Evidence for... (consciousness, materialism)

[BillyJoe]

This is a classic fallacy, i.e. the fallacy of the beard. It's as though you argued that all a bearded man has on his face are individual facial hairs, so the beard is an illusion.

This is a classic false analogy.
I didn't say "ones" and "zeros" analogous to your "individual hairs", I said "string of ones and zeros" analogous to your "beard"

I would say instead that when I open my word processor, what I am given is an image displaying a page of data, much as it would look if it was printed on paper. If there is no chance that I would confuse the screen image with a sheet of paper, then there is no illusion.

All you are saying is that you have seen through the illusion.

The screen image is what it is: a drawing on a computer screen.

Is it really?
Perhaps it's a string-of-zeros-and-ones instructing a stream of electrons where to land on a screen?

That sounds very profound and I'm sure that there is also a sense in which a man's beard has only an illusory existence.

Not as illusory as those buttons on the screen or your mind's "I".

No, I don't believe there is anything "in there" separate from the process running in my brain...

I must have misunderstood you then.

However, I believe that the process exists and is not an illusion...

The process is not an illusion, the process creates an illusion.

The whole point of calling the "I" an "illusion" is to be able to say that there is nothing in your head that is real except your brain..

No, notg just your brain, your brain AND your brain's processes (that create your "I" illusion).

However, my computer seems to provide a perfect counter-example to that sort of argument in that it contains not only the hardware that makes a program possible, i.e. the brain, it contains something else that makes all screen displays possible, i.e. a process..

Agreed.

Perhaps I should have used the analogy of "Deep Blue", the program that beat the chess master, Kasparov.
Kasparov was convinced that the program was being augmented by input from a chess master. He was wrong. There was no "I" in there. It was just an illusion created by a very clever, complex, heuristic chess program.

Just as the very clever, complex, heuristic program running in your brain creates the illusion of your "I".

 

[hammegk]

Just as the very clever, complex, heuristic program running in your brain creates the illusion of your "I".

So you say, with -nil- data points. Whereas, *I* think; and for discussion purposes agree *you* are also aware.

Energy? Maybe elan-vital?

 

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
This is a classic fallacy, i.e. the fallacy of the beard. It's as though you argued that all a bearded man has on his face are individual facial hairs, so the beard is an illusion.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
This is a classic false analogy.
I didn't say "ones" and "zeros" analogous to your "individual hairs", I said "string of ones and zeros" analogous to your "beard"

This makes no sense at all. You should stick with what you originally said, "There are no butttons real or simulated just zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons." Here "zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons" could mean, as I understood you to mean, the individual pixels that make up the simulated buttons, analogous to the individual hairs that make up the beard. In that case, your denial that there are no buttons "real or simulated" is still false, but at least I can see the analogy.

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
The screen image is what it is: a drawing on a computer screen.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Is it really?
Perhaps it's a string-of-zeros-and-ones instructing a stream of electrons where to land on a screen?

You're confusing cause with effect. Sure, the cause of the "simulated buttons" is a stream of electrons landing on a screen. However, the effect is a real drawing. Both the cause and the effect are real.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Just as the very clever, complex, heuristic program running in your brain creates the illusion of your "I".

I would be a lot more sympathetic to this idea if you would explain who it is that is fooling whom and how the trick is accomplished. For example, it is easy to see that a program could create a illusion that fools sentient bystanders, such as you and me. But the point of saying that the "I" is an illusion is not that we are fooled by it, but that the program is fooled by it. How is this accomplished?

--- Argo

 

[jj]

Your I is not anywhere. It doesn't have a location. How can something nonphysical have a location?



What perceptions? You mean your sensory perceptions? The external world and your mind create your sensory perceptions.

To the first statement. Seeing as you've made a positive assertion, please provide evidence.

As to your second, that would seem a clear concession to the apparent fact that the "I" is solely the result of wetware, i.e. chemestry operating along purely physical lines.

I think the only opposing argument to that, given current understanding, would be ultimate solipcism. I'd like to see you support that with evidence.

 

[jj]

As a materialist/atheist, what else could you say? Please define "energy".

e=mc^2

Yes, I realize you're asking something different, but I think it's merely an avoidance mechanism.

The mathematical physics definition of energy is pretty clear. We can argue if it has any real application to the universe, but if it doesn't, we're going to have to get into why it predicts so many things.

 

[jj]

Materialist/nontheist, but this response takes hardly any effort on your part

What else can YOU say?

"Off topic" until you show me relevance.

You'll find that's the kind of response you get from Hammegk unless he thinks he can manipulate it to his favour.

I'm still waiting for a solid, meaningful response to his assertions in the "Bull Curve" thread. Given his apparent unwillingness to do anything besides catcall, insult, and avoid answering his own assertions, I'll probably be waiting a while.

 

[hammegk]

You'll find that's the kind of response you get from Hammegk unless he thinks he can manipulate it to his favour.

...

Temper, temper. Are you referring to earlier sword-crossing we had in the Intelligence thread, or in the the I Can't Believe I Used To Believe That thread?

Or somewhere else? I haven't found and don't recall a Bell (or Bull) Curve thread.

 

[hammegk]

e=mc^2

Cute.

To define mass, would you say m=F/a? Both are equally meaningless as a definition.

 

[jj]

Cute.

To define mass, would you say m=F/a? Both are equally meaningless as a definition.

You did, of course, avoid the rest of the article, which had the meat of the reply in it.

I will say that energy seems well-defined to me. Mass, though, while it is defined, is harder to explain, as in "why does mass in fact have mass", so to speak.

Energy, however, is not in quite that situation.

 

[hammegk]

You did, of course, avoid the rest of the article, which had the meat of the reply in it.

Okey-dokey, I'll bite. You said, "The mathematical physics definition of energy is pretty clear."

Which equation(s) do you prefer to cite that define energy?

I will say that energy seems well-defined to me. Mass, though, while it is defined, is harder to explain, as in "why does mass in fact have mass", so to speak.

At least Einstein "explained" why inertial mass = gravitational mass.

But "what is mass" is also a toughy .. Higgs field at least tries to answer.

For "energy", as I see it that also seems to flow directly from the "gravitational attraction" of that "mass", taking into account the actual pressure-temperature-spatial regime we want to examine.

 

[jj]

Okey-dokey, I'll bite. You said, "The mathematical physics definition of energy is pretty clear."

Which equation(s) do you prefer to cite that define energy?
Those that relate it to heat and work. Yes, I know, that seems rather circular, HOWEVER there has proven to be a fair amount of predictive value in the arrangement, so I'm not so concerned. Is it exact? Is anything exact?


At least Einstein "explained" why inertial mass = gravitational mass.[\B] Yes. We've gotten that far.

But "what is mass" is also a toughy .. Higgs field at least tries to answer.

For "energy", as I see it that also seems to flow directly from the "gravitational attraction" of that "mass", taking into account the actual pressure-temperature-spatial regime we want to examine. [/B]

But "what is mass" is as yet unanswered. Higgs fields haven't gotten to the point where they have been very predictive. Other attempts have predicted and burned...

Energy, though, does not flow just from gravitational attraction, but also frm the MC^2 component of QM that gives us chemical energy, etc. You've got to include quite a few "forms", all of which can be interchanged with some loss of this or that sort according to thermo, with rather a great lot of predictive accuracy.

As opposed to "why is a gram a gram"...

 

[slimshady2357]

All good points.

The idea about my test is not to disprove Solipsism, since as some mentioned, that can't really be done (and it would be proving a negative). My point was to prove that it is irrelevant: If the world insists on acting real, we need to threat it as real, otherwise we are going to get hurt.

And, that said, of course, it becomes difficult to defend Solipsism as a parsimonious theory.

Hans

Why do you keep spelling 'treat' as 'threat'?

Although I like the idea of threatening the real world!

*shakes fist at world*

"You better be real or I'm gonna......"

Adam

 

[hammegk]

Energy, though, does not flow just from gravitational attraction, but also frm the MC^2 component of QM that gives us chemical energy, etc. ...

And your nomination of the source for mc^^2 energy? I still like gravitational attaction as the heart of the "matter".

 

[jj]

And your nomination of the source for mc^^2 energy? I still like gravitational attaction as the heart of the "matter".

Workable, perhaps. Has some interesting effects on black holes, though, then.

 

[BillyJoe]

So you say, with -nil- data points.

Ditto.

Whereas, *I* think; and for discussion purposes agree *you* are also aware.

Feel free to expand on your point. Failing that I'm going to find it hard to comment on what you've written here.

Energy? Maybe elan-vital?

Elan vital???

 

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by argus nimbus
You should stick with what you originally said, "There are no butttons real or simulated just zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons."

This is a selective quote. The full quote appears below......

Basically all we have in the computer program are a string of zeros and ones. There are no butttons real or simulated just zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons.

Originally posted by argo nimbus
Here "zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons" could mean, as I understood you to mean, the individual pixels that make up the simulated buttons, analogous to the individual hairs that make up the beard..

You understood incorrectly.
The "string of ones and zeros" is the machine level computer program which codes for everything that appears on the screen (apart from the input from the user).

Originally posted by argo nimbus
In that case, your denial that there are no buttons "real or simulated" is still false.....

All I am saying here is that there are no real buttons and no simulated buttons in the program. There are only representations of the simulated buttons that appear on the screen.
It is in this sense that the simulated buttons are an illusion.

Originally posted by argo nimbus
You're confusing cause with effect. Sure, the cause of the "simulated buttons" is a stream of electrons landing on a screen. However, the effect is a real drawing. Both the cause and the effect are real.

There is a whole series of causes and effects actually.....

The program causes the effect of electronic switches turning on and off.
The electronic switches turning on and off causes the effect of electrons streaming onto a screen.
Electrons streaming onto a screen causes the effect of buttons appearing on the screen.

Ultimately it is the combination of software and hardware that produces the "illusion" of buttons on the screen.

Originally posted by argo nimbus
I would be a lot more sympathetic to this idea (that a very clever, complex, heuristic program running in your brain creates the illusion of your "I") if you would explain who it is that is fooling whom and how the trick is accomplished.

There is no-one or nothing fooling or tricking anyone or anything. It has nothing to do with "fooling" or "tricking".

The effect evolved by random mutation and natural selection. The brain evolved to contain a representation of itself as a survival mechanism. This representation of itself evolved to such a degree that the *I* felt itself to be a separate entity from the brain rather than a consequence/correlation of brain function.

Again, it is in this sense that the *I* is an illusion.

Originally posted by argo nimbus
For example, it is easy to see that a program could create a illusion that fools sentient bystanders, such as you and me. But the point of saying that the "I" is an illusion is not that we are fooled by it, but that the program is fooled by it. How is this accomplished?

Illusions are not tom-foolery.

We really do see the squares in the checker board illusion as being of very different shades of grey. It is only when we perform some manipulations that we realize that the shades of grey are actually identical.

Illusions are not tricks.

They are real phenomena. They are a consequence of the imperfect way in which our brains deal with sensory input. Our brains are more interested in distinguishing contrasts in shades of grey between adjacent areas than between non adjacent or distant areas. Those two squares in question look to be diferent shades of grey because they have different representations in the brain. However "out there" these squares have indentical shades of grey.

It is in this sense that everything is an illusion (yes, Ian)

 

[hammegk]

Ditto.

You are wrong. *I* do have one incontrovertible data point -- thought.

Elan vital???

Question is where. String level? Higgs itself? "what-is"?

 

[BillyJoe]

Question is where. String level? Higgs itself? "what-is"?

Question is is it anywhere? What is "what-is"?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Why do you keep spelling 'treat' as 'threat'?

Although I like the idea of threatening the real world!

*shakes fist at world*

"You better be real or I'm gonna......"

Adam

Oops. Checked dictionary now, sorry. Well, that comes from writing too fast in a foreign language.

How is it with Halloween? You are threatening tricks to get treats?

Hans

 

[Guest]

I'll start from the materialistic point of view.

What I would say is, "The only thing we have evidence for is the materialistic world. Everything else is just speculation.

Which is of course, backwards.

The only thing you ACTUALLY have any evidence for is your own qualia i.e. CONSCIOUSNESS. Everything else really is just speculation.....but we have been here before....yawn.