• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has consciousness been fully explained?

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlBell said:
Now if I just wasn't an idealist, philosophically speaking. But you 100% materialists go right on pretending your thoughts are Trvth.
Click to expand...

I'd watch that strawman you're fighting there, I think he's rabbit punching and butting in the clinches.
 
AlBell said:
Now if I just wasn't an idealist, philosophically speaking. But you 100% materialists go right on pretending your thoughts are Trvth.
Click to expand...

What is this even supposed to mean? You don't think your thoughts are true? Why do you have them then?
 
westprog said:
If you're assuming, it's guesswork.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. You can verify your assumptions.

And the claim that everything we know is a physical entity when that is precisely the point in question
Click to expand...

Name one non-physical, known entity.

It's permissible to make working assumptions in science, but not to assume that said assumptions are necessarily true.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Relevant portion highlighted.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The chair was recorded when it wan't looked at. That was your criterion.

You can't determine the nature of observation based on the results of observation.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that knowledge is impossible, then ?
 
AlBell said:
It's true that 100% materialists must defend SRIP! Church-Turing! Read GEB! as all that needs to be said. Buy that and the answer must be obvious to the meanest intelligence. :)
Click to expand...

I don't defend SRIP. I state it as a definite possibility.

What do you do, Albell ? Besides nothing of value on this thread, that is ?
 
westprog said:
How often do I have to repeat it? Until we understand how consciousness is produced, there is no particular reason to suppose we can produce it by running programs on a computer. If consciousness is real, and physical, then it can't be produced by a computer simulation any more than any other physical process can be produced by a computer simulation.
Click to expand...

That's is false. We simulate tons of stuff in order to understand them better.

Perhaps the only way to understand consciousness fully will be through computer simulations, or at least computerization. Your claim above is unwarranted.
 
Pure Argent said:
This:



contradicts this:
Click to expand...

If you read carefully then you will see that it doesn't. Note the "if" in the second statement.

I think that stating that if consciousness is physical, it can't be produced by a computer simulation is fairly obvious. The corresponding implication is that if consciousness can be produced by a computer simulation, then it isn't physical.
 
Third Eye Open said:
Consciousness is produced by physical processes.

Physical processes can produce consciousness.

We can in principle discover the physical processes that produce consciousness.

We can in principle reproduce the physical processes that produce consciousness.

Reproducing the physical processes that produce consciousness would produce consciousness.

Disagree with any of this?
Click to expand...

It appears that physical processes produce consciousness. (That's one reason to be skeptical about the assumption that a computer simulation will do the trick). However, until we know which physical processes do it, we can't be sure.
 
Belz... said:
That's is false. We simulate tons of stuff in order to understand them better.
Click to expand...

But not to produce them.

Perhaps the only way to understand consciousness fully will be through computer simulations, or at least computerization. Your claim above is unwarranted.
Click to expand...

You didn't address my claim.
 
Let me see if I follow that logic:


1) A game of chess is composed of particles, both the board and pieces as well as the brains of the humans playing it.
3) Particles are real.
2) Particles are physical.
4) A game of chess is therefore real but not physical.


Hmmm......

.... anyone want to explain this to me?
 
Some people are apparently able to play chess without boards or pieces. The 'game' is in the thinking. The physicalness of thought is probable (and assumed at 100% certainty by materialists) but as yet undemonstrated on substrates other than brains.
 
AlBell said:
Some people are apparently able to play chess without boards or pieces. The 'game' is in the thinking. The physicalness of thought is probable (and assumed at 100% certainty by materialists) but as yet undemonstrated on substrates other than brains.
Click to expand...

It's clear that a game of chess cannot take place without some physical activity happening. It's also clear that this physical activity can be of almost any kind, including, as pointed out about, the functioning of the brain.

I can't accept that chess is a physical activity when no physical action associated with it turns out to be inessential.
 
westprog said:
It's clear that a game of chess cannot take place without some physical activity happening.




I can't accept that chess is a physical activity.
Click to expand...



O_o

It is clear that Dinner is always composed of some kind of food. But since there is not any essential kind of food for it to be called dinner, I can't accept that dinner is food.
 
Third Eye Open said:
O_o

It is clear that Dinner is always composed of some kind of food. But since there is not any essential kind of food for it to be called dinner, I can't accept that dinner is food.
Click to expand...

You may find the comparision persuasive. I do not, because it's relatively easy to figure out what the physical requirements of "dinner" are.
 
westprog said:
You may find the comparision persuasive. I do not, because it's relatively easy to figure out what the physical requirements of "dinner" are.
Click to expand...

Having a working, physical brain seems to be a requirement of consciousness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom