I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Belz...]

Damn, the noise-to-signal ratio is high, here.

 

[doronshadmi]

Which means that they are both false.

No dear Nonpareil,

"What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical."

The right meaning (which is not limited to the particular and the multiple, which is exactly your arbitrary restriction all along this thread) is this:

The mental or the physical are particular expressions of non-particular (and therefore neutral) one substance, which is naturally simpler than any of its particular expressions.

Moreover, you are using again and again the term false by ignoring the fact that false or true are particular opposite expressions of multiplicity, which are not simpler than their non-particular (and therefore neutral) one substance.

No, it isn't. That is exactly the opposite of what "neutral" means in this context.

The neutral is naturally not limited to any particular context.

In other words dear Nonpareil, you do not understand Neutral monism as addressed in the first part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10542498&postcount=2199, and instead of trying to understand it this is actually your best reply:

Because I don't care.

Since this is your fundamental attitude all along this thread there is no use to continue the dialog with you and you are going to my ignore list.

 

[Hawk one]

OK, got me! Now, if you might please go on to explain the curious phenomenon of people taking loose language too literally.

Even easier:

(From this website: http://xkcd.com/386/ , image hotlinked with general permission from XKCD.com under creative commons blablabla, the mods know that this site permits hotlinking)

Hey, you didn't think I'd let that one go, did you?

 

[Nonpareil]

The right meaning is this:

The "right" meaning - that is, the one that people actually refer to when they say "neutral monism" - is exactly what I have just pointed out to you.

You are free to use whatever gibberish you please, but it is not neutral monism.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

If human beings share a common substance for any process, including thoughts process, no one of them will park in front of your garage.

What about the whole "dematerializing a car from existence using nothing but my thoughts" part? Can you do that? That would definitely be a knock out punch against materialism.

 

[doronshadmi]

What about the whole "dematerializing a car from existence using nothing but my thoughts" part?

Not relevant to Neutral monism, because the harmony among particular multiple phenomena is determined right from the non-particular (and therefore neutral) one substance that is naturally simpler than any particular phenomena or the collection of all possible particular phenomena, which naturally leads into the realm that those how are directly aware of the neutral substance, naturally will not park in front of your garage.

 

[Navigator]

Consciousness is always a ghost in the machine...

Sweet.

 

[punshhh]

Mmm, let's see....



How can anything be distinguished, if observations are identical?

Yes, it is problematic and yet the internal state of the mechanism may or may not be conscious/may or may not, constitute self-conscious awareness as experienced by a human.

Is this useful in any way?

Well I know it can be disregarded by the materialist, (just read this thread to see how that pans out). But to me there is an important process in living organisms enabling their internal state to be one of knowing and being, as experienced by a human.

The very fact that we can agree, presumably, that an AI device can carry out every action, behaviour and computation found in the brain of a human, might well suggest that self-consciousness is not actually necessary in any of this. What need would there be for self-consciousness?

So is this a new addition to your definitions of consciousness? That the entity must care and know?

Self-consciousness, yes.

How will you show that this applies to, say, sponges, which you previously claimed to have consciousness?

They are not self-conscious, so don't care, or know.
It is the computational processing in the brain of a human and other primates, which endows them with the ability to care and know. The distinction between the two is the addition of intelligence, which is computational.

Do you have a point, at all?

My point is simply that materialism (as presented around here) tends to gloss over the legitimate considerations of being (personal experience of existing), in favour of a physicalist computational model.

 

[punshhh]

Damn, the noise-to-signal ratio is high, here.

Appologies, I do keep trying to turn up the pith setting, but it keeps getting drawn out again.

 

[Navigator]

Self-consciousness, yes.
They are not self-conscious, so don't care, or know.
It is the computational processing in the brain of a human and other primates, which endows them with the ability to care and know. The distinction between the two is the addition of intelligence, which is computational.

So you are saying that consciousness has many aspects or layers to it? That not all things conscious are self conscious?
(Or perhaps not even aware that they are 'self' conscious.)?

My point is simply that materialism (as presented around here) tends to gloss over the legitimate considerations of being (personal experience of existing), in favour of a physicalist computational model.

Each to their own as it were. I have never yet had any materialist ( let alone those as presented around here) even remotely convince me that my experience of this existence is illegitimate....unworthy of serious consideration.... just the brain doing its think.

Come to think of it, I don't even get the impression that they themselves think their experiences are illegitimate....unworthy of serious consideration....I just get the impression they want me to believe it is so about my life.

But hey, I don't think it is like that with every materialist ( let alone those as presented around here) there are just a few bad eggs 'tis all.

Each to their own...brains trying to dominate other brains. Consciousness is better than that.

 

[punshhh]

So you are saying that consciousness has many aspects or layers to it? That not all things conscious are self conscious?
(Or perhaps not even aware that they are 'self' conscious.)?

Yes, many degrees of consciousness from a single cellular organism to the human.

We are talking of internal awareness here, I expect that the more primitive lifeforms have an experience similar to what we experience in a deep sleep. Others more like our experience at the age of one or two. Even a Bonobo chimp may not do much in the way of thinking and have an experience rather like the dreamtime of the aborigines. Working almost entirely from instinct, or conditioned responses.

Each to their own as it were. I have never yet had any materialist ( let alone those as presented around here) even remotely convince me that my experience of this existence is illegitimate....unworthy of serious consideration.... just the brain doing its think.

Come to think of it, I don't even get the impression that they themselves think their experiences are illegitimate....unworthy of serious consideration....I just get the impression they want me to believe it is so about my life.

But hey, I don't think it is like that with every materialist ( let alone those as presented around here) there are just a few bad eggs 'tis all.

Each to their own...brains trying to dominate other brains. Consciousness is better than that.

Agreed, I am pointing out the mind set which does not consider things that can't be said to be explained by a physicalist model.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Not relevant to Neutral monism, because the harmony among particular multiple phenomena is determined right from the non-particular (and therefore neutral) one substance that is naturally simpler than any particular phenomena or the collection of all possible particular phenomena, which naturally leads into the realm that those how are directly aware of the neutral substance, naturally will not park in front of your garage.

Sorry, that was complicated to follow. So basically you're saying one cannot vanish physical objects using their mind? That's all I want to know.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, it is problematic and yet the internal state of the mechanism may or may not be conscious/may or may not, constitute self-conscious awareness as experienced by a human.

Why is it problematic?

Well I know it can be disregarded by the materialist, (just read this thread to see how that pans out).

Sure. It pans out nicely and logically.

But to me there is an important process in living organisms enabling their internal state to be one of knowing and being, as experienced by a human.

And why do you need this, when there is no evidence for it?

The very fact that we can agree, presumably, that an AI device can carry out every action, behaviour and computation found in the brain of a human, might well suggest that self-consciousness is not actually necessary in any of this.

No, it does not suggest that. It suggests that self-consciousness is a computational function.

Self-consciousness, yes.
They are not self-conscious, so don't care, or know.
It is the computational processing in the brain of a human and other primates, which endows them with the ability to care and know. The distinction between the two is the addition of intelligence, which is computational.

You are contradicting yourself. We were talking about simple oranisms and therir machine peers. Not about self-conscious entities.

My point is simply that materialism (as presented around here) tends to gloss over the legitimate considerations of being (personal experience of existing), in favour of a physicalist computational model.

Your point is unfounded.

Hans

 

[Myriad]

Let's look a little closer at the nature of the "ghost in the machine."

I have an old-fashioned thermostat: no processor chip, just a bi-metallic strip that changes shape a little as its temperature changes, turning the heating system on when the thermostat's temperature drops below a pre-set threshold, and turning it off when the temperature rises above a slightly higher pre-set threshold. It's simple but it works very well.

Is there a ghost in this machine? It's controlling its own environment by sensing its own condition (temperature) and physically responding (opening and closing some electrical contacts). Is it conscious, maybe just a teeny little bit?

If so, could the ghost be removed without any physical changes to the device, and if so would it still work? That would presumably be a p-zombie-thermostat.

Could an HVAC expert repairman tell if my thermostat was a regular one with a fully intact ghost, or a p-zombie one?

 

[doronshadmi]

Sorry, that was complicated to follow. So basically you're saying one cannot vanish physical objects using their mind? That's all I want to know.

If one is naturally in harmony with you, he\she will not park in front of your garage.

 

[punshhh]

Why is it problematic?

It's problematic because of the chance that you could have two mechanisms, one which is self-conscious and one which is not conscious and it is impossible to distinguish between the two.

Sure. It pans out nicely and logically.

Does logic do parsimony, convenience? It is no more than convenience that assumes that consciousness is a result of computation alone.

And why do you need this, when there is no evidence for it?

Again, I am not concerned with convenience, I'm more interested in the reality.

No, it does not suggest that. It suggests that self-consciousness is a computational function.

It suggests that all the observed behaviours of a sentient person can be reproduced by a computation. Consciousness is an irrelevance.

You are contradicting yourself. We were talking about simple oranisms and therir machine peers. Not about self-conscious entities.

Remember I am making a distinction between rudimentary consciousness, of a simple organism and the self-conscious awareness of a human. I am not saying that a simple organism can care, or know. But I am saying it has personal experience of existing as an entity.

Your point is unfounded.

Where is your example of a consciousness in a computer?
And if you had one, how would you know it were conscious and not just an automaton carrying out the behaviours we programmed it to perform.

 

[punshhh]

Let's look a little closer at the nature of the "ghost in the machine."

I have an old-fashioned thermostat: no processor chip, just a bi-metallic strip that changes shape a little as its temperature changes, turning the heating system on when the thermostat's temperature drops below a pre-set threshold, and turning it off when the temperature rises above a slightly higher pre-set threshold. It's simple but it works very well.

Is there a ghost in this machine? It's controlling its own environment by sensing its own condition (temperature) and physically responding (opening and closing some electrical contacts). Is it conscious, maybe just a teeny little bit?

No it's not conscious at all and a more complex device could be fabricated which can perform all the behaviours of a human and it would be no more conscious than the bi-metallic strip. For example the character of Data in Star Trek, no consciousness whatsoever.

If so, could the ghost be removed without any physical changes to the device, and if so would it still work? That would presumably be a p-zombie-thermostat.

Yes, apart from the fact that there was not a ghost in the first place, because it was not alive.
I can imagine the future now, humans create a world of AI devices, sharing their world. Convinced that they are conscious. But in reality none of them are, the humans are imagining a ghost in the machine. A classic case of anthropomorphism.

Could an HVAC expert repairman tell if my thermostat was a regular one with a fully intact ghost, or a p-zombie one?

if the expert was a biologist he could tell you that it was not conscious.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It's problematic because of the chance that you could have two mechanisms, one which is self-conscious and one which is not conscious and it is impossible to distinguish between the two.

If it is impossible to distinguish, why do you assume that they are not both self-conscious?

Does logic do parsimony, convenience? It is no more than convenience that assumes that consciousness is a result of computation alone.

No. It is EVIDENCE. If you don't know what 'evidence' means, look it up.

Again, I am not concerned with convenience, I'm more interested in the reality.

Then you ought to follow the evidence.

It suggests that all the observed behaviours of a sentient person can be reproduced by a computation. Consciousness is an irrelevance.

No. Not by the accepted definitions of consciousness (incomplete as it may be).

Remember I am making a distinction between rudimentary consciousness, of a simple organism and the self-conscious awareness of a human. I am not saying that a simple organism can care, or know. But I am saying it has personal experience of existing as an entity

I don't care what distinctions you make. I care about the evidence.

Where is your example of a consciousness in a computer?

Which definition of consciousness are you talking about, now?

Hans

 

[Myriad]

I can imagine the future now, humans create a world of AI devices, sharing their world. Convinced that they are conscious. But in reality none of them are, the humans are imagining a ghost in the machine. A classic case of anthropomorphism.
if the expert was a biologist he could tell you that it was not conscious.

If the AI devices are convinced that they are conscious, on what basis could anyone say they are not?

It appears that you are convinced that you are conscious. But are you really?

 

[punshhh]

If the AI devices are convinced that they are conscious, on what basis could anyone say they are not?

How do they know? Is it because they are programmed to give the response that they know something.

It appears that you are convinced that you are conscious. But are you really?

I do know something, that's a start.