Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[Cheetah]

And I guess we're done here.

Sorry.

But the point remains, Same process, different hardware, same result. It is universal.

I think the possibility that I'm being simulated by someone moving rocks around is laughable.

I totally agree with you on this.

It is the same as me saying that the chance of a macroscopic object (like a person) quantum tunneling through a solid object (like a wall) is possible, but improbable.
It is 100% possible but 0% probable. Maybe not technically 0% but indistinguishable from 0.

You would need many rocks going through a few steps, or fewer rocks going through many steps to simulate one neuron firing or a toilet flushing. Building a toilet brain will be much easier, so lets make one.

Build a factory that can manufacture toilets and arrange them in place at a rate of one toilet per second.

100,000,000,000 seconds, done.

Now the plumbing, connect toilets together with pipes at a rate of one connection between two toilets per second, done.

100,000,000,000 neurons * 7000 connections
= 700,000,000,000,000 seconds /60/60
= 194,444,444,444 hours /24/365
= 22,196,854 years

It will probably go over budget and take ten times longer to complete than expected, I'm optimistic.

 

[David Mo]

Where else are you going to draw your moral rules from, if not from our evolved need as social animals to maintain a cohesive society?

Both aggression and collaboration/empathy are product of natural evolution and social evolution. Moral emotions are linked with empathy and frequently confronted with aggression. You cannot rely in evolution to reinforce moral emotions, because social human structures prevail on natural impulses modelled by natural evolution. What was useful a hundred thousand years ago doesn't function in Florida. This is tragically true. In other cases it may be good.

However, I was discussing the justification of moral norms, not the biological origin of morality.

As a professional soldier I learned that any complex plan breaks down when it meets the enemy. The civilian version is that life beyond the Internet calls, so that is it for today.

War is not a good test bed for testing morality. It is overwhelmingly the opposite.

 

[David Mo]

It seems just as crazy, which is why I'm not a materialist.

Maybe you have a restrained concept of materialism. What is materialism for you? What is the alternative to materialism?

Thank you for your answers.

 

[Darat]

It seems just as crazy, which is why I'm not a materialist.

Serious questions:

Do you believe that some animals have rudimentary (compared to humans) consciousness?

When did the "extra" get incorporated into humans, for example did Homo heidelbergensis have this extra property as well?

Do you find quantum explanations i.e. to explain what we see in experiments like the famous dual slit one "just as crazy"?

 

[Tassman]

Both aggression and collaboration/empathy are product of natural evolution and social evolution. Moral emotions are linked with empathy and frequently confronted with aggression. You cannot rely in evolution to reinforce moral emotions, because social human structures prevail on natural impulses modelled by natural evolution.

The devising and implementation of the apparatus of justice...even in its most primitive form...has always been central to maintaining social cohesion.

What was useful a hundred thousand years ago doesn't function in Florida. This is tragically true. In other cases it may be good.

Inasmuch as what happened in Florida has been condemned as appalling by all and sundry it shows the norms are still in place, even if their implementation leave a lot to be desired.

However, I was discussing the justification of moral norms, not the biological origin of morality.

Surely the “justification of moral norms” is decided by the society that accepts them as justifiable and desirable. In any event they remain grounded in biological origin of morality.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi Fudbucker.

I am not a materialist, i.e. I don't hold a positive philosophical metaphysical position at all. I don't know what reality is independent of my mind, other than it is independent of my mind. So I don't do materialism, dualism, idealism or any other positive knowledge claim about metaphysics.

So what am I? I am a methodological naturalist. I believe that reality is natural and I don't believe in the supernatural, woo-woo, CT and so on. I believe that when I die, I will be dead and thus I don't have a problem, because I can't have problems; i.e. I will be dead and not alive. I can only have problems and solutions, when I live, so when I die, I am no more. That is what I believe.

Now something about crazy. I am crazy, I have 3 different psychiatric diagnosis of which one is in the heavy "end" of the spectrum. So never ever again as long as you are on this forum, dismiss something as crazy and thus not real, because then you are claiming I am not real and next time you do that I wont be so nice.
So something about absurd, meaningless, doesn't make sense, unreal, useless and so on.
You can test the following: Ask a lot of humans about 2+2=4, 2+2=5 and 2+2=11. You will find some who don't understand any of it; some who understand some of it, but not all; and some who understand all of it. All of it, means that for the standard mathematical understanding 2+2=4 and 2+2=11 is true and 2+2=5 is false. But here is the trick, you don't have to be able to do 2+2=11 to have a life in an ordinary sense. You have to have a basic understanding of math to function in a modern culture and you can if lucky have a long and happy/good/content life without understanding how 2+2=11 can be true.

So here it is as practice between 2 humans:
Someone: 2+2=11 is true in at least one case.
Someone else: That is absurd.
Someone: I accept how you understand it. I understand it differently.

If you want to continue, I can give examples about how to use "how reality works in practice" in practice.
But there is something you need to understand: That just because materialism in the strong sense is not true, without proof and evidence, it don't follow that what you believe is true, with proof and evidence.
You shouldn't debate me, unless you accept that is possible and probable that you can't know what reality really is.
I am also a skeptic.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi Fudbucker.

I am not a materialist, i.e. I don't hold a positive philosophical metaphysical position at all. I don't know what reality is independent of my mind, other that it is independent of my mind. So I don't do materialism, dualism, idealism or any other positive knowledge claim about metaphysics.

So what am I? I am a methodological naturalist. I believe that reality is natural and I don't believe in the supernatural, woo-woo, CT and so on. I believe that when I die, I will be dead and thus I don't have a problem, because I can't have problems; i.e. I will be dead and not alive. I can only have problems and solutions, when I live, so when I die, I am no more. That is what I believe.

Now something about crazy. I am crazy, I have 3 different psychiatric diagnosis of which one is in the heavy "end" of the spectrum. So never ever again as long as you are on this forum, dismiss something as crazy and thus not real, because then you are claiming I am not real and next time you do that I wont be so nice.
So something about absurd, meaningless, doesn't make sense, unreal, useless and so on.
You can test the following: Ask a lot of humans about 2+2=4, 2+2=5 and 2+2=11. You will find some who don't understand any of it; some who understand some of it, but not all; and some who understand all of it. All of it, means that for the standard mathematical understanding 2+2=4 and 2+2=11 is true and 2+2=5 is false. But here is the trick, you don't have to be able to do 2+2=11 to have a life in an ordinary sense. You have to have a basic understanding of math to function in a modern culture and you can if lucky have a long and happy/good/content life without understanding how 2+2=11 can be true.

So here it is as practice between 2 humans:
Someone: 2+2=11 is true in at least one case.
Someone else: That is absurd.
Someone: I accept how you understand it. I understand it differently.

If you want to continue, I can give examples about how to use "how reality works in practice" in practice.
But there is something you need to understand: That just because materialism in the strong sense is not true, without proof and evidence, it don't follow that what you believe is true, with proof and evidence.
You shouldn't debate me, unless you accept that is possible and probable that you can't know what reality really is.
I am also a skeptic.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi Cheetah.

In short for what we can say about reality independently of the mind; i.e. metaphysics, here it is:
There are different theoretical physical theories about what causes this universe into being.
In a formal sense I call that the metauniverse; MA. So MA can have caused a universe as it appears, UA or another universe, which is not as it appears, UO.
So all we can say with reason is that MA caused UA or(strong logic) UO. Nothing else and even that requires that you believe in causation as outside the mind (David Hume) and that you are not a strong metaphysical solipsist.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi David Mo, IanS and Tassman.
The different versions of wrong, bad, useless and other negative claims will have to wait. My psychiatric disability/handicap is acting up and I need to take a break.

With regards

 

[David Mo]

The devising and implementation of the apparatus of justice...even in its most primitive form...has always been central to maintaining social cohesion.


Inasmuch as what happened in Florida has been condemned as appalling by all and sundry it shows the norms are still in place, even if their implementation leave a lot to be desired.


Surely the “justification of moral norms” is decided by the society that accepts them as justifiable and desirable. In any event they remain grounded in biological origin of morality.

I have mentioned Florida as a blatant example of an evolutive impulse (agression) that becomes morally rejectable according changes in social conditions.
Your comment deviates my approach of the issue.

Justice is also an apparatus of power and domination. See Nietzsche or Foucault. Moral is different from justice.

Social -and legal- acceptation don't make good a bad norm. Many injustices had been commited in the name or social of legal norms: see the laws and prosecution of Jews in Germany under nazi rules.

Disidence is a moral right -and a duty. See Ibsen's An Ennemy of the People.

 

[David Mo]

Hi David Mo, IanS and Tassman.
The different versions of wrong, bad, useless and other negative claims will have to wait. My psychiatric disability/handicap is acting up and I need to take a break.

With regards

Take care of yourself.
Regards.

 

[Fudbucker]

Sorry.

But the point remains, Same process, different hardware, same result. It is universal.



I totally agree with you on this.

It is the same as me saying that the chance of a macroscopic object (like a person) quantum tunneling through a solid object (like a wall) is possible, but improbable.
It is 100% possible but 0% probable. Maybe not technically 0% but indistinguishable from 0.

You would need many rocks going through a few steps, or fewer rocks going through many steps to simulate one neuron firing or a toilet flushing. Building a toilet brain will be much easier, so lets make one.

Build a factory that can manufacture toilets and arrange them in place at a rate of one toilet per second.

100,000,000,000 seconds, done.

Now the plumbing, connect toilets together with pipes at a rate of one connection between two toilets per second, done.

100,000,000,000 neurons * 7000 connections
= 700,000,000,000,000 seconds /60/60
= 194,444,444,444 hours /24/365
= 22,196,854 years

It will probably go over budget and take ten times longer to complete than expected, I'm optimistic.

Where we differ is that I don't think it's impossible because of engineering challenges. I think, in principle, it will never happen. And you would never be able to verify whether such a system was conscious anyway.

But why believe in the middleman? Ditch materialism. If you think a bunch of toilets can be conscious, why not just believe everything is conscious. You're a very short hop away from panpsychism as it is.

 

[Fudbucker]

Maybe you have a restrained concept of materialism. What is materialism for you? What is the alternative to materialism?

Thank you for your answers.

Materialism is the belief that there exists mind-independent stuff, and that this stuff can combine in certain ways, and- presto- consciousness results. Somehow.

I think this is magical thinking. The alternative is idealism.

 

[Darat]

Where we differ is that I don't think it's impossible because of engineering challenges. I think, in principle, it will never happen. And you would never be able to verify whether such a system was conscious anyway.

But why believe in the middleman? Ditch materialism. If you think a bunch of toilets can be conscious, why not just believe everything is conscious. You're a very short hop away from panpsychism as it is.

Because the two things are not equivalent. The reason why the toilets could be used is that you can use them as a computing unit, that is not to say that your toilet is conscious or that gathering a million toilets would be result in a conscious process, no one makes that claim.

 

[Darat]

Materialism is the belief that there exists mind-independent stuff, and that this stuff can combine in certain ways, and- presto- consciousness results. Somehow.

I think this is magical thinking. The alternative is idealism.

There are quite a few alternatives. Any chance you'll answer the questions I asked earlier?

 

[Fudbucker]

Serious questions:

Do you believe that some animals have rudimentary (compared to humans) consciousness?

When did the "extra" get incorporated into humans, for example did Homo heidelbergensis have this extra property as well?

An idealist believes everything is conscious, so animals, chairs, atoms, it's all in our minds. The only thing that exists is mind.

Do you find quantum explanations i.e. to explain what we see in experiments like the famous dual slit one "just as crazy"?

No, because if it's all a dream, then a physics that necessitates an observer is just what you would expect.

 

[LarryS]

An idealist believes everything is conscious, so animals, chairs, atoms, it's all in our minds. The only thing that exists is mind.



No, because if it's all a dream, then a physics that necessitates an observer is just what you would expect.

Materialism is the belief that there exists mind-independent stuff, and that this stuff can combine in certain ways, and- presto- consciousness results. Somehow.

I think this is magical thinking. The alternative is idealism.

Not all flavors of Idealism believe that everything is conscious, not all flavors of Idealism claim there is no independent reality. What is consistent within Idealism is the claim there is no benefit to adding the property of being physical matter to independent reality, and that consciousness is fundamental.
Claiming there is no independent reality, is solipsism. Claiming independent reality is not physical, is idealism.

 

[Tassman]

Hi David Mo, IanS and Tassman.
The different versions of wrong, bad, useless and other negative claims will have to wait. My psychiatric disability/handicap is acting up and I need to take a break.

With regards

Nice talking with you, take care.

 

[David Mo]

Materialism is the belief that there exists mind-independent stuff, and that this stuff can combine in certain ways, and- presto- consciousness results. Somehow.

I think this is magical thinking. The alternative is idealism.

An idealist believes everything is conscious, so animals, chairs, atoms, it's all in our minds. The only thing that exists is mind.


No, because if it's all a dream, then a physics that necessitates an observer is just what you would expect.

What you call "materialism" is usually called "realism". Materialism is only a kind of realism.
So you believe that I don't exist and you are not reading my words, isn't it?

 

[Tassman]

I have mentioned Florida as a blatant example of an evolutive impulse (agression) that becomes morally rejectable according changes in social conditions.
Your comment deviates my approach of the issue.

There are always aggressive and selfish impulses; social animals like us restrain or modify these impulses to better enable group living and build more cooperative groups...and we socialise our children accordingly.

Justice is also an apparatus of power and domination. See Nietzsche or Foucault. Moral is different from justice.

Justice is based upon community values, i.e. morals. Properly administered justice is essential for the maintenance of law and order in a community.

Social -and legal- acceptation don't make good a bad norm. Many injustices had been commited in the name or social of legal norms: see the laws and prosecution of Jews in Germany under nazi rules.

The bad “norms” tend not to be sustainable; those in your example are nowadays universally regarded as evil. OTOH the more positive human qualities can result in enlightened values such as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which most developed nations aspire to impliment.

Disidence is a moral right -and a duty. See Ibsen's An Ennemy of the People.

Yes, if its goals are socially orientated.