I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

Good! At least you have finally stopped asserting and are admitting that "you think". Some progress, at least.

It has always been thus, where I make an assertion, I do have the rationale to support it, if asked.

Now: Why should we not assume that an artificial entity that is functionally identical to a human would not be able to know and experience?

Because we don't know what it is about a human which results in knowing and experience, so we don't know what hardware is required in the artificial entity.

(Mind you, I say functionally, not necessarily constructionally.)

We don't know everything functionally that is going on in a human. Although we can deduce most of it. Also we don't know if it is a chemical life in a human which results in consciousness, which is physical.

There may indeed. Or there may be none. Can you point to any evidence indicating that there are any important features unknown to science?

There's that curious word "evidence" again. We are surrounded by physical material, which could be evidence of numerous things of which humanity is oblivious.

 

[LarryS]

We did decide that any apparent explanatory power of Materialism is illusory. Like the claim 'the butler did it' is very soothing, except when we realize the 'butler' was made up and no evidence of a butler ever existing can be found.

 

[asydhouse]

Foliage fairies.

Nice one. Like fire salamanders moving in the coals of a fire.

 

[tsig]

We did decide that any apparent explanatory power of Materialism is illusory. Like the claim 'the butler did it' is very soothing, except when we realize the 'butler' was made up and no evidence of a butler ever existing can be found.

We? You got a mouse in your pocket?

You can't find evidence of matter existing?

 

[Myriad]

Like the claim 'the butler did it' is very soothing, except when we realize the 'butler' was made up and no evidence of a butler ever existing can be found.

This comment is like when you've been living in a house and there's this dignified and formally dressed gentleman who's always around and who keeps tidying up and fetching wine on request and announcing dinner, and whose salary deducts from the household budget without fail, and whose life and upbringing one can discover by interacting and conversing with him, and yet people claim that he can't be proven to exist because it might have been ghosts doing all those things instead.

 

[Belz...]

We did decide that any apparent explanatory power of Materialism is illusory. Like the claim 'the butler did it' is very soothing, except when we realize the 'butler' was made up and no evidence of a butler ever existing can be found.

Soothing ? Interesting that someone supporting woo would use an argument that is usually leveled against woo in such a manner.

 

[Dancing David]

Interesting, I would accept an automata which replicated a human down to the molecular level as having the capacity to know and experience (it may also have to be alive, perhaps). Unfortunately we don't know exactly what part of a human is a necessity for this, so if our replicant were not identical down to the molecular level, I don't think we can assume it can know and experience.

There may be numerous features currently unknown to science.

Um punshhh,
Since when are humans identical down to the molecular level?
As a body you aren't identical one moment to the next.

So what are you trying to say, not identical ?

 

[barehl]

When I said automata I meant a human replicant, purely mechanical which mimics a human in all ways... so it believes it has the impression of consciousness.

I haven't finished my theory but I'm pretty sure it will disprove this. I'm also pretty sure it will disprove Idealism.

 

[barehl]

Because we don't know what it is about a human which results in knowing and experience, so we don't know what hardware is required in the artificial entity.

I'm working on it.

 

[NutCracker]

I have this nagging suspicion that our idealists would, at least temporarily, suspend their profound philosophical insight Profound Philosophical Insight (*) when the object in their field of vision is not a butler but the bottom of the interior of the barrel of a loaded gun.

(*) Sorry about this near blasphemous slip, I deserve, when my time has come to leave this earthly, entirely imaginary, life to be tortured for eternity, and for REAL I might add, in Plato's cave.

 

[tsig]

I have this nagging suspicion that our idealists would, at least temporarily, suspend their profound philosophical insight Profound Philosophical Insight (*) when the object in their field of vision is not a butler but the bottom of the interior of the barrel of a loaded gun.
(*) Sorry about this near blasphemous slip, I deserve, when my time has come to leave this earthly, entirely imaginary, life to be tortured for eternity, and for REAL I might add, in Plato's cave.

"No atheists in foxholes"? Again??

Truth does not come from the barrel of a gun.

 

[NutCracker]

"No atheists in foxholes"? Again??

Truth does not come from the barrel of a gun.

Does it not, really? Oh, man, you taught me something. Thanks, mate! (This was sarcasm.. is there a sarcasm emoticon around here. It seems it is needed).

I don't really understand why you seem to be somewhat upset. What I was alluding to, of course, was that even idealists recognize reality at some point. Go to the loo when they have to pee and go to see a doctor when they are ill, eat when they are hungry. The only way I can make sense of you commenting on my post is to assume you think I was trying to convince them by pointing a gun at them. How you could have read that in my post is, however, beyond me.

Hey pal, I was joking. You know.. sarcasm, exaggeration.. that kind of thing. Ok? Sheesh.

 

[LarryS]

This comment is like when you've been living in a house and there's this dignified and formally dressed gentleman who's always around and who keeps tidying up and fetching wine on request and announcing dinner, and whose salary deducts from the household budget without fail, and whose life and upbringing one can discover by interacting and conversing with him, and yet people claim that he can't be proven to exist because it might have been ghosts doing all those things instead.

nicely played - - and it's like this except that we've been looking for the butler for a few thousand years and still haven't found him. the house isn't haunted either.

 

[Donn]

Jeeves jaunted the house!

 

[punshhh]

Um punshhh,
Since when are humans identical down to the molecular level?
As a body you aren't identical one moment to the next.

Yes there is variation between humans and within one human over time. Theoretically one could take one individual human at one point in time and consider a replica of this down to the molecular level. Would it be conscious, I would say yes, if it were alive that is.

So what are you trying to say, not identical ?

Well this particular point is about replicants, if they are not a close replication, could we say they can know and experience? How would we know?

I was trying to say to you that to be a knower, who has experience, is something to do with being a living organism. Something which we don't fully understand. It cannot be something with the appearance of being a living organism, it has to be one. However if the "appearance of" occurs at a more fundamental level, ie in the mind of God, I would agree entirely that something with the appearance of being conscious might be conscious.

 

[NutCracker]

If it took predators thousands of years to find evidence of their pray there would never have been philosophers around desperately looking for evidence of the butler.

Now that I think of it.. idealism being true does have its pluses. If only it where true... what a wonderful imaginary world that would be. Wait. it is an imaginary world. I wish that the latter implied idealism is for real. Dream on, NutCracker, dream on!

 

[Hawk one]

nicely played - - and it's like this except that we've been looking for the butler for a few thousand years and still haven't found him. the house isn't haunted either.

More like we've been looking for the butler for a few decades after several thousand years of simply assuming it was a ghost; and when we finally did start looking properly, we immediately found evidence for him; but people are still so attached to the idea that it's been a ghost doing it, they still won't let go of that.

 

[punshhh]

The butler did it.



Well at least that gets me off the hook.

 

[Dancing David]

I haven't finished my theory but I'm pretty sure it will disprove this. I'm also pretty sure it will disprove Idealism.

I am a naturalist, it acts like matter....

 

[barehl]

I am a naturalist, it acts like matter....

I assume you are talking about consciousness. Yes, I would say that consciousness is entirely material and obeys known laws of physics. But you said:

When I said automata I meant a human replicant, purely mechanical which mimics a human in all ways... so it believes it has the impression of consciousness.

I'm saying that there is no question of belief. Something cannot lack consciousness but believe it has consciousness. I'm also not sure what the impression of consciousness is. Either it has awareness or it doesn't.