as humans are already equipped with the hardware and > > > > > > > > software to do that job. > > > > > > > > > In my viwed You haven't said anything that makes "materialism" > > > > > > > > implausible. > > > > > > > > (actually I am wondering what you are saying if anything at all) > > > > > > > > There is a lot though that makes dualism implausible. > > > > > > > > especially Ockham's razor knife. > > > > > > > > The camera in the helmet is analogous to having subjective experiences > > > > > > > right? Do you understand that if the soldiers were talking about > > > > > > > having a camera in their helmet (which doesn't affect their > > > > > > > behaviour), then it would only be a coincidence that there was a > > > > > > > camera in their helmet? > > > > > > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > > > > > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > > > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > > > > > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > > > > > > The first paragraph I understand > > > > > > what I do not understand what connection that would have towards > > > > > > the plausibility of materialism. > > > > > > > However the second paragraph is known to be untrue. > > > > > > People do not only have subjective experiences but they act on them. > > > > > > There are people who think they have been abcucted by aliens and act > > > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > There are people who think they have heard the voice of God and act > > > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > There is ample evidence to suggest that some of these subjective > > > > > > experiences are objectively false.(as some maintain that god declares > > > > > > Islam to be the only true religion while others declare God says it is > > > > > > not) > > > > > > > The fact that spirits do not exist does not mean people do not act > > > > > > upon their delusions. > > > > > > If we disagree on this then apperantly one of us is delusional and > > > > > > acts accordingly. > > > > > > That doesn't mean there is anything else than brains that acting > > > > > > differently. > > > > > > (I can't say better or worse, for if one of us is wrong about this > > > > > > particular subject, it may well be that the other is decidingly > > > > > > thinking better about all other subjects) > > > > > > > Think about it > > > > > > and let me know > > > > > > What you say is known, is simply your belief. What you are glossing > > > > > over is that your belief is implausible. > > > > > > You state that you believe the following to be untrue: > > > > > ------------ > > > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > > > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > > > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > > > > ------------ > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > 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. > > > > > I am not sure that human actions can be easily explained without the > > > > assumption of subjective experiences. Of course one can refer to what > > > > happens in our brains synapsis and disregard anything in the real or > > > > imagined world that this synaps event deals with but that is certainly > > > > not easy and actually evading the question whether the subjective > > > > experience has any importance. > > > > > Fact is that subjective experiences do influence our behavior even if > > > > both the experience and the behaviour contain nothing more than > > > > someone saying "I experience X". > > > > > That does not mean that someone who says to have been abducted by > > > > aliens was abducted by aliens, but it does mean that this person acts > > > > differently than some who does not claim so. > > > > > Fact is also that these subjecive experiences as such have little > > > > influence during the experience they are describing. > > > > The clue to Dennetts vision towards consciousness is that he does not > > > > imply that the subjective experience is anything more than that: > > > > Saying what we think has happened.. > > > > > Of course someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens may also > > > > react differently towards a plain flying over in the nightsky. > > > > > If consiousness/subjective experience is narrative and contained in > > > > our memory it always is about the past, while as everything it can > > > > only influence the future. > > > > It does however (totally!) determine the way we view the past. > > > > > Still puzzled as how this has any reference towards materialism. > > > > > In case anyone misunderstands: > > > > Mine are the following views: > > > > > 1. Subjective experience has no influence on the real experience it it > > > > desrcibing > > > > (unless the experience takes enough time for nr.2 to have effect) > > > > 2. Subjective experience has a lot of influence on future behaviour. > > > > 3. Subjective experience is practically the only source for the way we > > > > view our past. > > > > 3. Subjective experience need not always to be conscious even though > > > > consciousness is little more than the subjective experience we > > > > momentarily > > > > remember. (I do not want to get flamed by psychologists) > > > > You just avoided answering the questions as to why > > > ------------ > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > > ------------ > > > > As I asked: > > > ---------------- > > > 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? > > > > 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. > > > ---------------- > > > > You could avoid being taken through the reasoning of why materialism > > > is implausible, and then state that you see no reason why it should be > > > regarded as such, but why would you? > > > > (I'm off for tonight, I'll check the board tommorrow for your response) > > > If I didn't make clear why I think it might not be easy to explain > > human action without the assumption of a subjective experience, I can > > tell you that it is a lot easier to explain something if you do not go > > into details. Instead of a mechanical explanation involving hundreds > > or thousands of synapses we may just say, "he had an earlier > > experience that made him feel suspicious even though he couldn't tell > > why" or "She knew unprotected sex may give you aids". Of course far > > too many people neglect their knowledge about aids, but some actually > > do. Some guys even remember that they are married! > > > Memory and conscious knowledge however are all part of PREVIOUS > > subjective experiences. So using that, might make the actions easier > > to explain. > > > Is this what you meant with "you just avoided the questions as to why? > > Or do you want to ask more? > > > 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. > > But as far as human behaviour is concerned, assuming some of the > > actions are due to subjective experiences can make them a lot easier > > to explain (as to why: See above) > > > If you need my why's in order to explain why materialism would not be > > plausible, the plausibility of your explanation becomes a bit dubious, > > but I will try and tell you anyway, as I do not enjoy frustrating my > > partners in a serious discussion. I know a bit about the frustration > > as several intelligent (I assume) posters have succeeded in > > frustrating me. I know discussions get tangled up even when we do our > > best to avoid it, but at least we should try > > > Do not forget my views on these subjective experiences. As I stated > > them previously for if you are going to reason while ignoring them, > > the discussion might get long and difficult. If you have any objection > > to them state these objections as soon as possible, for they may come > > haunt us later. > > > 1. Subjective experience has no influence on the real experience it is > > describing > > (unless the experience takes enough time for nr.2 to have effect) > > 2. Subjective experience has a lot of influence on future behaviour. > > 3. Subjective experience is practically the only source for the way we > > view our past. > > 4. Subjective experience need not always to be conscious even though > > consciousness > > is little more than the subjective experience we momentarily > > remember. > > Hmm, you avoided the questions yet again. > > 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? > > 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. > ------------ > > Why don't you just answer them, if you are so sure of your > perspective? It is though you are worried that if you did, your whole > world perspective would be shown to be implausible, and so you'd > rather talk around the subject than face some home truths about what > you believe. I cannot 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, I can only explain why it is sometimes easier to use intermediate terms even if those terms are ill defined. The reason is, I do not think it can't always be done without the assumption of subjective experiences, even if I assume that using that concept can make it more easy. As my knowledge of synapses is lacking - in the case of the human brain - I indeed could not do it, but then again the assumption of subjective experiences would not be enough to compensate for my Inadequacy. I hope you are not to unhappy that I cannot explain something that I consider not to be true? Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181044055.576591.170490@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On 5 Jun, 04:17, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1180997004.586680.126950@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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, >> >> Thank you, I will keep adhering to logic. >> >> > 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, >> >> Well, I can conceive of a universe just like this one that doesn't have >> subjective experiences, but it would be trillions of years further along >> its >> timeline where proton decay has finally removed all matter from the >> universe. No matter, no subjective experiences. >> >> > because the laws of >> > physics don't reference whether anything subjectively experiences. >> >> How do you know they don't? If you record the actions of all the atoms in >> my >> brain, then you'll have a complete record of my subjective experiences if >> materialism is correct. >> >> > So >> > you can sit there not being able to even face thinking about it >> >> Actually, I just showed I can think about it. It's just stupid. >> >> > because it would show your whole world perspective to be implausible, >> >> You haven't managed to do that yet to anyone's satisfaction. It's just >> you >> making an assertion. No one else appears to agree with you. >> >> > but it seems to me pathetic and cowardly to not be able to face >> > reason. >> >> It is pathetic and cowardly not to be able to face reason, is that your >> excuse? >> >> > When you feel brave enough, maybe you'll read it again, and >> > consider the possibility, and how it highlights how you had been >> > deceived. >> >> By the same logic, you're terrified by materialism and can't face the >> truth. >> >> See how bland assertions don't get you anywhere? >> > > Unlike you, I'm not afraid of following reason though. If you were to > ask me to conceptually consider that God didn't exist for example to > highlight a point you were making, I wouldn't turn around and reply > that I couldn't, and that I'd refuse to, as you did about an > alternative universe which followed the same known laws of physics but > in which there were no subjective experiences. What if I asked you to believe that god did exist and didn't exist at the same time? That's the equivalent of what you asked me to do. It's not that I don't want to conceive of such things, it's that I can't. Maybe you can hold two mutually contradictory ideas in your head at once and call both true, but I can't. I have to respect logic. Besides, I admitted I could conceive of such a universe, and described how it would have to be. Another way would be if the universe didn't have any matter in it because of a perfectly balanced ratio of matter to antimatter. All that's required is that a universe be in such a state that brains cannot form. Without brains, you have no consciousness. But you don't like my solution to your little conundrum, so you pretend I didn't respond. > I'm sure if it had been > a thought experiment which could have been used to pose a question > about how could God exist, then you would have had no problem, but > because it points out how your world view is implausible, you'd rather > be deaf and blind about the matter, and not even consider it. No. Please acknowledge that I conceived of your stupid universe scenario. It's you who are unable to conceive of the idea that your scenario might be silly. > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it > reasonably. You have not shown that to be the case. Until you do, you're just blabbering. > It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example if a > robot behaved What? Universes and robots are equivalent in your mind? > as though it might have subjective experiences, i.e. it > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either (a) it > did have, or (b) it didn't have. Yes. So what? > In one universe you could conceive of > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. You said the universes were the SAME! If they're the same, then they're the same. If one possesses consciousness, then the other one does too. If one doesn't, then the other doesn't either. You can't say they're the same but different. > In > either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it would > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. In other words, the same but different. Sorry, that violates the principle of identity. A cannot equal NOT A. You've cast logic out the window. > The > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be simply > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even if you > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded bias. Phrase your question where it does not violate fundamental principle of logic and I might entertain it. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist m Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 3, 10:24 pm, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 3 Jun, 22:19, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" > > > > <nonreplya...@heathens.org.uk> wrote: > > On Jun 3, 1:50 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. > > > Can I have Caesar dressing with that word salad? > > If you can't understand it, why don't you point out which bit you are > having trouble comprehending? I don't have any trouble comprehending that your grammatically inept diatribe is an attempt to evade reasoned debate, and blame the responders for your incoherence. I don't have any trouble comprehending that your comprehension of any science whatsoever is less than zero. This is clearly demonstrated by your original - for want of a better description - statements. Sort your own fucking grammar out, go and learn some science, go and learn some respect, then come back and explain what is going on in your head, though I doubt that the same things will be going on in your head once you have learned those things. Quote
Guest Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist m Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Jun 4, 11:56 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > 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? Your incoherent musings don't even resemble reasoning. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:56:31 -0700, in alt.atheism , someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> in <1180997791.596093.150350@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: [snip] >Could you follow that any mechanism following the known laws of >physics, could be explained with the assumption that it had no >subjective experiences? Why? If subjective experience exists, as it does, then the explanation should not assume it does not exist. The question is whether or not the laws of physics (et al.) can explain that experience. Which we can do a pretty good job at these days. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun, 17:01, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote: > On 4 jun, 19:39, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > On 4 Jun, 18:08, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > wrote: > > > > On 3 jun, 23:52, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > On 3 Jun, 22:46, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 3 jun, 22:23, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 21:11, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 21:09, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 20:03, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 16:01, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 14:24, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 14:50, 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardon? > > > > > > > > > > > "Which means that wheter it did or didn't" > > > > > > > > > > > did or didn't what? > > > > > > > > > > > > If a cameraman goes out with soldiers to make pictures of the war, > > > > > > > > > > > the behaviour of the soldiers during intense combat can be explained > > > > > > > > > > > without references to the camera. > > > > > > > > > > > Thus - according to you it - would be a coincidence if the camera > > > > > > > > > > > would have recorded what actually happened? > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny way of reasoning:) > > > > > > > > > > > > In "consciousness explained" Dennet actually describes conciousness as > > > > > > > > > > > the narative our brain stores of what has happened. So comparing it > > > > > > > > > > > whith the camera is not a silly thing to do. Of course unlike the > > > > > > > > > > > camera our consiousness does not consist of raw data, but is also > > > > > > > > > > > build up from conclusions our mind has been making during or after the > > > > > > > > > > > facts that are described happened. This is very usefull for our > > > > > > > > > > > actions during the events (supposing someone is aiming to kill you > > > > > > > > > > > provedes a better guidline for soldiers) that merely concluding that > > > > > > > > > > > certain sounds present themselves to our ears), but somewhat spoiling > > > > > > > > > > > our memory as far as reliability is concerned. (someone might be > > > > > > > > > > > playing a tape of bullets flying around instead of really shooting). > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have any real problems with materialism, > > > > > > > > > > > you may present them to me, > > > > > > > > > > > I know of no problems so far, > > > > > > > > > > > and am willing the learn wether one is serious enough to ponder about. > > > > > > > > > > > Your analogy was poor. The soldiers behaviour isn't affected by > > > > > > > > > > whether unknown to them the cameraman was filming. So if they were > > > > > > > > > > talking about the cameraman filming, it would only be a coincidence > > > > > > > > > > that there was a cameraman filming. > > > > > > > > > > > You couldn't be talking about anything you experience, and about your > > > > > > > > > > subjective experiences, because you actually had subjective > > > > > > > > > > experiences was the point. It would only be a coincidence that you had > > > > > > > > > > the subjective experiences that you were discussing. It would also > > > > > > > > > > have to be a deception that your behaviour was influenced by anything > > > > > > > > > > you subjectively experienced, so on top of it being a coincidence, it > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't even fit with our actual experience.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > > > > > > > > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > > > > > > > > > > You evidently seem to think that soldiers bother to talk to the > > > > > > > > > cameraman when bullets are flying. I do not think that is the case. > > > > > > > > > But any analogy is poor. > > > > > > > > > Let's suppose there is no cameramen but only a hidden camera inside a > > > > > > > > > helmet, of which even the soldier wearing the helmet is oblivious. > > > > > > > > > The effect of the camera would be minimal, > > > > > > > > > yet the story it's picture would tell would not be false. > > > > > > > > > > Why could I not be talking about my experiences > > > > > > > > > Why can't a camera work? > > > > > > > > > You give me no serious reason for this impromptu statement. > > > > > > > > > > Again if ourt consience (as Dennett suggest) is only a narrative > > > > > > > > > that doesn't mean it is totally coincidental if the narrative is > > > > > > > > > somewhat correct. > > > > > > > > > Experiences lead to actions - even by robots - > > > > > > > > > if these actions are that monitored > > > > > > > > > than the narrative made by the monitor too is a result of those > > > > > > > > > experiences. > > > > > > > > > > Futrhermore materialsm doesn't mean consious experciences do not > > > > > > > > > influence our decissions. In my example the camera would not influence > > > > > > > > > the decissions of the soldiers, but if the rewind and look at the > > > > > > > > > pictures, they may find some information about the position of the > > > > > > > > > enemy and plan their future actions accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > Likewise a robot may learn from it's experciences by using a > > > > > > > > > background program that is modifying the foreground program to work > > > > > > > > > more efficiently, by analizing the data collected by a monitoring > > > > > > > > > unit. > > > > > > > > > > Of course at present it may be more efficient to have the analyzing > > > > > > > > > done by a human, as humans are already equipped with the hardware and > > > > > > > > > software to do that job. > > > > > > > > > > In my viwed You haven't said anything that makes "materialism" > > > > > > > > > implausible. > > > > > > > > > (actually I am wondering what you are saying if anything at all) > > > > > > > > > There is a lot though that makes dualism implausible. > > > > > > > > > especially Ockham's razor knife. > > > > > > > > > The camera in the helmet is analogous to having subjective experiences > > > > > > > > right? Do you understand that if the soldiers were talking about > > > > > > > > having a camera in their helmet (which doesn't affect their > > > > > > > > behaviour), then it would only be a coincidence that there was a > > > > > > > > camera in their helmet? > > > > > > > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > > > > > > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > > > > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > > > > > > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > > > > > > > The first paragraph I understand > > > > > > > what I do not understand what connection that would have towards > > > > > > > the plausibility of materialism. > > > > > > > > However the second paragraph is known to be untrue. > > > > > > > People do not only have subjective experiences but they act on them. > > > > > > > There are people who think they have been abcucted by aliens and act > > > > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > > There are people who think they have heard the voice of God and act > > > > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > > There is ample evidence to suggest that some of these subjective > > > > > > > experiences are objectively false.(as some maintain that god declares > > > > > > > Islam to be the only true religion while others declare God says it is > > > > > > > not) > > > > > > > > The fact that spirits do not exist does not mean people do not act > > > > > > > upon their delusions. > > > > > > > If we disagree on this then apperantly one of us is delusional and > > > > > > > acts accordingly. > > > > > > > That doesn't mean there is anything else than brains that acting > > > > > > > differently. > > > > > > > (I can't say better or worse, for if one of us is wrong about this > > > > > > > particular subject, it may well be that the other is decidingly > > > > > > > thinking better about all other subjects) > > > > > > > > Think about it > > > > > > > and let me know > > > > > > > What you say is known, is simply your belief. What you are glossing > > > > > > over is that your belief is implausible. > > > > > > > You state that you believe the following to be untrue: > > > > > > ------------ > > > > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > > > > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > > > > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > > > > > ------------ > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I am not sure that human actions can be easily explained without the > > > > > assumption of subjective experiences. Of course one can refer to what > > > > > happens in our brains synapsis and disregard anything in the real or > > > > > imagined world that this synaps event deals with but that is certainly > > > > > not easy and actually evading the question whether the subjective > > > > > experience has any importance. > > > > > > Fact is that subjective experiences do influence our behavior even if > > > > > both the experience and the behaviour contain nothing more than > > > > > someone saying "I experience X". > > > > > > That does not mean that someone who says to have been abducted by > > > > > aliens was abducted by aliens, but it does mean that this person acts > > > > > differently than some who does not claim so. > > > > > > Fact is also that these subjecive experiences as such have little > > > > > influence during the experience they are describing. > > > > > The clue to Dennetts vision towards consciousness is that he does not > > > > > imply that the subjective experience is anything more than that: > > > > > Saying what we think has happened.. > > > > > > Of course someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens may also > > > > > react differently towards a plain flying over in the nightsky. > > > > > > If consiousness/subjective experience is narrative and contained in > > > > > our memory it always is about the past, while as everything it can > > > > > only influence the future. > > > > > It does however (totally!) determine the way we view the past. > > > > > > Still puzzled as how this has any reference towards materialism. > > > > > > In case anyone misunderstands: > > > > > Mine are the following views: > > > > > > 1. Subjective experience has no influence on the real experience it it > > > > > desrcibing > > > > > (unless the experience takes enough time for nr.2 to have effect) > > > > > 2. Subjective experience has a lot of influence on future behaviour. > > > > > 3. Subjective experience is practically the only source for the way we > > > > > view our past. > > > > > 3. Subjective experience need not always to be conscious even though > > > > > consciousness is little more than the subjective experience we > > > > > momentarily > > > > > remember. (I do not want to get flamed by psychologists) > > > > > You just avoided answering the questions as to why > > > > ------------ > > > > Do you understand that any mechanism that followed the known laws of > > > > physics could be explained simply in terms of the physical mechanism > > > > following the known laws of physics with the assumption that the > > > > mechanism had no subjective experiences? > > > > ------------ > > > > > As I asked: > > > > ---------------- > > > > 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? > > > > > 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. > > > > ---------------- > > > > > You could avoid being taken through the reasoning of why materialism > > > > is implausible, and then state that you see no reason why it should be > > > > regarded as such, but why would you? > > > > > (I'm off for tonight, I'll check the board tommorrow for your response) > > > > If I didn't make clear why I think it might not be easy to explain > > > human action without the assumption of a subjective experience, I can > > > tell you that it is a lot easier to explain something if you do not go > > > into details. Instead of a mechanical explanation involving hundreds > > > or thousands of synapses we may just say, "he had an earlier > > > experience that made him feel suspicious even though he couldn't tell > > > why" or "She knew unprotected sex may give you aids". Of course far > > > too many people neglect their knowledge about aids, but some actually > > > do. Some guys even remember that they are married! > > > > Memory and conscious knowledge however are all part of PREVIOUS > > > subjective experiences. So using that, might make the actions easier > > > to explain. > > > > Is this what you meant with "you just avoided the questions as to why? > > > Or do you want to ask more? > > > > 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. > > > But as far as human behaviour is concerned, assuming some of the > > > actions are due to subjective experiences can make them a lot easier > > > to explain (as to why: See above) > > > > If you need my why's in order to explain why materialism would not be > > > plausible, the plausibility of your explanation becomes a bit dubious, > > > but I will try and tell you anyway, as I do not enjoy frustrating my > > > partners in a serious discussion. I know a bit about the frustration > > > as several intelligent (I assume) posters have succeeded in > > > frustrating me. I know discussions get tangled up even when we do our > > > best to avoid it, but at least we should try > > > > Do not forget my views on these subjective experiences. As I stated > > > them previously for if you are going to reason while ignoring them, > > > the discussion might get long and difficult. If you have any objection > > > to them state these objections as soon as possible, for they may come > > > haunt us later. > > > > 1. Subjective experience has no influence on the real experience it is > > > describing > > > (unless the experience takes enough time for nr.2 to have effect) > > > 2. Subjective experience has a lot of influence on future behaviour. > > > 3. Subjective experience is practically the only source for the way we > > > view our past. > > > 4. Subjective experience need not always to be conscious even though > > > consciousness > > > is little more than the subjective experience we momentarily > > > remember. > > > Hmm, you avoided the questions yet again. > > > 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? > > > 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. > > ------------ > > > Why don't you just answer them, if you are so sure of your > > perspective? It is though you are worried that if you did, your whole > > world perspective would be shown to be implausible, and so you'd > > rather talk around the subject than face some home truths about what > > you believe. > > I cannot 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, I can only explain why it is sometimes easier > to use intermediate terms even if those terms are ill defined. > > The reason is, I do not think it can't always be done without the > assumption of subjective experiences, even if I assume that using that > concept can make it more easy. > > As my knowledge of synapses is lacking - in the case of the human > brain - I indeed could not do it, but then again the assumption of > subjective experiences would not be enough to compensate for my > Inadequacy. > > I hope you are not to unhappy that I cannot explain something that I > consider not to be true? > Which bit don't you consider to be true, that a mechanism following the known laws of physics can be explained in terms of the physical mechanism following the known laws of physics, or that the laws of physics don't mention whether anything is subjectively experienced or not? You said before that on finding an objection to materialism, you'd consider it, is that still the case, or will you just blank it out and go on as if there wasn't a gapping flaw in the materialist suggestion? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun, 17:12, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181044055.576591.170490@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > On 5 Jun, 04:17, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1180997004.586680.126950@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> > 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, > > >> Thank you, I will keep adhering to logic. > > >> > 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, > > >> Well, I can conceive of a universe just like this one that doesn't have > >> subjective experiences, but it would be trillions of years further along > >> its > >> timeline where proton decay has finally removed all matter from the > >> universe. No matter, no subjective experiences. > > >> > because the laws of > >> > physics don't reference whether anything subjectively experiences. > > >> How do you know they don't? If you record the actions of all the atoms in > >> my > >> brain, then you'll have a complete record of my subjective experiences if > >> materialism is correct. > > >> > So > >> > you can sit there not being able to even face thinking about it > > >> Actually, I just showed I can think about it. It's just stupid. > > >> > because it would show your whole world perspective to be implausible, > > >> You haven't managed to do that yet to anyone's satisfaction. It's just > >> you > >> making an assertion. No one else appears to agree with you. > > >> > but it seems to me pathetic and cowardly to not be able to face > >> > reason. > > >> It is pathetic and cowardly not to be able to face reason, is that your > >> excuse? > > >> > When you feel brave enough, maybe you'll read it again, and > >> > consider the possibility, and how it highlights how you had been > >> > deceived. > > >> By the same logic, you're terrified by materialism and can't face the > >> truth. > > >> See how bland assertions don't get you anywhere? > > > Unlike you, I'm not afraid of following reason though. If you were to > > ask me to conceptually consider that God didn't exist for example to > > highlight a point you were making, I wouldn't turn around and reply > > that I couldn't, and that I'd refuse to, as you did about an > > alternative universe which followed the same known laws of physics but > > in which there were no subjective experiences. > > What if I asked you to believe that god did exist and didn't exist at the > same time? That's the equivalent of what you asked me to do. It's not that I > don't want to conceive of such things, it's that I can't. Maybe you can hold > two mutually contradictory ideas in your head at once and call both true, > but I can't. I have to respect logic. > > Besides, I admitted I could conceive of such a universe, and described how > it would have to be. Another way would be if the universe didn't have any > matter in it because of a perfectly balanced ratio of matter to antimatter. > All that's required is that a universe be in such a state that brains cannot > form. Without brains, you have no consciousness. > > But you don't like my solution to your little conundrum, so you pretend I > didn't respond. > > > I'm sure if it had been > > a thought experiment which could have been used to pose a question > > about how could God exist, then you would have had no problem, but > > because it points out how your world view is implausible, you'd rather > > be deaf and blind about the matter, and not even consider it. > > No. Please acknowledge that I conceived of your stupid universe scenario. > > It's you who are unable to conceive of the idea that your scenario might be > silly. > > > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it > > reasonably. > > You have not shown that to be the case. Until you do, you're just > blabbering. > > > It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example if a > > robot behaved > > What? Universes and robots are equivalent in your mind? > > > as though it might have subjective experiences, i.e. it > > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either (a) it > > did have, or (b) it didn't have. > > Yes. So what? > > > In one universe you could conceive of > > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. > > You said the universes were the SAME! If they're the same, then they're the > same. If one possesses consciousness, then the other one does too. If one > doesn't, then the other doesn't either. You can't say they're the same but > different. > > > In > > either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it would > > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. > > In other words, the same but different. Sorry, that violates the principle > of identity. A cannot equal NOT A. You've cast logic out the window. > > > The > > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be simply > > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even if you > > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded bias. > > Phrase your question where it does not violate fundamental principle of > logic and I might entertain it. > It is simply a case of both universes following the known laws of physics. There was no need to add other differences to them as you did to avoid facing the issue. Which bit are you finding illogical? Supposing there was a robot that behaved as though it might be conscious. You could know how it worked, but it wouldn't tell you anything about whether it was subjectively experienced or not. Now in the thought experiment, in one universe it could be considered that it did have subjective experiences, in the other that it did not. By doing so you could see that whether it did or didn't it couldn't affect its behaviour, as in both, it will simply behave the same, i.e. follow the laws of physics, so in fact it isn't only logical, it is a useful tool. It shows the implausibility of your world view for starters. Is truthfully so difficult for you, or is it that you can't face applying reason to your perspective? Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun, 13:11, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 6:17 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > I told you he would whine. > I'm simply pointing out that you didn't understand what I was saying. Maybe you think it is that I didn't mean what I meant, but what you thought I meant. You'd be wrong though. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 On 5 Jun, 18:14, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" <nonreplya...@heathens.org.uk> wrote: > On Jun 3, 10:24 pm, someone3 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 Jun, 22:19, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" > > > <nonreplya...@heathens.org.uk> wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 1:50 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. > > > > Can I have Caesar dressing with that word salad? > > > If you can't understand it, why don't you point out which bit you are > > having trouble comprehending? > > I don't have any trouble comprehending that your grammatically inept > diatribe is an attempt to evade reasoned debate, and blame the > responders for your incoherence. > > I don't have any trouble comprehending that your comprehension of any > science whatsoever is less than zero. This is clearly demonstrated by > your original - for want of a better description - statements. > > Sort your own fucking grammar out, go and learn some science, go and > learn some respect, then come back and explain what is going on in > your head, though I doubt that the same things will be going on in > your head once you have learned those things. > I don't have any respect for you. You to me seem pathetic. If you had been prepared to face reason I wouldn't have viewed you as such, but to avoid even pointing out the bit that you claimed was causing you problems, so you wouldn't have to face it, is pathetic and cowardly. Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181074124.893550.190550@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 5 Jun, 17:12, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181044055.576591.170490@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 5 Jun, 04:17, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1180997004.586680.126950@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > 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, >> >> >> Thank you, I will keep adhering to logic. >> >> >> > 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, >> >> >> Well, I can conceive of a universe just like this one that doesn't >> >> have >> >> subjective experiences, but it would be trillions of years further >> >> along >> >> its >> >> timeline where proton decay has finally removed all matter from the >> >> universe. No matter, no subjective experiences. >> >> >> > because the laws of >> >> > physics don't reference whether anything subjectively experiences. >> >> >> How do you know they don't? If you record the actions of all the atoms >> >> in >> >> my >> >> brain, then you'll have a complete record of my subjective experiences >> >> if >> >> materialism is correct. >> >> >> > So >> >> > you can sit there not being able to even face thinking about it >> >> >> Actually, I just showed I can think about it. It's just stupid. >> >> >> > because it would show your whole world perspective to be >> >> > implausible, >> >> >> You haven't managed to do that yet to anyone's satisfaction. It's just >> >> you >> >> making an assertion. No one else appears to agree with you. >> >> >> > but it seems to me pathetic and cowardly to not be able to face >> >> > reason. >> >> >> It is pathetic and cowardly not to be able to face reason, is that >> >> your >> >> excuse? >> >> >> > When you feel brave enough, maybe you'll read it again, and >> >> > consider the possibility, and how it highlights how you had been >> >> > deceived. >> >> >> By the same logic, you're terrified by materialism and can't face the >> >> truth. >> >> >> See how bland assertions don't get you anywhere? >> >> > Unlike you, I'm not afraid of following reason though. If you were to >> > ask me to conceptually consider that God didn't exist for example to >> > highlight a point you were making, I wouldn't turn around and reply >> > that I couldn't, and that I'd refuse to, as you did about an >> > alternative universe which followed the same known laws of physics but >> > in which there were no subjective experiences. >> >> What if I asked you to believe that god did exist and didn't exist at the >> same time? That's the equivalent of what you asked me to do. It's not >> that I >> don't want to conceive of such things, it's that I can't. Maybe you can >> hold >> two mutually contradictory ideas in your head at once and call both true, >> but I can't. I have to respect logic. >> >> Besides, I admitted I could conceive of such a universe, and described >> how >> it would have to be. Another way would be if the universe didn't have any >> matter in it because of a perfectly balanced ratio of matter to >> antimatter. >> All that's required is that a universe be in such a state that brains >> cannot >> form. Without brains, you have no consciousness. >> >> But you don't like my solution to your little conundrum, so you pretend I >> didn't respond. >> >> > I'm sure if it had been >> > a thought experiment which could have been used to pose a question >> > about how could God exist, then you would have had no problem, but >> > because it points out how your world view is implausible, you'd rather >> > be deaf and blind about the matter, and not even consider it. >> >> No. Please acknowledge that I conceived of your stupid universe scenario. >> >> It's you who are unable to conceive of the idea that your scenario might >> be >> silly. >> >> > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it >> > reasonably. >> >> You have not shown that to be the case. Until you do, you're just >> blabbering. >> >> > It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example if a >> > robot behaved >> >> What? Universes and robots are equivalent in your mind? >> >> > as though it might have subjective experiences, i.e. it >> > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either (a) it >> > did have, or (b) it didn't have. >> >> Yes. So what? >> >> > In one universe you could conceive of >> > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. >> >> You said the universes were the SAME! If they're the same, then they're >> the >> same. If one possesses consciousness, then the other one does too. If one >> doesn't, then the other doesn't either. You can't say they're the same >> but >> different. >> >> > In >> > either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it would >> > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. >> >> In other words, the same but different. Sorry, that violates the >> principle >> of identity. A cannot equal NOT A. You've cast logic out the window. >> >> > The >> > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be simply >> > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even if you >> > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded bias. >> >> Phrase your question where it does not violate fundamental principle of >> logic and I might entertain it. >> > > It is simply a case of both universes following the known laws of > physics. Then as far as we know, they're THE SAME! We will expect exactly the same behaviors in both. > There was no need to add other differences to them as you did > to avoid facing the issue. The distant future universe with no matter is not different from ours. It's exactly the same. Our universe will be exactly that universe. > Which bit are you finding illogical? The part where you say something is the same, but different. Logic dictates that things that are the same CAN'T be different. If you want to throw out logic, that's fine, but the discussion ends there. > Supposing there was a robot that > behaved as though it might be conscious. You could know how it worked, > but it wouldn't tell you anything about whether it was subjectively > experienced or not. What? I don't know that. It could easily be that if I knew how it worked, I'd know whether it had subjective experiences or not. > Now in the thought experiment, in one universe it > could be considered that it did have subjective experiences, in the > other that it did not. It? What it? The robot? The robot wasn't involved in your universe scenario until just now. So the robot works differently in the two universes. Ok...So...? > By doing so you could see that whether it did > or didn't it couldn't affect its behaviour, as in both, it will simply > behave the same, i.e. follow the laws of physics, so in fact it isn't > only logical, it is a useful tool. No. It still makes no sense. If the same operation results in consciousness in one universe, and no consciousness in the other universe, then the universes are different. One would expect different behaviors in different universes with different laws. > It shows the implausibility of your > world view for starters. No. It doesn't appear to do that at all. > Is truthfully so difficult for you, or is it > that you can't face applying reason to your perspective? You have yet to establish that you are speaking truthfully. Or utilizing reason. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http//www.io.com/~dloubet Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181072531.631508.95370@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > Which bit don't you consider to be true, > that a mechanism following > the known laws of physics > can be explained in terms > of the physical mechanism > following the known laws > of physics There's that tautology again > or that the laws of physics don't mention > whether anything is subjectively experienced or not? They don't mention the shape of a flower, or the size of a bread box .. all sort of things are not mentioned in the laws of physics. That does not mean the laws of physics do not explain them. > You said before that on finding an objection to materialism, you'd > consider it, is that still the case, or will you just blank it out and > go on as if there wasn't a gapping flaw in the materialist suggestion? What objection ? .. you've not raised any. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181074124.893550.190550@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > It is simply a case of both universes following the known laws of > physics. There was no need to add other differences to them as you did > to avoid facing the issue. Then what is the point? You're just back to your tautology again > Which bit are you finding illogical? Supposing there was a robot that > behaved as though it might be conscious. You could know how it worked, > but it wouldn't tell you anything about whether it was subjectively > experienced or not. You're asserting that .. explain why > Now in the thought experiment, in one universe it > could be considered that it did have subjective experiences, in the > other that it did not. Then they are different > By doing so you could see that whether it did > or didn't it couldn't affect its behaviour You're asserting that .. explain why > as in both, it will simply behave the same, You're asserting that .. explain why > i.e. follow the laws of physics, so in fact it isn't > only logical, it is a useful tool. > It shows the implausibility of your > world view for starters. Which world view is that? Do YOU ahvea world biew other than tautologies? > Is truthfully so difficult for you, or is it > that you can't face applying reason to your perspective? Is it so difficult for you to actually say something significant .. I keep waiting and asking .. and there is nothing but the same old tautologies. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181074859.319892.137390@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > I don't have any respect for you. You to me seem pathetic. If you had > been prepared to face reason I wouldn't have viewed you as such, but > to avoid even pointing out the bit that you claimed was causing you > problems, so you wouldn't have to face it, is pathetic and cowardly. Get over yourself .. you say nothing and ask people if they understand, and when that is pointed out that you are saying nothing, you start insulting people for doing so. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1181074443.760606.199670@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > I'm simply pointing out that you didn't understand what I was saying. > Maybe you think it is that I didn't mean what I meant, but what you > thought I meant. You'd be wrong though. Word salad again. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 On 5 Jun, 22:10, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:1181074124.893550.190550@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > On 5 Jun, 17:12, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181044055.576591.170490@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 5 Jun, 04:17, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote: > >> >> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1180997004.586680.126950@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > 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, > > >> >> Thank you, I will keep adhering to logic. > > >> >> > 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, > > >> >> Well, I can conceive of a universe just like this one that doesn't > >> >> have > >> >> subjective experiences, but it would be trillions of years further > >> >> along > >> >> its > >> >> timeline where proton decay has finally removed all matter from the > >> >> universe. No matter, no subjective experiences. > > >> >> > because the laws of > >> >> > physics don't reference whether anything subjectively experiences. > > >> >> How do you know they don't? If you record the actions of all the atoms > >> >> in > >> >> my > >> >> brain, then you'll have a complete record of my subjective experiences > >> >> if > >> >> materialism is correct. > > >> >> > So > >> >> > you can sit there not being able to even face thinking about it > > >> >> Actually, I just showed I can think about it. It's just stupid. > > >> >> > because it would show your whole world perspective to be > >> >> > implausible, > > >> >> You haven't managed to do that yet to anyone's satisfaction. It's just > >> >> you > >> >> making an assertion. No one else appears to agree with you. > > >> >> > but it seems to me pathetic and cowardly to not be able to face > >> >> > reason. > > >> >> It is pathetic and cowardly not to be able to face reason, is that > >> >> your > >> >> excuse? > > >> >> > When you feel brave enough, maybe you'll read it again, and > >> >> > consider the possibility, and how it highlights how you had been > >> >> > deceived. > > >> >> By the same logic, you're terrified by materialism and can't face the > >> >> truth. > > >> >> See how bland assertions don't get you anywhere? > > >> > Unlike you, I'm not afraid of following reason though. If you were to > >> > ask me to conceptually consider that God didn't exist for example to > >> > highlight a point you were making, I wouldn't turn around and reply > >> > that I couldn't, and that I'd refuse to, as you did about an > >> > alternative universe which followed the same known laws of physics but > >> > in which there were no subjective experiences. > > >> What if I asked you to believe that god did exist and didn't exist at the > >> same time? That's the equivalent of what you asked me to do. It's not > >> that I > >> don't want to conceive of such things, it's that I can't. Maybe you can > >> hold > >> two mutually contradictory ideas in your head at once and call both true, > >> but I can't. I have to respect logic. > > >> Besides, I admitted I could conceive of such a universe, and described > >> how > >> it would have to be. Another way would be if the universe didn't have any > >> matter in it because of a perfectly balanced ratio of matter to > >> antimatter. > >> All that's required is that a universe be in such a state that brains > >> cannot > >> form. Without brains, you have no consciousness. > > >> But you don't like my solution to your little conundrum, so you pretend I > >> didn't respond. > > >> > I'm sure if it had been > >> > a thought experiment which could have been used to pose a question > >> > about how could God exist, then you would have had no problem, but > >> > because it points out how your world view is implausible, you'd rather > >> > be deaf and blind about the matter, and not even consider it. > > >> No. Please acknowledge that I conceived of your stupid universe scenario. > > >> It's you who are unable to conceive of the idea that your scenario might > >> be > >> silly. > > >> > You aren't adhering to logic, you are refusing to look at it > >> > reasonably. > > >> You have not shown that to be the case. Until you do, you're just > >> blabbering. > > >> > It isn't as though it couldn't be done, for example if a > >> > robot behaved > > >> What? Universes and robots are equivalent in your mind? > > >> > as though it might have subjective experiences, i.e. it > >> > talked about them etc, you could surely conceive of that either (a) it > >> > did have, or (b) it didn't have. > > >> Yes. So what? > > >> > In one universe you could conceive of > >> > it having subjective experiences, in the other that it didn't. > > >> You said the universes were the SAME! If they're the same, then they're > >> the > >> same. If one possesses consciousness, then the other one does too. If one > >> doesn't, then the other doesn't either. You can't say they're the same > >> but > >> different. > > >> > In > >> > either though it would be acting just the same, as in both it would > >> > simply just be a mechanism following the known laws of physics. > > >> In other words, the same but different. Sorry, that violates the > >> principle > >> of identity. A cannot equal NOT A. You've cast logic out the window. > > >> > The > >> > same would apply to humans if you were to consider them to be simply > >> > biological mechanisms following the known laws of physics, even if you > >> > run from logic and reason, when it goes against your unfounded bias. > > >> Phrase your question where it does not violate fundamental principle of > >> logic and I might entertain it. > > > It is simply a case of both universes following the known laws of > > physics. > > Then as far as we know, they're THE SAME! We will expect exactly the same > behaviors in both. > > > There was no need to add other differences to them as you did > > to avoid facing the issue. > > The distant future universe with no matter is not different from ours. It's > exactly the same. Our universe will be exactly that universe. > > > Which bit are you finding illogical? > > The part where you say something is the same, but different. Logic dictates > that things that are the same CAN'T be different. > > If you want to throw out logic, that's fine, but the discussion ends there. > > > Supposing there was a robot that > > behaved as though it might be conscious. You could know how it worked, > > but it wouldn't tell you anything about whether it was subjectively > > experienced or not. > > What? I don't know that. It could easily be that if I knew how it worked, > I'd know whether it had subjective experiences or not. > > > Now in the thought experiment, in one universe it > > could be considered that it did have subjective experiences, in the > > other that it did not. > > It? What it? The robot? The robot wasn't involved in your universe scenario > until just now. > > So the robot works differently in the two universes. Ok...So...? > > > By doing so you could see that whether it did > > or didn't it couldn't affect its behaviour, as in both, it will simply > > behave the same, i.e. follow the laws of physics, so in fact it isn't > > only logical, it is a useful tool. > > No. It still makes no sense. If the same operation results in consciousness > in one universe, and no consciousness in the other universe, then the > universes are different. > > One would expect different behaviors in different universes with different > laws. > > > It shows the implausibility of your > > world view for starters. > > No. It doesn't appear to do that at all. > > > Is truthfully so difficult for you, or is it > > that you can't face applying reason to your perspective? > > You have yet to establish that you are speaking truthfully. Or utilizing > reason. > How would knowing that the behaviour of the robot was explainable in terms of it following the known laws of physics, give you any indication of whether it subjectively experienced or not. You seem to be living in some sci-fi fantasy world. Regarding the thought experiment, the robots would both be following the same known laws of physics. So perhaps you could explain why you suggest they would act differently. 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.