On Consciousness - Page 30

rocketdodger · 27th June 2012, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Now introduce something which is good for ones health but always leads to death, life. I wonder what your AI would do?

What do we do?

You keep asking what a machine would do, without ever bothering to critically evaluate what you yourself would do.

Belz... · 27th June 2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

For Pixy Misa http://img.tapatalk.com/290687f4-6509-1ace.jpg

Wow. It seems deep and all but... aren't things things ?

dlorde · 27th June 2012, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

Seriously, you guys need to chill the hell out and try, just try, to understand what the other person is thinking?

Wow, there goes my irony meter...

But there are plenty more where that came from

This article may help explain what color 'qualia' actually are, in an interesting way, with striking examples: Chimerical Colors.

Part of the activity of the network of neurons in your head is you (i.e. your mental identity, sense of self, consciousness) - the patterns of neuronal activation are not causing you to feel things, they are you feeling things.

tensordyne · 27th June 2012, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Wow. It seems deep and all but... aren't things things ?

About the best question I have seen in a while. Of course things are things, but we use that in two senses.

In one sense we think of (physical) things as being out there, independent of us. In another sense though, things are perceptual abstractions. What makes a chair a chair besides the abstract idea that when something is experienced in the waking state and visually has at least three legs and a sitting area, that it acts in various ways called chair, that it is a chair? Both are abstractions, so 'things' are abstractions.

Here is my question for pretty much everything you think you know is true, which is, "How do you know it is true?" I am not asking this rhetorically either. If you look at science and ask that question for a particular model, it comes back to two main types of concepts as you break the model down: math and observation.

So, how do you determine models in science? How do you determine their validity? Let me know how you think.

tensordyne · 27th June 2012, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Wow. It seems deep and all but... aren't things things ?

Things are abstractions.

tensordyne · 27th June 2012, 05:24 PM

Interesting quote from the paper you gave dlorde.

Quote:

The qualitative character of subjective experience is often claimed to be beyond the
predictive or explanatory powers of any physical theory (Chalmers, 1996; Huxley,
1866; Jackson, 1982; Levine, 1983; Nagel, 1974).

I do not believe that subjective experience is beyond the applicability of a physical theory (or at the very least, I see no reason to think that is true).

Belz... · 27th June 2012, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

About the best question I have seen in a while. Of course things are things, but we use that in two senses.

I know that. But it's so unskeptical to take some things and distinguish them from other things because they "feel" different, better or "special". It makes these things immune to skeptical inquiry, and it's definitely not a good thing in a rational discussion.

PixyMisa · 27th June 2012, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

The example I gave in the post before this one was not directly addressed. It concerned the fact that if you probe someone's brain and ask them what they are feeling sensation wise, that you do not have direct access to those sensations yourself, hence, studying consciousness itself is different than studying a rock.

You don't have direct access to anything.

Quote:

Seriously, you guys need to chill the hell out and try, just try, to understand what the other person is thinking?

We're chill. We understand. You're wrong.

annnnoid · 27th June 2012, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

No,

The study of consciousness is exactly like the study of anything else.

Quite obviously not! Everything else is a model. Consciousness is the only phenomena we can experience the actual reality of (do you model ‘meaning’?...no, you actually are meaning).

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

You don't have direct access to anything.

Wrong. You have direct access to you.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Right.

Right.

Yes. Of course, that includes computers.

They are part of reality. They exist in minds, and minds are brain function, and brains are quite obviously real.

Of course, every part of that sentence, and everything that follows, is entirely false.

There is: The very moment you start thinking there's more than one kind of stuff, you're wrong, your ideas are irredeemable, and must be discarded.

Abstractions must be instantiated to be considered, and the instantiation is physical. It can't be anything else. There is simply no problem to be solved here.

And where is it I’ve suggested that there is more than one kind of stuff? And what, by the way, is the meaning of ‘physical’?...and is there one that does not inevitably veer into metaphysics? Y’know Pixy, it’s amazing the degree to which you twist and trip over your own words in order to prop up your faltering ideology. This, it may enlighten you to know, is the signature of a zealot, not a scientist.

In response to the rest of it, I’ll ask you one simple question: If mathematics did not exist, would reality / the universe be any different? I do not mean in the trivial sense…as in if it was not discovered / created by human beings…I mean if it did not exist, period.

…and lest I forget…you claim

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

There is

….but (however hard I look)…there is not, at least, not anywhere in your post. Perhaps you could provide it…this explanation (not theory…explanation).

PixyMisa · 27th June 2012, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Quite obviously not! Everything else is a model. Consciousness is the only phenomena we can experience the actual reality of (do you model ‘meaning’?...no, you actually are meaning).

Nonsense! Look at the references to Theory of Mind earlier in the thread by tensordyne. The context was rubbish, but what Theory of Mind is, is modelling other people's consciousness. And the point is, we all do that.

Quote:

Wrong. You have direct access to you.

Nope.

Quote:

And where is it I’ve suggested that there is more than one kind of stuff?

Do you accept that mind is a material process? If not, you are asserting that there is more than one kind of stuff. If you do, then you agree with me.

So... Which is it to be?

Quote:

And what, by the way, is the meaning of ‘physical’?

Stuff that interacts with other stuff.

Quote:

...and is there one that does not inevitably veer into metaphysics?

Yes.

Quote:

Y’know Pixy, it’s amazing the degree to which you twist and trip over your own words in order to prop up your faltering ideology.

Sorry, no. The fact that your worldview is threatened doesn't make science any less powerful.

Quote:

In response to the rest of it, I’ll ask you one simple question: If mathematics did not exist, would reality / the universe be any different?

If you can show that this question has any meaning at all, I will be delighted to answer it.

Quote:

…and lest I forget…you claim

[Misquote snipped]

….but (however hard I look)…there is not, at least, not anywhere in your post. Perhaps you could provide it…this explanation (not theory…explanation).

How nice of you to remove the explanation from your quote and then wail about being unable to find it.

So, again: The very moment you start thinking there's more than one kind of stuff, you're wrong, your ideas are irredeemable, and must be discarded.

Abstractions must be instantiated to be considered, and the instantiation is physical. It can't be anything else. There is simply no problem to be solved here.

tensordyne · 27th June 2012, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

I know that. But it's so unskeptical to take some things and distinguish them from other things because they "feel" different, better or "special". It makes these things immune to skeptical inquiry, and it's definitely not a good thing in a rational discussion.

I do not understand the idea above. We are not talking about feel like in feelings (sad, happy, mad, etc...), we are talking about this thing is black, and that red, kind of thing. If you can not make discriminatory judgments based on perception, I do not know where we are in terms of even going to the grocery store.

PixyMisa · 27th June 2012, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

I do not understand the idea above. We are not talking about feel like in feelings (sad, happy, mad, etc...), we are talking about this thing is black, and that red, kind of thing. If you can not make discriminatory judgments based on perception, I do not know where we are in terms of even going to the grocery store.

Yes, you missed the point.

The point is, there aren't things and then other... non-things, as !Kaggen would have it. There's just one sort of stuff, all accessible to science in exactly the same way. Your consciousness is just stuff. It has no special standing, and doesn't require us to change anything in the way we study it, compared with the way we study astrophysics or plate tectonics or the digestive tracts of albatrosses.

Zeuzzz · 27th June 2012, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Yes, you missed the point.

The point is, there aren't things and then other... non-things, as !Kaggen would have it. There's just one sort of stuff, all accessible to science in exactly the same way. Your consciousness is just stuff. It has no special standing, and doesn't require us to change anything in the way we study it, compared with the way we study astrophysics or plate tectonics or the digestive tracts of albatrosses.

"Your consciousness is just stuff"

You have made a definitive proclamation there.

Now, define 'stuff' in the context you used it [consciousness]

You need to open your mind, so a little bit of your brain will fall out, before you can start differentiating between the two.

It's a conceptual realization, which is not a [currently] scientifically definable phenomenon.

tensordyne · 27th June 2012, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Yes, you missed the point.

The point is, there aren't things and then other... non-things, as !Kaggen would have it. There's just one sort of stuff, all accessible to science in exactly the same way. Your consciousness is just stuff. It has no special standing, and doesn't require us to change anything in the way we study it, compared with the way we study astrophysics or plate tectonics or the digestive tracts of albatrosses.

Things are abstractions. The idea that there is a universe out there, outside of our senses, that is an abstraction. Your idea of there being just one kind of stuff, that is an abstraction. Cart before horse, time and time again. I think I will take a cue from Dancing David and bow out conversing with you. Pipe Organs do not usually change their tune, after all.

Auf wiedersehen.

PixyMisa · 27th June 2012, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

"Your consciousness is just stuff"

You have made a definitive proclamation there.

Indeed. And this general point is the foundation of all science, and this specific point is the foundation of all cognitive science.

This is not something I came up with. This is science. If you don't like it, take it up with science. If you disagree that it's science, well, sorry, you're just wrong.

Quote:

Now, define 'stuff' in the context you used it [consciousness]

Once again: There's only one kind of stuff. What do you think the definition is?

Quote:

You need to open your mind, so a little bit of your brain will fall out, before you can start differentiating between the two.

No. You need to stop accepting fairy tales as fact.

Quote:

It's a conceptual realization, which is not a [currently] scientifically definable phenomenon.

As above.

tensordyne · 28th June 2012, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Indeed. And this general point is the foundation of all science, and this specific point is the foundation of all cognitive science.

This is not something I came up with. This is science. If you don't like it, take it up with science. If you disagree that it's science, well, sorry, you're just wrong.

Your ignorance is astounding. There are multiple philosophies of science. If I disagree with your philosophy of science, I am just doing what lots of other people have done who have accredited higher level degrees, do not believe in god and in all likelihood are a lot smarter than you are.

Plus, saying if you disagree you are wrong and not giving analysis why is tantamount to acting like a child.

How do you know there is one substance?

punshhh · 28th June 2012, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Well, that's good to hear.

As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing.

Quote:

Certainly there are some who cannot agree with my conclusions.

None of you have ever made a coherent objection to my assumptions, though, so that's not my problem.

Incoherent in who's eyes?

PixyMisa · 28th June 2012, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing.

I've already shown that this is false, and explained in detail how we know it is false. So, no.

Quote:

Incoherent in who's eyes?

We're talking about logic here. If you are working with different principles of logic to the rest of us, I can't help you at all.

tensordyne · 28th June 2012, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing.

Exactly.

Belz... · 28th June 2012, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

I do not understand the idea above. We are not talking about feel like in feelings (sad, happy, mad, etc...), we are talking about this thing is black, and that red, kind of thing. If you can not make discriminatory judgments based on perception, I do not know where we are in terms of even going to the grocery store.

I'm sorry, what are you driving at ?

Belz... · 28th June 2012, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

Your ignorance is astounding.

Quote:

There are multiple philosophies of science.

Name two.

Quote:

Plus, saying if you disagree you are wrong and not giving analysis why is tantamount to acting like a child.

Except you've been SHOWN why you're wrong. There's no need to repeat all that ad nauseam.

Quote:

How do you know there is one substance?

Evidence. There is no evidence of any "other" reality so to argue that there may be one because we don't know conclusively is to argue from ignorance, a fallacy.

tensordyne · 28th June 2012, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Name two.

Mine, PixyMisa's, Popper's, Instumentalism, Deductive-Nomological, Coherentism... You do have access to internet search engines, right Belz...? Wikipedia is also helpful in this regard.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Except you've been SHOWN why you're wrong. There's no need to repeat all that ad nauseam.

I have yet to see a falsifiable claim as per this one substance idea. Saying generalities such as "it fits science to date", "if this wasn't the case than science would be wrong", are not falsifiable statements. They are not even wrong.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Evidence. There is no evidence of any "other" reality so to argue that there may be one because we don't know conclusively is to argue from ignorance, a fallacy.

You mistake arguing from ignorance for calling for evidence (or in this case, calling for a falsifiable method). Remember, I AM NOT THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM! The claimant needs to show there is evidence, or even that there could be evidence.

From the above, by following your logic, if you can not show that there is anything other then one 'substance' by experiment or observation, it is not science. It is metaphysical navel gazing.

Dancing David · 28th June 2012, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Quite obviously not! Everything else is a model. Consciousness is the only phenomena we can experience the actual reality of (do you model ‘meaning’?...no, you actually are meaning).

That is a nice assumption, just asserted and not a reason for a false dichotomy.

'Meaning' except for the 'purpose and meaning to your life' and even that, is a set of self referential idiomatic socially constructs of communication using symbols to external referents.

"Meaning' only comes through the interaction of two communicants.

Dancing David · 28th June 2012, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing.

Do you use electricity, falsify the em force would you?

Falsify gravity?

Please.

Dualism resolves to monism, period.
Full stop.

Quote:

Incoherent in who's eyes?

tensordyne · 28th June 2012, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Do you use electricity, falsify the em force would you?

Quantum Electrodynamics? Plus, you do not falsify a phenomena, you falsify a theory.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Falsify gravity?

Again, you do not falsify phenomena, you falsify models. For instance, Newtonian Gravity Model predictions are falsified by various observations when relative velocity or mass are too high. An examples of this is, for instance, the Perihelion of Mercury (GPS anyone?).

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Dualism resolves to monism, period.
Full stop.

Dualism and monism are both ontological philosophies about the ultimate nature of reality (hence, they are not scientific). I am an Empiricist. My philosophy of science is to use math as well as observation and experiment to evaluate and refine various models. If you interpret that as monism, dualism, or whatever, I really could not care less.

Belz... · 28th June 2012, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

Mine, PixyMisa's, Popper's, Instumentalism, Deductive-Nomological, Coherentism... You do have access to internet search engines, right Belz...? Wikipedia is also helpful in this regard.

No, I'm sorry. I don't do your work for you.

Quote:

I have yet to see a falsifiable claim as per this one substance idea.

Speaking of science, you seem to have no idea where the burden of evidence lies.

Quote:

You mistake arguing from ignorance for calling for evidence

No. "How do you know there is only one substance" where there is no evidence for more than one is definitely argument from ignorance.

PixyMisa · 28th June 2012, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

Your ignorance is astounding. There are multiple philosophies of science.

Irrelevant. There's only one scientific method.

Quote:

If I disagree with your philosophy of science, I am just doing what lots of other people have done who have accredited higher level degrees, do not believe in god and in all likelihood are a lot smarter than you are.

No, it just means you're wrong.

Quote:

How do you know there is one substance?

I never said that. That's just you. I don't know why you persist in this bizarre distortion.

Mr. Scott · 28th June 2012, 06:21 AM

PixyMisa, what will have to happen to make the dualists admit to having egg on their facades?
What behavior of a conscious machine could accomplish this? Something likely to make dualists say, "gosh, we were wrong. That machine is conscious."

Belz... · 28th June 2012, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

PixyMisa, what will have to happen to make the dualists admit to having egg on their facades?
What behavior of a conscious machine could accomplish this? Something likely to make dualists say, "gosh, we were wrong. That machine is conscious."

Won't happen. The only way to determine consciousness is through observing behaviour, so they will always claim that the machine is not conscious.

Dancing David · 28th June 2012, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

PixyMisa, what will have to happen to make the dualists admit to having egg on their facades?
What behavior of a conscious machine could accomplish this? Something likely to make dualists say, "gosh, we were wrong. That machine is conscious."

When the machine argues for the irreducible nature of qualia...

!Kaggen · 28th June 2012, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

PixyMisa, what will have to happen to make the dualists admit to having egg on their facades?
What behavior of a conscious machine could accomplish this? Something likely to make dualists say, "gosh, we were wrong. That machine is conscious."

I am no dualist but I am a skeptic of machine consciousness so this is what I have already posted would make me believe a robot was conscious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w&sns=em

Belz... · 28th June 2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I am no dualist but I am a skeptic of machine consciousness so this is what I have already posted would make me believe a robot was conscious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w&sns=em

I'm a skeptic of machine flight. Planes ? Not real flight.

tensordyne · 28th June 2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Irrelevant. There's only one scientific method.

There is only one scientific method. There are multiple philosophies of science, which was the topic of discussion, therefore it is relevant, and therefore you are wrong.

See PixyMisa, I didn't just say you were wrong like you did below and in other communications, I gave reasons and then the last thing I said was you are wrong. Give it a try sometime, it could be quite a refreshing change.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

No, it just means you're wrong.

Again, the childish act of saying your wrong and not giving analysis why.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I never said that. That's just you. I don't know why you persist in this bizarre distortion.

Post #1052

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

We know how the Universe works. We know that there's only one sort of stuff, and it follows a consistent set of laws. We know that mind arises as a process in matter, and not any other way.

Belz... · 28th June 2012, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

There is only one scientific method. There are multiple philosophies of science, which was the topic of discussion

No, the topic is consciousness. How does the "different philosophies of science" have anything to do with the topic ?

tsig · 28th June 2012, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

Of which model are you referring to?

I think you are referring to the general ideas associated with neurological models to date?

One thing I would like to know myself is when and how the physics of biology leads to the sensation of red. If you happen to know that it would be great.

Of course, some do not even know what the sensation of red means because they will make it all about mechanics and nowhere about sensation itself (which is my main point, but if you want to talk specifics of certain models I am all ears).

I could be wrong that a neurological model does not already exist that gives the correlates of consciousness, but are we not still supposed to be trying to figure out what NCC's are, or did I miss a memo or something?

Or is this a framework question in disguise? Doesn't matter. I will let the relevant scientists do their job on this one. I will let you know when they have any kind of answer to the questions I am pondering here. For the moment, as far as I can tell, they are not there yet.

You want to talk about the sensation of red but not the mechanics of the sensation? You're already begging the question by assuming that the sensation is somehow different than the activity of the brain.

Mr. Scott · 28th June 2012, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I am no dualist but I am a skeptic of machine consciousness so this is what I have already posted would make me believe a robot was conscious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w&sns=em

Specifically, what about that would make you believe a machine was conscious?

tsig · 28th June 2012, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

I will not be shoe-horned. All of the above is fine so long as we are talking about various medical models. When talking about sensation itself, the what it is like to be something, it misses the boat. You do what you can though.

The above takes something that is subjective and puts a framework around how to describe objectively various processes that we think lead to subjective experiences. If the above is the only thing you think about when considering sensation then your conceptual landscape has some missing pieces.

Again, models (that I even agree with, surprised?). The sensation of red is the undeniable self-evident fact that we are trying to figure out how works using science. The model is not the same as the sensation though (one category error of monists). If you want to talk models, I would be more than happy to (actually interested even because I think you have looked into the biology topics enough to have more expertise than I do about that subject).

Yes, interesting points.

Not sure what you mean. That sensation is anything other than ...? In terms of models, yep, that is what it most likely is (or something similar). As you noted though, we do not have an appropriate model as yet to explain the colors we perceive and so on. I hope that day comes before I die.

In terms of what?

The last sentence is a cop out. When you can tell me how we should put neurons together in certain patterns (or something objectively similar) so that the color green is perceived by some entity (the subjective sense of perceive, which is part of the problem with talking to monists, EVERYTHING is objective because the idea of subjective does not even exist to them), then everything is kosher.

Neurons are not consciousness. Neurons are neurons. Neurons might give rise to consciousness, but they are most certainly not consciousness. There is a difference.

I do not ever mean to ignore a question. Well, I am partial to CEMI, but other than that, when I said, when we do figure out consciousness it will not be what anyone expects, I meant it. I am someone and therefore I can not know what to expect. It is a guess though, but looking over the historical patterns in science, it seems like that is the most probable outcome.

A problem this momentous when finally solved usually takes a form no one expected. That has happened quite a bit in fact.

Really though, I have optimism for the scientific method so I say carry on the good fight. My guess that consciousness will turn out to be something no one expects is irrelevant to the current functioning of science.

Originally Posted by punshhh

As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing.

Incoherent in who's eyes?

[quote=tensordyne;8407176]Exactly.[/QUOTE]

You just shoe horned yourself.

tensordyne · 28th June 2012, 06:53 PM

[quote=tsig;8409064]

Originally Posted by tensordyne

Exactly.[/QUOTE]

You just shoe horned yourself.

That was an odd and pointless post.

tensordyne · 28th June 2012, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

No, the topic is consciousness. How does the "different philosophies of science" have anything to do with the topic ?

You ask some of the most interesting questions Belz.... The topic of this thread is consciousness, the topic at that point in the discussion was philosophy of science.

Depending on your philosophy of science you will investigate consciousness in different ways. If you miss the concept of consciousness as sensation and make everything about one stuff, then it is my contention you are missing something and the consciousness idea you will study will not be the same as the one I am interested in.

I think that covers it.

tensordyne · 28th June 2012, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

You want to talk about the sensation of red but not the mechanics of the sensation? You're already begging the question by assuming that the sensation is somehow different than the activity of the brain.

Very well put above.

No, I definitely want to talk about the mechanics of the sensation of red (and every other form of perception). I am 100% for that. As far as I can tell though, certain posters do not even understand what the word sensation means (PixyMisa).

I want a map between the physical world and sensation. I want to be able to know that when a system is put into such and such an arrangement, that that causes the system to experience x. I most definitely want that.

I do think quite a lot of the mechanisms responsible for sensation reside in the brain.

Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be replicated in other substrates, such as general purpose computers.	81	86.17%
Consciousness requires a second substance outside the physical material world, currently undetectable by scientific instruments	3	3.19%
On Planet X, unconscious biological beings have perfected conscious machines	10	10.64%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

27th June 2012, 02:20 PM	#1162
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,500	Originally Posted by !Kaggen For Pixy Misa http://img.tapatalk.com/290687f4-6509-1ace.jpg Wow. It seems deep and all but... aren't things things ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

27th June 2012, 04:27 PM	#1163
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	Originally Posted by tensordyne Seriously, you guys need to chill the hell out and try, just try, to understand what the other person is thinking? Wow, there goes my irony meter... But there are plenty more where that came from This article may help explain what color 'qualia' actually are, in an interesting way, with striking examples: Chimerical Colors. Part of the activity of the network of neurons in your head is you (i.e. your mental identity, sense of self, consciousness) - the patterns of neuronal activation are not causing you to feel things, they are you feeling things.
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	__________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

27th June 2012, 05:05 PM	#1164
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by Belz... Wow. It seems deep and all but... aren't things things ? About the best question I have seen in a while. Of course things are things, but we use that in two senses. In one sense we think of (physical) things as being out there, independent of us. In another sense though, things are perceptual abstractions. What makes a chair a chair besides the abstract idea that when something is experienced in the waking state and visually has at least three legs and a sitting area, that it acts in various ways called chair, that it is a chair? Both are abstractions, so 'things' are abstractions. Here is my question for pretty much everything you think you know is true, which is, "How do you know it is true?" I am not asking this rhetorically either. If you look at science and ask that question for a particular model, it comes back to two main types of concepts as you break the model down: math and observation. So, how do you determine models in science? How do you determine their validity? Let me know how you think.
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933 Last edited by tensordyne; 27th June 2012 at 05:11 PM.

27th June 2012, 05:19 PM	#1165
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by Belz... Wow. It seems deep and all but... aren't things things ? Things are abstractions.
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933

27th June 2012, 01:34 PM	#1161
rocketdodger Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 6,669	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Now introduce something which is good for ones health but always leads to death, life. I wonder what your AI would do? What do we do? You keep asking what a machine would do, without ever bothering to critically evaluate what you yourself would do.

27th June 2012, 05:24 PM	#1166
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Interesting quote from the paper you gave dlorde. Quote: The qualitative character of subjective experience is often claimed to be beyond the predictive or explanatory powers of any physical theory (Chalmers, 1996; Huxley, 1866; Jackson, 1982; Levine, 1983; Nagel, 1974). I do not believe that subjective experience is beyond the applicability of a physical theory (or at the very least, I see no reason to think that is true).
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933 Last edited by tensordyne; 27th June 2012 at 05:56 PM.

27th June 2012, 06:28 PM	#1167
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,500	Originally Posted by tensordyne About the best question I have seen in a while. Of course things are things, but we use that in two senses. I know that. But it's so unskeptical to take some things and distinguish them from other things because they "feel" different, better or "special". It makes these things immune to skeptical inquiry, and it's definitely not a good thing in a rational discussion.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

27th June 2012, 06:39 PM	#1168
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by tensordyne The example I gave in the post before this one was not directly addressed. It concerned the fact that if you probe someone's brain and ask them what they are feeling sensation wise, that you do not have direct access to those sensations yourself, hence, studying consciousness itself is different than studying a rock. You don't have direct access to anything. Quote: Seriously, you guys need to chill the hell out and try, just try, to understand what the other person is thinking? We're chill. We understand. You're wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

27th June 2012, 08:09 PM	#1169
annnnoid Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: canada Posts: 708	Originally Posted by Dancing David No, The study of consciousness is exactly like the study of anything else. Quite obviously not! Everything else is a model. Consciousness is the only phenomena we can experience the actual reality of (do you model ‘meaning’?...no, you actually are meaning). Originally Posted by PixyMisa You don't have direct access to anything. Wrong. You have direct access to you. Originally Posted by PixyMisa Right. Right. Yes. Of course, that includes computers. They are part of reality. They exist in minds, and minds are brain function, and brains are quite obviously real. Of course, every part of that sentence, and everything that follows, is entirely false. There is: The very moment you start thinking there's more than one kind of stuff, you're wrong, your ideas are irredeemable, and must be discarded. Abstractions must be instantiated to be considered, and the instantiation is physical. It can't be anything else. There is simply no problem to be solved here. And where is it I’ve suggested that there is more than one kind of stuff? And what, by the way, is the meaning of ‘physical’?...and is there one that does not inevitably veer into metaphysics? Y’know Pixy, it’s amazing the degree to which you twist and trip over your own words in order to prop up your faltering ideology. This, it may enlighten you to know, is the signature of a zealot, not a scientist. In response to the rest of it, I’ll ask you one simple question: If mathematics did not exist, would reality / the universe be any different? I do not mean in the trivial sense…as in if it was not discovered / created by human beings…I mean if it did not exist, period. …and lest I forget…you claim Originally Posted by PixyMisa There is ….but (however hard I look)…there is not, at least, not anywhere in your post. Perhaps you could provide it…this explanation (not theory…explanation).
	__________________ Big answers…to big questions Real words arrive slowly At all is ever the question But not asked and progress happens…it seems. Always looking for the right words...using the wrong ones.

27th June 2012, 09:37 PM	#1170
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by annnnoid Quite obviously not! Everything else is a model. Consciousness is the only phenomena we can experience the actual reality of (do you model ‘meaning’?...no, you actually are meaning). Nonsense! Look at the references to Theory of Mind earlier in the thread by tensordyne. The context was rubbish, but what Theory of Mind is, is modelling other people's consciousness. And the point is, we all do that. Quote: Wrong. You have direct access to you. Nope. Quote: And where is it I’ve suggested that there is more than one kind of stuff? Do you accept that mind is a material process? If not, you are asserting that there is more than one kind of stuff. If you do, then you agree with me. So... Which is it to be? Quote: And what, by the way, is the meaning of ‘physical’? Stuff that interacts with other stuff. Quote: ...and is there one that does not inevitably veer into metaphysics? Yes. Quote: Y’know Pixy, it’s amazing the degree to which you twist and trip over your own words in order to prop up your faltering ideology. Sorry, no. The fact that your worldview is threatened doesn't make science any less powerful. Quote: In response to the rest of it, I’ll ask you one simple question: If mathematics did not exist, would reality / the universe be any different? If you can show that this question has any meaning at all, I will be delighted to answer it. Quote: …and lest I forget…you claim [Misquote snipped] ….but (however hard I look)…there is not, at least, not anywhere in your post. Perhaps you could provide it…this explanation (not theory…explanation). How nice of you to remove the explanation from your quote and then wail about being unable to find it. So, again: The very moment you start thinking there's more than one kind of stuff, you're wrong, your ideas are irredeemable, and must be discarded. Abstractions must be instantiated to be considered, and the instantiation is physical. It can't be anything else. There is simply no problem to be solved here.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

27th June 2012, 09:43 PM	#1171
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by Belz... I know that. But it's so unskeptical to take some things and distinguish them from other things because they "feel" different, better or "special". It makes these things immune to skeptical inquiry, and it's definitely not a good thing in a rational discussion. I do not understand the idea above. We are not talking about feel like in feelings (sad, happy, mad, etc...), we are talking about this thing is black, and that red, kind of thing. If you can not make discriminatory judgments based on perception, I do not know where we are in terms of even going to the grocery store.
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933 Last edited by tensordyne; 27th June 2012 at 09:46 PM.

27th June 2012, 09:50 PM	#1172
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by tensordyne I do not understand the idea above. We are not talking about feel like in feelings (sad, happy, mad, etc...), we are talking about this thing is black, and that red, kind of thing. If you can not make discriminatory judgments based on perception, I do not know where we are in terms of even going to the grocery store. Yes, you missed the point. The point is, there aren't things and then other... non-things, as !Kaggen would have it. There's just one sort of stuff, all accessible to science in exactly the same way. Your consciousness is just stuff. It has no special standing, and doesn't require us to change anything in the way we study it, compared with the way we study astrophysics or plate tectonics or the digestive tracts of albatrosses.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

27th June 2012, 09:57 PM	#1173
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Yes, you missed the point. The point is, there aren't things and then other... non-things, as !Kaggen would have it. There's just one sort of stuff, all accessible to science in exactly the same way. Your consciousness is just stuff. It has no special standing, and doesn't require us to change anything in the way we study it, compared with the way we study astrophysics or plate tectonics or the digestive tracts of albatrosses. "Your consciousness is just stuff" You have made a definitive proclamation there. Now, define 'stuff' in the context you used it [consciousness] You need to open your mind, so a little bit of your brain will fall out, before you can start differentiating between the two. It's a conceptual realization, which is not a [currently] scientifically definable phenomenon.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 27th June 2012 at 10:03 PM.

27th June 2012, 09:59 PM	#1174
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Yes, you missed the point. The point is, there aren't things and then other... non-things, as !Kaggen would have it. There's just one sort of stuff, all accessible to science in exactly the same way. Your consciousness is just stuff. It has no special standing, and doesn't require us to change anything in the way we study it, compared with the way we study astrophysics or plate tectonics or the digestive tracts of albatrosses. Things are abstractions. The idea that there is a universe out there, outside of our senses, that is an abstraction. Your idea of there being just one kind of stuff, that is an abstraction. Cart before horse, time and time again. I think I will take a cue from Dancing David and bow out conversing with you. Pipe Organs do not usually change their tune, after all. Auf wiedersehen.
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933

27th June 2012, 10:51 PM	#1175
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz "Your consciousness is just stuff" You have made a definitive proclamation there. Indeed. And this general point is the foundation of all science, and this specific point is the foundation of all cognitive science. This is not something I came up with. This is science. If you don't like it, take it up with science. If you disagree that it's science, well, sorry, you're just wrong. Quote: Now, define 'stuff' in the context you used it [consciousness] Once again: There's only one kind of stuff. What do you think the definition is? Quote: You need to open your mind, so a little bit of your brain will fall out, before you can start differentiating between the two. No. You need to stop accepting fairy tales as fact. Quote: It's a conceptual realization, which is not a [currently] scientifically definable phenomenon. As above.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

28th June 2012, 12:44 AM	#1176
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Indeed. And this general point is the foundation of all science, and this specific point is the foundation of all cognitive science. This is not something I came up with. This is science. If you don't like it, take it up with science. If you disagree that it's science, well, sorry, you're just wrong. Your ignorance is astounding. There are multiple philosophies of science. If I disagree with your philosophy of science, I am just doing what lots of other people have done who have accredited higher level degrees, do not believe in god and in all likelihood are a lot smarter than you are. Plus, saying if you disagree you are wrong and not giving analysis why is tantamount to acting like a child. How do you know there is one substance?
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933 Last edited by tensordyne; 28th June 2012 at 01:02 AM.

28th June 2012, 01:48 AM	#1177
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Well, that's good to hear. As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing. Quote: Certainly there are some who cannot agree with my conclusions. None of you have ever made a coherent objection to my assumptions, though, so that's not my problem. Incoherent in who's eyes?

28th June 2012, 02:06 AM	#1178
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by punshhh As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing. I've already shown that this is false, and explained in detail how we know it is false. So, no. Quote: Incoherent in who's eyes? We're talking about logic here. If you are working with different principles of logic to the rest of us, I can't help you at all.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

28th June 2012, 03:04 AM	#1179
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by punshhh As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing. Exactly.
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933

28th June 2012, 03:11 AM	#1180
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,500	Originally Posted by tensordyne I do not understand the idea above. We are not talking about feel like in feelings (sad, happy, mad, etc...), we are talking about this thing is black, and that red, kind of thing. If you can not make discriminatory judgments based on perception, I do not know where we are in terms of even going to the grocery store. I'm sorry, what are you driving at ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

28th June 2012, 03:13 AM	#1181
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,500	Originally Posted by tensordyne Your ignorance is astounding. Quote: There are multiple philosophies of science. Name two. Quote: Plus, saying if you disagree you are wrong and not giving analysis why is tantamount to acting like a child. Except you've been SHOWN why you're wrong. There's no need to repeat all that ad nauseam. Quote: How do you know there is one substance? Evidence. There is no evidence of any "other" reality so to argue that there may be one because we don't know conclusively is to argue from ignorance, a fallacy.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

28th June 2012, 03:59 AM	#1182
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by Belz... Name two. Mine, PixyMisa's, Popper's, Instumentalism, Deductive-Nomological, Coherentism... You do have access to internet search engines, right Belz...? Wikipedia is also helpful in this regard. Originally Posted by Belz... Except you've been SHOWN why you're wrong. There's no need to repeat all that ad nauseam. I have yet to see a falsifiable claim as per this one substance idea. Saying generalities such as "it fits science to date", "if this wasn't the case than science would be wrong", are not falsifiable statements. They are not even wrong. Originally Posted by Belz... Evidence. There is no evidence of any "other" reality so to argue that there may be one because we don't know conclusively is to argue from ignorance, a fallacy. You mistake arguing from ignorance for calling for evidence (or in this case, calling for a falsifiable method). Remember, I AM NOT THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM! The claimant needs to show there is evidence, or even that there could be evidence. From the above, by following your logic, if you can not show that there is anything other then one 'substance' by experiment or observation, it is not science. It is metaphysical navel gazing.
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933

28th June 2012, 04:13 AM	#1183
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,708	Originally Posted by annnnoid Quite obviously not! Everything else is a model. Consciousness is the only phenomena we can experience the actual reality of (do you model ‘meaning’?...no, you actually are meaning). That is a nice assumption, just asserted and not a reason for a false dichotomy. 'Meaning' except for the 'purpose and meaning to your life' and even that, is a set of self referential idiomatic socially constructs of communication using symbols to external referents. "Meaning' only comes through the interaction of two communicants.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 28th June 2012 at 04:15 AM.

28th June 2012, 04:16 AM	#1184
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,708	Originally Posted by punshhh As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing. Do you use electricity, falsify the em force would you? Falsify gravity? Please. Dualism resolves to monism, period. Full stop. Quote: Incoherent in who's eyes?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

28th June 2012, 04:34 AM	#1185
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by Dancing David Do you use electricity, falsify the em force would you? Quantum Electrodynamics? Plus, you do not falsify a phenomena, you falsify a theory. Originally Posted by Dancing David Falsify gravity? Again, you do not falsify phenomena, you falsify models. For instance, Newtonian Gravity Model predictions are falsified by various observations when relative velocity or mass are too high. An examples of this is, for instance, the Perihelion of Mercury (GPS anyone?). Originally Posted by Dancing David Dualism resolves to monism, period. Full stop. Dualism and monism are both ontological philosophies about the ultimate nature of reality (hence, they are not scientific). I am an Empiricist. My philosophy of science is to use math as well as observation and experiment to evaluate and refine various models. If you interpret that as monism, dualism, or whatever, I really could not care less.
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933 Last edited by tensordyne; 28th June 2012 at 04:35 AM.

28th June 2012, 04:39 AM	#1186
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,500	Originally Posted by tensordyne Mine, PixyMisa's, Popper's, Instumentalism, Deductive-Nomological, Coherentism... You do have access to internet search engines, right Belz...? Wikipedia is also helpful in this regard. No, I'm sorry. I don't do your work for you. Quote: I have yet to see a falsifiable claim as per this one substance idea. Speaking of science, you seem to have no idea where the burden of evidence lies. Quote: You mistake arguing from ignorance for calling for evidence No. "How do you know there is only one substance" where there is no evidence for more than one is definitely argument from ignorance.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

28th June 2012, 04:42 AM	#1187
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by tensordyne Your ignorance is astounding. There are multiple philosophies of science. Irrelevant. There's only one scientific method. Quote: If I disagree with your philosophy of science, I am just doing what lots of other people have done who have accredited higher level degrees, do not believe in god and in all likelihood are a lot smarter than you are. No, it just means you're wrong. Quote: How do you know there is one substance? I never said that. That's just you. I don't know why you persist in this bizarre distortion.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

28th June 2012, 06:21 AM	#1188
Mr. Scott Under the Amazing One's Wing Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA Posts: 2,280	PixyMisa, what will have to happen to make the dualists admit to having egg on their facades? What behavior of a conscious machine could accomplish this? Something likely to make dualists say, "gosh, we were wrong. That machine is conscious."
	__________________ "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end." A+ Global Moderator ceepolk, Dec. 9, 2012 Last edited by Mr. Scott; 28th June 2012 at 06:26 AM.

28th June 2012, 07:18 AM	#1189
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,500	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott PixyMisa, what will have to happen to make the dualists admit to having egg on their facades? What behavior of a conscious machine could accomplish this? Something likely to make dualists say, "gosh, we were wrong. That machine is conscious." Won't happen. The only way to determine consciousness is through observing behaviour, so they will always claim that the machine is not conscious.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

28th June 2012, 08:56 AM	#1190
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,708	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott PixyMisa, what will have to happen to make the dualists admit to having egg on their facades? What behavior of a conscious machine could accomplish this? Something likely to make dualists say, "gosh, we were wrong. That machine is conscious." When the machine argues for the irreducible nature of qualia...
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

28th June 2012, 10:53 AM	#1191
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,437	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott PixyMisa, what will have to happen to make the dualists admit to having egg on their facades? What behavior of a conscious machine could accomplish this? Something likely to make dualists say, "gosh, we were wrong. That machine is conscious." I am no dualist but I am a skeptic of machine consciousness so this is what I have already posted would make me believe a robot was conscious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w&sns=em
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/

28th June 2012, 12:58 PM	#1192
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,500	Originally Posted by !Kaggen I am no dualist but I am a skeptic of machine consciousness so this is what I have already posted would make me believe a robot was conscious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w&sns=em I'm a skeptic of machine flight. Planes ? Not real flight.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

28th June 2012, 01:23 PM	#1193
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Irrelevant. There's only one scientific method. There is only one scientific method. There are multiple philosophies of science, which was the topic of discussion, therefore it is relevant, and therefore you are wrong. See PixyMisa, I didn't just say you were wrong like you did below and in other communications, I gave reasons and then the last thing I said was you are wrong. Give it a try sometime, it could be quite a refreshing change. Originally Posted by PixyMisa No, it just means you're wrong. Again, the childish act of saying your wrong and not giving analysis why. Originally Posted by PixyMisa I never said that. That's just you. I don't know why you persist in this bizarre distortion. Post #1052 Originally Posted by PixyMisa We know how the Universe works. We know that there's only one sort of stuff, and it follows a consistent set of laws. We know that mind arises as a process in matter, and not any other way.
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933

28th June 2012, 02:22 PM	#1194
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,500	Originally Posted by tensordyne There is only one scientific method. There are multiple philosophies of science, which was the topic of discussion No, the topic is consciousness. How does the "different philosophies of science" have anything to do with the topic ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey