Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Why not dualism?

keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2018 9:36:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Being of a lazy disposition and acknowledging my limitations I will allow Dan Dennett to state the case:

"This fundamentally antiscientific stance of dualism is, to my mind, its most disqualifying feature, and is the reason why in this book I adopt the apparently dogmatic rule that dualism is to be avoided at all costs. It is not that I think I can give a knock-down proof that dualism, in all its forms is false or incoherent, but that, given the way dualism wallows in mystery, accepting dualism is giving up."
(Consciousness Explained, p37)

Dennett expresses it in pragmatic terms; if we allow dualism in then it will give us an excuse to stop work. We won't try to, say, produce an artificial conscousness because anything we can make would not have the 'magic ingredient' that turns ordinary matter into conscious matter, so why bother even trying?

Even if dualism were true, a worker in the field should forget all about it and believe that the problem and puzzle in front of him can be overcome because the alternative is 'giving up'.

But I - and I suspect Dennett - are also afflicted with the hunch (there is no other word for it) that materialism is true and there is no mysterious, magical dualistic 'stuff' in the universe. It might be arrogance or hubris, but we believe in humanity's ability to solve problems, and the harder the problem seems the more we like it.

The standard respose on DDO is 'Prove it!', but obviously that can't be done. The only proof will come when somebody makes a conscious robot and no-one can do that today, and can't do it tomorrow either.
Of course matrialista have been singing that tune for a long time - since the1950's at least - and siri is no hal9000. AI has seen progress, but AC (artificial consciousness) none at all. Respectable philosophers such as David Chamers openly support a limited form of 'naturalistic dualism'.

So do materialists have to admit defeat? is it time to 'give up'?
What do you think!
Waterborne
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 12:41:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. physical matter is all that there is and mind is separate from body
- refuted by beginning of time paradox
2. physical matter is all that there is, mind is not separate from body
- least amount of contradiction
3. physical matter is not all that there is, mind is separate from body
- refuted by reflexes
3. physical is neither all that there is nor mind is separate from body
- refuted by reflexes
reece
Posts: 839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 4:18:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2018 9:36:15 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Being of a lazy disposition and acknowledging my limitations I will allow Dan Dennett to state the case:

"This fundamentally antiscientific stance of dualism is, to my mind, its most disqualifying feature, and is the reason why in this book I adopt the apparently dogmatic rule that dualism is to be avoided at all costs. It is not that I think I can give a knock-down proof that dualism, in all its forms is false or incoherent, but that, given the way dualism wallows in mystery, accepting dualism is giving up."
(Consciousness Explained, p37)

Dennett expresses it in pragmatic terms; if we allow dualism in then it will give us an excuse to stop work. We won't try to, say, produce an artificial conscousness because anything we can make would not have the 'magic ingredient' that turns ordinary matter into conscious matter, so why bother even trying?

Even if dualism were true, a worker in the field should forget all about it and believe that the problem and puzzle in front of him can be overcome because the alternative is 'giving up'.

But I - and I suspect Dennett - are also afflicted with the hunch (there is no other word for it) that materialism is true and there is no mysterious, magical dualistic 'stuff' in the universe. It might be arrogance or hubris, but we believe in humanity's ability to solve problems, and the harder the problem seems the more we like it.

The standard respose on DDO is 'Prove it!', but obviously that can't be done. The only proof will come when somebody makes a conscious robot and no-one can do that today, and can't do it tomorrow either.
Of course matrialista have been singing that tune for a long time - since the1950's at least - and siri is no hal9000. AI has seen progress, but AC (artificial consciousness) none at all. Respectable philosophers such as David Chamers openly support a limited form of 'naturalistic dualism'.

So do materialists have to admit defeat? is it time to 'give up'?
What do you think!

Consciousness is ambiguous.

Definition of consciousness: The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.

That could include pretty much everything in the universe if you wanted it to. Consciousness is a meaningless term metaphysically.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 5:38:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 4:18:40 AM, reece wrote:

Definition of consciousness: The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.

That could include pretty much everything in the universe if you wanted it to. Consciousness is a meaningless term metaphysically.

I think that can be over-played. Certainly it isn't easy to frame a set of words to describe consciousness, but I suggest we more or less know what the word refers to, just a we can talk about 'chairs' without a formal definition (have you ever looked up 'chair' in a dictionary? Yet we can discuss chairs and agree on what is and what is not a chair very reliably).

I think software engineers are going to create an artificial conscious ahead of philosophers agreeing on a definition just as carpenters didn't wait on philosophers and dictionary writers before making furniture to sit on.
reece
Posts: 839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 6:17:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 5:38:33 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 4:18:40 AM, reece wrote:

Definition of consciousness: The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.

That could include pretty much everything in the universe if you wanted it to. Consciousness is a meaningless term metaphysically.

I think that can be over-played. Certainly it isn't easy to frame a set of words to describe consciousness, but I suggest we more or less know what the word refers to, just a we can talk about 'chairs' without a formal definition (have you ever looked up 'chair' in a dictionary? Yet we can discuss chairs and agree on what is and what is not a chair very reliably).

I think software engineers are going to create an artificial conscious ahead of philosophers agreeing on a definition just as carpenters didn't wait on philosophers and dictionary writers before making furniture to sit on.

When we talk about a matter of speaking, it depends on context. I've seen no one talk about chairs metaphysically. I wouldn't be surprised if no one has. Chairs aren't an exceptional catalyst to derive fundamental meaning from, except that we share some chemistry (to some chairs more than others) and we've moulded their materials to our will, if "artificially" made. But even that's not exceptional relatively speaking.

Where do you draw the line when it comes to consciousness? Is there no grey area?
Studio-B
Posts: 1,401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 7:07:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2018 9:36:15 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Being of a lazy disposition and acknowledging my limitations I will allow - [fill in as required- ]to state the case [for me.]

Not knowing fukall about anything you argue about is more likely the case.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 7:48:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 6:17:11 AM, reece wrote:
Where do you draw the line when it comes to consciousness? Is there no grey area?

It is very hard to quantify consciousness, and that creates a problem for artificial consciousness workers because the only calibration points currently available are "no consciousness at all" and "human level consciousness"!

Put another way, if someone did create a robot with 50% of the consciousness of a human how would we know it was conscious at all?

I don't know whose job it is to work that sort of thing out, but they haven't done a very good job of it and I think their failure has contributed to the pessimism surrounding materialism in this context.
reece
Posts: 839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 8:01:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 7:48:48 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 6:17:11 AM, reece wrote:
Where do you draw the line when it comes to consciousness? Is there no grey area?

It is very hard to quantify consciousness, and that creates a problem for artificial consciousness workers because the only calibration points currently available are "no consciousness at all" and "human level consciousness"!

Put another way, if someone did create a robot with 50% of the consciousness of a human how would we know it was conscious at all?

I don't know whose job it is to work that sort of thing out, but they haven't done a very good job of it and I think their failure has contributed to the pessimism surrounding materialism in this context.

What about the animal kingdom?
How about flora? With all the diversity out there, I'm sure some could make your list.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 8:11:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 8:01:45 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 7:48:48 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 6:17:11 AM, reece wrote:
Where do you draw the line when it comes to consciousness? Is there no grey area?

It is very hard to quantify consciousness, and that creates a problem for artificial consciousness workers because the only calibration points currently available are "no consciousness at all" and "human level consciousness"!

Put another way, if someone did create a robot with 50% of the consciousness of a human how would we know it was conscious at all?

I don't know whose job it is to work that sort of thing out, but they haven't done a very good job of it and I think their failure has contributed to the pessimism surrounding materialism in this context.

What about the animal kingdom?
How about flora? With all the diversity out there, I'm sure some could make your list.

My list? And I deny anything Flora says. Anyway, I was drunk at the time.
reece
Posts: 839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 8:22:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 8:11:36 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:01:45 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 7:48:48 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 6:17:11 AM, reece wrote:
Where do you draw the line when it comes to consciousness? Is there no grey area?

It is very hard to quantify consciousness, and that creates a problem for artificial consciousness workers because the only calibration points currently available are "no consciousness at all" and "human level consciousness"!

Put another way, if someone did create a robot with 50% of the consciousness of a human how would we know it was conscious at all?

I don't know whose job it is to work that sort of thing out, but they haven't done a very good job of it and I think their failure has contributed to the pessimism surrounding materialism in this context.

What about the animal kingdom?
How about flora? With all the diversity out there, I'm sure some could make your list.

My list? And I deny anything Flora says. Anyway, I was drunk at the time.

Your list of what is conscious, metaphorically speaking.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 8:39:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 8:22:19 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:11:36 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:01:45 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 7:48:48 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 6:17:11 AM, reece wrote:
Where do you draw the line when it comes to consciousness? Is there no grey area?

It is very hard to quantify consciousness, and that creates a problem for artificial consciousness workers because the only calibration points currently available are "no consciousness at all" and "human level consciousness"!

Put another way, if someone did create a robot with 50% of the consciousness of a human how would we know it was conscious at all?

I don't know whose job it is to work that sort of thing out, but they haven't done a very good job of it and I think their failure has contributed to the pessimism surrounding materialism in this context.

What about the animal kingdom?
How about flora? With all the diversity out there, I'm sure some could make your list.

My list? And I deny anything Flora says. Anyway, I was drunk at the time.

Your list of what is conscious, metaphorically speaking.

In the absence of a decent theory of consciousness all I do is offer a personal view. I'd say mammals were certainly conscious. Insects.. harder to say. Ameoba - almost certainly not conscious. Flora -nice girl but probably not conscious.
But it's just guess work and it shows my bias towards warm-blooded vertebtrates like myself.
reece
Posts: 839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 9:01:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 8:39:19 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:22:19 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:11:36 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:01:45 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 7:48:48 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 6:17:11 AM, reece wrote:
Where do you draw the line when it comes to consciousness? Is there no grey area?

It is very hard to quantify consciousness, and that creates a problem for artificial consciousness workers because the only calibration points currently available are "no consciousness at all" and "human level consciousness"!

Put another way, if someone did create a robot with 50% of the consciousness of a human how would we know it was conscious at all?

I don't know whose job it is to work that sort of thing out, but they haven't done a very good job of it and I think their failure has contributed to the pessimism surrounding materialism in this context.

What about the animal kingdom?
How about flora? With all the diversity out there, I'm sure some could make your list.

My list? And I deny anything Flora says. Anyway, I was drunk at the time.

Your list of what is conscious, metaphorically speaking.

In the absence of a decent theory of consciousness all I do is offer a personal view. I'd say mammals were certainly conscious. Insects.. harder to say. Ameoba - almost certainly not conscious. Flora -nice girl but probably not conscious.
But it's just guess work and it shows my bias towards warm-blooded vertebtrates like myself.

It seems you've thought about what consciousness is as much as you thought about what a chair is. I'm not trying to be offensive, it's just that vague definitions get you nowhere if you want to find out the true metaphysical nature of something is.
reece
Posts: 839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 9:04:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 8:39:19 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:22:19 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:11:36 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:01:45 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 7:48:48 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 6:17:11 AM, reece wrote:
Where do you draw the line when it comes to consciousness? Is there no grey area?

It is very hard to quantify consciousness, and that creates a problem for artificial consciousness workers because the only calibration points currently available are "no consciousness at all" and "human level consciousness"!

Put another way, if someone did create a robot with 50% of the consciousness of a human how would we know it was conscious at all?

I don't know whose job it is to work that sort of thing out, but they haven't done a very good job of it and I think their failure has contributed to the pessimism surrounding materialism in this context.

What about the animal kingdom?
How about flora? With all the diversity out there, I'm sure some could make your list.

My list? And I deny anything Flora says. Anyway, I was drunk at the time.

Your list of what is conscious, metaphorically speaking.

In the absence of a decent theory of consciousness all I do is offer a personal view. I'd say mammals were certainly conscious. Insects.. harder to say. Ameoba - almost certainly not conscious. Flora -nice girl but probably not conscious.
But it's just guess work and it shows my bias towards warm-blooded vertebtrates like myself.

It seems you've thought about what consciousness is as much as you thought about what a chair is. I'm not trying to be offensive, it's just that vague definitions get you nowhere if you want to find out the true metaphysical nature of something.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 9:21:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 9:04:48 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:39:19 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:22:19 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:11:36 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 8:01:45 AM, reece wrote:
At 7/10/2018 7:48:48 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/10/2018 6:17:11 AM, reece wrote:
Where do you draw the line when it comes to consciousness? Is there no grey area?

It is very hard to quantify consciousness, and that creates a problem for artificial consciousness workers because the only calibration points currently available are "no consciousness at all" and "human level consciousness"!

Put another way, if someone did create a robot with 50% of the consciousness of a human how would we know it was conscious at all?

I don't know whose job it is to work that sort of thing out, but they haven't done a very good job of it and I think their failure has contributed to the pessimism surrounding materialism in this context.

What about the animal kingdom?
How about flora? With all the diversity out there, I'm sure some could make your list.

My list? And I deny anything Flora says. Anyway, I was drunk at the time.

Your list of what is conscious, metaphorically speaking.

In the absence of a decent theory of consciousness all I do is offer a personal view. I'd say mammals were certainly conscious. Insects.. harder to say. Ameoba - almost certainly not conscious. Flora -nice girl but probably not conscious.
But it's just guess work and it shows my bias towards warm-blooded vertebtrates like myself.

It seems you've thought about what consciousness is as much as you thought about what a chair is. I'm not trying to be offensive, it's just that vague definitions get you nowhere if you want to find out the true metaphysical nature of something.

I've done a lot of thinking about it... I was giving you space to say something profound.
ebuc
Posts: 2,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 11:54:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Consciousness is minimally twoness/othernerss

1} observer,

2} observed,

3} line-of-relationship,

4} background against which all three above exist.

A 1D line ______ two terminal end points

A 2D wave pattern /\/\/\ has peaks and troughs,

A 2D polygon ---3 lines /\ ---- has inside and outside finite area.

A 3D polyhedron ---6 lines \Y/--- has minimal 6 lines has inside finite volume and outside macro-infinite outside of that.

TIme ergo lag rates of consciousness apprehension results in more wholistic comprehension.

Parts --> -*****........

Whole --> SPACE(>*<) i (>*<) SPACE
" U "niverse > Universe > Universe I -verse < you-verse we-verse > them-verse
Gravitational SPACE ( + )
Dark Energy SPACE )-(
Time >66.4< --frequency ^v^v
Mind/Intellect 12--3-fold 4-fold and 5-fold
Biological *8* --bilateral four's
Spin <left 6 right >---Pitch, Yaw Roll{ 3 * 2 = 6 }
IS >2<--positive and negative tetrhaedron
Merdeci
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2018 3:17:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is only one truth, O mankind, that is non-duality. Just a few realizes that, but everyone has a possibility and potential to realize it.
Xiutecuhtli
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2018 3:54:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 6:17:11 AM, reece wrote:

When we talk about a matter of speaking, it depends on context. I've seen no one talk about chairs metaphysically. I wouldn't be surprised if no one has. Chairs aren't an exceptional catalyst to derive fundamental meaning from, except that we share some chemistry (to some chairs more than others) and we've moulded their materials to our will, if "artificially" made. But even that's not exceptional relatively speaking.

Where do you draw the line when it comes to consciousness? Is there no grey area?

I dunno,

https://armorgames.com...

had a philosophical argument about a chair. I guess this doesn't contribute much to the argument, and it's a video-game, so it's kind of a dumb example. It's not metaphysical, but it's fundamental meaning.

For something more on-point:
I have to warn you that my existential philosophy is similar to a lot of crackpot theories but I promise I didn't plan to get there with my logic; it just started to become harder and harder to disprove. I usually just list my philosophy (which is pretty solid) and use that as support for any philosophical questions, because I want someone to strike it down, and if it can't be struck down then the logical view based on that philosophy can't be struck down either.

It's that everything is a dream. It's a bit overused.

Consider that Susie has a bag with a (truly) randomly colored ball in it. What are the odds of her pulling out a ball that is true red?
To solve, consider how many colors of light there are. Since frequency is believed to be capable of infinite decimal places, there are infinite colors of light, for infinite possible colors of the ball (ignore pigment limits).
The odds of the ball perfectly matching a desired color are the same as the odds of two truly randomly selected real numbers being equal to each other. There is essentially no chance. You don't know what color the ball is, but you can be as certain as anything that it's not precisely red, or blue, or any human-named color, or part of any finite portion of the range of colors.

Another example: What are the odds that a randomly selected real number has less than ten digits? What are the odds that is has under a million digits? There is essentially no chance that the number will be between any two finite numbers.

What the analogy relates to: There are lots of ways the world as we know it could be inside another. This world could be a dream. This world could be a simulation. It could be a world in which trained actors deceive you for your lifetime. It could be a magic illusion which affects all five senses. It could be that you're a madman and delusional about all that you think you see.
There are so many ways (probably finite though, that I could list) that you could be dreaming. And you don't know they aren't occurring.
Relating to Susie's bag, you don't know exactly what the world is like, so it could turn out to be anything. It might be that those are all unlikely possibilities in the world as you know it, but not necessarily in the real world around the delusion, which I call the frame world.
Just as you could have a dream about being able to fly, this could be a dream about being able to speak, or being unable to fly, or that 2+2=4, or that numbers equal themselves, or that logic makes sense. You know nothing about the frame world, but in this world, when you don't know the odds of something, all options are, on average, equal.
I listed 5 illusion scenarios which would be indistinguishable to you from reality. That makes the odds 1/6 of reality being the truth, so far. I could list more options and it would approach zero.

Additionally, adding variables to the world creates more possibilities. There are ten times as many numbers that have up to two digits as there are numbers that have only one (counting zero). A randomly selected number would not likely have less than any given amount of digits.
The frame world would be additional digits to consider. You could be having a dream and a certain bag in the waking world has a red ball in it. You could be having a dream and that certain bag has a blue ball. You could also be awake, but there isn't a pair of possibilities for that.
Considering multiple, or even infinite, possible frame worlds inside each other, the number of worlds is most likely infinite. Even adding one entire world around the one you know multiplies the possibilities uncountably, increasing the likelihood of an additional world uncountably, and that could be true at every new level of dreams.

All you have ever been taught to believe is therefore a dream. Eventually a waking world will not contain that logic. You had a dream that occurred within a simulation, which was very different from the unsimulated world. And that simulation was all a delusion from your mad mind, which came up with strange and unconventional laws of logic and physics and morality. But you were only dreaming you were mad. And there was another way in which that next world was a dream/illusion which didn't exist in our world, but existed up above, and mad sense there (that concept multiplies the possible ways the world could be a dream by infinity again: the concept that there are many more nonsense ways to simulate in addition to ones that are logical here).

Maybe this idea makes sense according only to our laws of logic and probability, but, if they are not the way the world around our own works, and we actually cannot be within infinite dreams, it is still certain that our laws and our world cannot exist alone. We must be in infinite dreams or our laws must be wrong, or both, but not neither. In the world I live in, my system of logic was sound, and even if I'm delusional or misguided, I'm still right that there's something I can wake up to, even if it's just the truth; it would be a new world for me to enter.

It's not guaranteed that there has to be a REALLY REAL world. New laws of logic could allow for the falsification of any set of laws which claims to require a real world, a perceived ceiling could be another illusion again. I could wake up to find dreams can exist without dreamers. And maybe the infinitely distant waking world would be moot. It could be literally anything, and there is no way to know anything about it. Any state of the REAL world could exist as a dream, and any world you find is infinitely more likely to be that dream than the real world.

Bringing everything back to the question at hand, any set of rules, characteristics, or natures of higher powers, right and wrong, and morals can be woken up from. We could die, go to heaven, and then wake up from a dream. I've had one dream once in which that happened. I could be in that dream now. I could dream it's morally wrong and logically unsound to put a hat on. I could dream it's okay to kill someone. I could only be dreaming now that it ISN'T okay to kill someone. Fundamental constants of good and evil can't exist because nothing can be fundamental.

I would've just said that last sentence, but I'd have to explain why nothing can be fundamental, and it was necessary to explain how you can wake up at any moment and it was THEN necessary to give the probability explanation.
It was pretty lengthy.

And it also has no idea what to do if probability doesn't function the same way. But if it doesn't function in a way in which waking up makes sense, you could still wake up, and then find it does. There's no way to disprove it. And any infinite being would still know that their infinity could be only the simulation of infinity; omnipotence concerning the dream and nothing else. One that wakes you up and claims it is supreme over all dream layers could be another dream.

I didn't have room to cover all the flaws I knew, so if you reply with anything you become concerned about, I might be able t
Everything is 50% true and 50% false at all times.
These statements are, too.
Justintruth
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2018 2:56:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2018 9:36:15 PM, keithprosser wrote:
... if we allow dualism in then it will give us an excuse to stop work. We won't try to, say, produce an artificial conscousness because anything we can make would not have the 'magic ingredient"

False because any artificial conciousness created by manipulating matter would by hypothesis be conscious and would therefore have the same magical ingredient as evolution produced. On the contrary, because of this magical ingredient we are interested because our survival instincts motivate us to preserve precisely this magic ingredient and so gaining technical mastery of its generation is why we are interested. In fact our interest in artificial hearts is also generated by this magical ingredient for if the heart were not useful in keeping the brain producing this magical ingredient we would just remove and discard it like in an appendectomy .

But I - and I suspect Dennett - are also afflicted with the hunch (there is no other word for it) that materialism is true and there is no mysterious, magical dualistic 'stuff' in the universe. It might be arrogance or hubris, but we believe in humanity's ability to solve problems, and the harder the problem seems the more we like it.

There need not be extra stuff. By predicating consciousness as a property of certain material objects we can both account for the fact of it and establish the location of it - within limits, by a procedure that uses the location of the matter that it is a property of as its location. All with no new stuff. Rather, the definition of the original "stuff" could be changed. There is also the option of introducing more stuff but if we do we must change the meaning of the word.

The only proof will come when somebody makes a conscious robot and no-one can do that today, and can't do it tomorrow either.

First if someone made a conscious robot that would prove nothing as they would still have to prove that the robot was just matter as is currently defined by the laws that define matter in the current physics and since those laws do not describe consciousness then they would have to show that the conscious robot was not conscious which is a contradiction. Remember we can and have made may conscious material systems and given in vitro fertilization some might even consider some of them artificial. How you make a conscious material system has nothing to do with whether the product made would be just matter as described in the current physics or rather would possess some property other than mass, charge, color, flavor etc I.e. that that list of material properties described would describe the probability of any particular type of conscious awareness occurring for some potential state vector. You would need to show how the current quantum mechanical operators would predict the probability of conscious experience.

To say that dualists believe you can"t make a conscious robot is a flagrant and insulting straw man as nearly every one of them, dare I say all?, have explicitly stated that they believe that you can and we shall.

So do materialists have to admit defeat? is it time to 'give up'?
What do you think!

No one is asking them to give up. Jut that they recognize the novel property of being conscious and the novelty of its phenomenology need to be introduced as a spectrum of possible outputs and as gravity was appended to the theory of inertia so append the spectrum of phenomenology as Husserl suggested doing.

But this religious genuflection at the altar of the current definitions in physics is ridiculous. Materialists of that type need to get up off their knees, and shake the cob webs from their thinking and get down to the intellectual work of determining what phenomenal awareness are produced by what physical systems. How many primary colors can actually be instantiated, for example, and what do they look like. It"s ok, science survives just not their golden bull - the current notion of matter.

Dennet = Lamark

Charmers = Darwin

Evolution is occurring.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2018 4:58:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/11/2018 2:56:56 PM, Justintruth wrote:
At 7/9/2018 9:36:15 PM, keithprosser wrote:
... if we allow dualism in then it will give us an excuse to stop work. We won't try to, say, produce an artificial conscousness because anything we can make would not have the 'magic ingredient"

False because any artificial conciousness created by manipulating matter would by hypothesis be conscious and would therefore have the same magical ingredient as evolution produced. On the contrary, because of this magical ingredient we are interested because our survival instincts motivate us to preserve precisely this magic ingredient and so gaining technical mastery of its generation is why we are interested. In fact our interest in artificial hearts is also generated by this magical ingredient for if the heart were not useful in keeping the brain producing this magical ingredient we would just remove and discard it like in an appendectomy .

But I - and I suspect Dennett - are also afflicted with the hunch (there is no other word for it) that materialism is true and there is no mysterious, magical dualistic 'stuff' in the universe. It might be arrogance or hubris, but we believe in humanity's ability to solve problems, and the harder the problem seems the more we like it.

There need not be extra stuff. By predicating consciousness as a property of certain material objects we can both account for the fact of it and establish the location of it - within limits, by a procedure that uses the location of the matter that it is a property of as its location. All with no new stuff. Rather, the definition of the original "stuff" could be changed. There is also the option of introducing more stuff but if we do we must change the meaning of the word.

The only proof will come when somebody makes a conscious robot and no-one can do that today, and can't do it tomorrow either.

First if someone made a conscious robot that would prove nothing as they would still have to prove that the robot was just matter as is currently defined by the laws that define matter in the current physics and since those laws do not describe consciousness then they would have to show that the conscious robot was not conscious which is a contradiction. Remember we can and have made may conscious material systems and given in vitro fertilization some might even consider some of them artificial. How you make a conscious material system has nothing to do with whether the product made would be just matter as described in the current physics or rather would possess some property other than mass, charge, color, flavor etc I.e. that that list of material properties described would describe the probability of any particular type of conscious awareness occurring for some potential state vector. You would need to show how the current quantum mechanical operators would predict the probability of conscious experience.

To say that dualists believe you can"t make a conscious robot is a flagrant and insulting straw man as nearly every one of them, dare I say all?, have explicitly stated that they believe that you can and we shall.

So do materialists have to admit defeat? is it time to 'give up'?
What do you think!

No one is asking them to give up. Jut that they recognize the novel property of being conscious and the novelty of its phenomenology need to be introduced as a spectrum of possible outputs and as gravity was appended to the theory of inertia so append the spectrum of phenomenology as Husserl suggested doing.

But this religious genuflection at the altar of the current definitions in physics is ridiculous. Materialists of that type need to get up off their knees, and shake the cob webs from their thinking and get down to the intellectual work of determining what phenomenal awareness are produced by what physical systems. How many primary colors can actually be instantiated, for example, and what do they look like. It"s ok, science survives just not their golden bull - the current notion of matter.

Dennet = Lamark

Charmers = Darwin

Evolution is occurring.

I hope you will join a discussion of consciousness here
http://debatedotorg.freeforums.net...
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2018 5:15:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2018 9:36:15 PM, keithprosser wrote:
So do materialists have to admit defeat? is it time to 'give up'?
What do you think!

If dualism is true, then (ghosts, gods, magic, and) consciousness CAN NOT possibly interact with matter.

In order to interact, two things must share a fundamental similarity (MONISM).

End Of Story.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2018 5:39:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/11/2018 5:15:08 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 7/9/2018 9:36:15 PM, keithprosser wrote:
So do materialists have to admit defeat? is it time to 'give up'?
What do you think!

If dualism is true, then (ghosts, gods, magic, and) consciousness CAN NOT possibly interact with matter.

In order to interact, two things must share a fundamental similarity (MONISM).

End Of Story.


Interestingly Professor Brian Cox has argued - half seriously - that the LHC has disproved the existence of ghosts because it has explored the range of energies at which matter interactions can occur.
https://www.independent.co.uk...
https://www.bbc.co.uk...
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2018 6:03:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/11/2018 5:39:57 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/11/2018 5:15:08 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 7/9/2018 9:36:15 PM, keithprosser wrote:
So do materialists have to admit defeat? is it time to 'give up'?
What do you think!

If dualism is true, then (ghosts, gods, magic, and) consciousness CAN NOT possibly interact with matter.

In order to interact, two things must share a fundamental similarity (MONISM).

End Of Story.


Interestingly Professor Brian Cox has argued - half seriously - that the LHC has disproved the existence of ghosts because it has explored the range of energies at which matter interactions can occur.
https://www.independent.co.uk...
https://www.bbc.co.uk...

Awesome show, thanks for the link.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2018 6:05:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/11/2018 6:03:28 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 7/11/2018 5:39:57 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/11/2018 5:15:08 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 7/9/2018 9:36:15 PM, keithprosser wrote:
So do materialists have to admit defeat? is it time to 'give up'?
What do you think!

If dualism is true, then (ghosts, gods, magic, and) consciousness CAN NOT possibly interact with matter.

In order to interact, two things must share a fundamental similarity (MONISM).

End Of Story.


Interestingly Professor Brian Cox has argued - half seriously - that the LHC has disproved the existence of ghosts because it has explored the range of energies at which matter interactions can occur.
https://www.independent.co.uk...
https://www.bbc.co.uk...

Awesome show, thanks for the link.

i've got them all on my hard disk!
ebuc
Posts: 2,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2018 10:23:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/11/2018 2:56:56 PM, Justintruth wrote:
Evolution is occurring.:

We only observe evolution in real time with bacteria, and I dont know if that is simple to complex and complex to simple evolution.

We see how easy it is to go from complex to simple via inbreeding.

Time, as lag rates of consciousness apprehension, results in a more wholistic comprehension. Experience precedes concepts/thoughts.

I think about something via an occupied space something ergo I exist as time, space with access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts

Cosmic abstolutes do not evolve. There can only exist five regular/symmetrrical and convex polyhedra of Universe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consciousness is minimally twoness/otherness/awarness

1} observer O

2} observed O

3} line-of-relationship (OO) geodesic or wave-linear O/\/\/O

4} background against which all three above exist. Excluding me as observer.

A 1D line ______ two terminal end points

A 2D wave pattern /\/\/\ has peaks and troughs,

A 2D polygon ---3 lines /\ ---- has inside and outside finite area.

A 3D polyhedron ---6 lines \Y/--- has minimal 6 lines has inside finite volume and outside macro-infinite outside of that.

Parts --> -*****........

Whole --> SPACE(>*<) i (>*<) SPACE
" U "niverse > Universe > Universe I -verse < you-verse we-verse > them-verse
Gravitational SPACE ( + )
Dark Energy SPACE )-(
Time >66.4< --frequency ^v^v
Mind/Intellect 12--3-fold 4-fold and 5-fold
Biological *8* --bilateral four's
Spin <left 6 right >---Pitch, Yaw Roll{ 3 * 2 = 6 }
IS >2<--positive and negative tetrhaedron
ebuc
Posts: 2,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2018 3:32:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2018 7:48:48 AM, keithprosser wrote:
It is very hard to quantify consciousness, and that creates a problem for artificial consciousness workers because the only calibration points currently available are "no consciousness at all" and "human level consciousness"! :

One degree, two degree, three degree more, five degree six degree, 7 degree to score.

Penrose lays out clearly four things that sperates AI from human consciousness with access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and Ive posted those four in variosu threads around here.

Minimal consciousness is two-ness and two-ness inherently incurs relativity or maybe three-ness does.

Maximakl conscousness is human acccess to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ergo abstract mathematics of any degree.

The most fundamental dualism that has no third party is macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces/surrounds the finite, occupied space Universe i.e. these are fundmental cosmic primary spatial twoness.

We can only spatial subcatagories of our finite, occupied space Universe.

End of story. No amount of spin changes these truths. Many have tried to spin these truths none have been successful. Nor will they ever.

This is minimal no-brainer for those who choose rational, logical common sense pathways of thought based on what we do observe.

Sure, we have concepts have polka-dot unicorns that give brith to striped Toyota Prious every 6 weeks but these kinds of mind play are not derived from rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.

This may be associated with one or more of differrences of AI and that Penroses presents. AI does not have mind-at-play i.e. artistic expression or ability to have artistic appraisal.

Mind-at-play is has access to comprehension ergo complex mind-at-play invents less complex AI.

AI will never invent something more complex than human or of itself.
" U "niverse > Universe > Universe I -verse < you-verse we-verse > them-verse
Gravitational SPACE ( + )
Dark Energy SPACE )-(
Time >66.4< --frequency ^v^v
Mind/Intellect 12--3-fold 4-fold and 5-fold
Biological *8* --bilateral four's
Spin <left 6 right >---Pitch, Yaw Roll{ 3 * 2 = 6 }
IS >2<--positive and negative tetrhaedron
DeBellumSilens
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2018 12:11:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2018 9:36:15 PM, keithprosser wrote:
So do materialists have to admit defeat? is it time to 'give up'?

It might be time for neutral monism ;). I think the mind vs matter debate is a false dichotomy to begin with, and both materialists and idealists have bought into it. One substance, many forms, some material, some immaterial; neither matter nor mind is fundamental to the other, but both emerge, integrated, from the One Stuff. That's my 'hunch' about it anyway.
ebuc
Posts: 2,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2018 2:03:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Finite, occupied space Universe and its complement, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts exist eternally. ex patterns, geometry mathematics, cosmic laws etc.

Physical/energy ergo occupied space --- excluding metaphysical-3 and 4 gravity and dark energy--- cannot be created nor destroyed.

See 1st law of thermo-dynamics.

Ergo occupied space and metaphysical-1, do not emerge. A crocodile emerges from its egg. Eggs are occupied space. Metaphysical-1 eggs eternally existent.

1} occupied space,

2} metaphysical-1 complement to occupied space i.e occupied space cannot exist without associated shape/pattern/number/mathematics.

Occupied space experiences precedes human access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

SPACE (>*<) i (>*<) SPACE
" U "niverse > Universe > Universe I -verse < you-verse we-verse > them-verse
Gravitational SPACE ( + )
Dark Energy SPACE )-(
Time >66.4< --frequency ^v^v
Mind/Intellect 12--3-fold 4-fold and 5-fold
Biological *8* --bilateral four's
Spin <left 6 right >---Pitch, Yaw Roll{ 3 * 2 = 6 }
IS >2<--positive and negative tetrhaedron
dfishw
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2019 7:20:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem with consciousness is best summed by thinking simply. Imagine a camera (which represents the human) and an apple (that represents the outside world). The camera can measure the outside world by observing the apple. . . . But is that consciousness? NO. . . Because something is clearly missing. In order to obtain consciousness, The camera somehow needs to observe. . . That it is observing! A brain measuring the outside world does not generate awareness. . . The brain would need to somehow measure that it is measuring (which would require an external "brain"). This of course leads to the paradox of "infinite regression". The trouble is I don't really see a way to answer consciousness without. Either:
1. EVERYTHING is consciousness. . . (this could be the case! ) we just don't know it OR
2. Something external to matter allows consciousness (ie dualism)

otherwise you are left trying to determine when something stops being unconscious to becoming conscious. It isn't helped by the fact that how can you know if something is conscious anyway? ANYONE could go to a computer and program it to put a message on the screen saying its conscious but that doesn't mean it is! Equally something could be conscious but it has NO WAY to communicate that to us. A tricky thing to solve!
TheChristWithin
Posts: 977
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2019 6:45:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Knowledge/of/Ignorance is dual.

What (an absence of) knowledge is to "belief"-based ignorance,
(an absence of) "belief"-based ignorance is to knowledge.

They form a/the singularity that defines each being: one has a body of knowledge, The rest is ignorance (which includes "belief").

So it's technically just the one thing: knowledge (as it serves to alleviate "belief"-based ignorance), But any/all else is ignorance for being less knowledge.
List of Trolls (ongoing)
21stCenturyIconoclast
bulproof
Deb-8-A-Bull
dee-em
Gentorev
Goldtop
Harikrish

List of Racists (ongoing)
Harikrish (blacks and Jews)
Mingodalia (white males)
Fatsal
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2019 3:08:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This issue can never be solved since anyone attempting to do the solving will have both a body and consciousness and therefor it would be impossible to separate the two.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.