I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

Yes. Again, that is what it means to be conscious. That is what "is" means.

There is a problem with this, you have not defined consciousness.

So a machine made of ropes and pulleys with sufficient computation to replicate all the computation going on in a human brain is going to be self-conscious, beyond doubt?

Circular. You can't claim that the soul is necessary because it manifests through the brain without first demonstrating that the soul exists.

There's that word "claim" again, who's claiming anything? Also Im not suggesting that the soul is necessary, only that it may be present, necessary or not.

Not without entirely discarding any functional definition of the word "evidence".

Another slippery word around here, can you provide a definition of evidence without using the word proof?

Which seems to be a common flaw among idealistic arguments.

Well perhaps around here, it is well known that the level of philosophy around here is barely introductory.

In the same way that objects falling towards the ground is provisionally due to gravity.

Ah, so a robot made of brass rods and cogs is provisionally self-conscious then.

Yes, you are.

Not in the point I was addressing about the level of consciousness in a person in a vegetative state.

No. You are observing its presence in the scenario, and assuming that translates to a requirement for its presence, despite the fact that no evidence supports that.

Its presence negates the requirement to assess if the person in a vegetative state is a self-consciousness machine, only one that is not fully functional. With any other kind of machine in its place, an assessment would be required to establish if it is a self-consciousness machine, in the first place.

...Yes, you could. You are just waving your hands and saying "but you couldn't" without giving any actual reason, other than "it's a robot and I don't like the idea of robots being conscious".

I'm just introducing you to the crux of the issue, which is:

You assume the same property of self-consciousness as in a human, in an artificial machine, in the absence of an understanding of what consciousness is, or what is required in a device/machine to initiate the presence of self-consciousness.

In which case, assuming by "some other mimicking device" you mean "an imperfect mimic", you would be able to show a difference in behavior that would indicate a lack of consciousness.

No I don't mean an imperfect mimic, why could it not be perfect?

Provided the mimicking device is not required to replicate every biological(metabolic) process in the human body, while replicating all the mental and behavioural properties of a human. It can be a perfect mimic without being a human. So it could be a robot made of brass rods and cogs and be a perfect mimic.

Yes, it does. That is what "is" means.

You really can't get around this.

I have just got around it, the mimicking device is only self-conscious as a human is if it is a human down to every molecule. If it can perform all the required behaviour for so called self-consciousness by computation alone, it does not need to be a human to be equivalent to a human self-consciousness.so it is not an equivalent, it may be a mimic.

Nowhere in there is there a requirement for rationality or ability for humans to understand. Those are common side-effects, not the definition itself.

Well this would be a derail, but the word true is entirely subjective, meaning something can only be/is, when deamed true by a human.

You do realize you're just kicking the can further down the road, yes? "Be" has the same definition. It's just a different tense.

" To be or not to be", be is part of the definition of self-consciousness. A human is a be-ing.

Same problem. It is still irrational to conclude Y, or to entertain belief in it. By definition, you can never have any evidence for it.

I see no requirement for conclusion or belief here. We are talking logic, are we not?

You can consider it, yes.

And then you discard it, because it leads to the two problems I have listed before, among others. It is not rational. Ever.

These problems are only relevant in reference to caricatures of idealism. I.e. When someone tries to explain how physical material is as a result of mind.

Because, if it exhibits all the properties of self-consciousness, it is self-conscious. That is what "is" means.

I have already covered this, appearances (as in the appearance of self-consciousness) can be deceptive.

Yes, assuming that it is a perfect imitation.

This only holds as I have pointed out, if the imitation includes every chemical in the body of the duck. If those are not there it is clearly not a duck, it may be a duck equivalent, but also it might be a mimic, a zombie.

So?

Well you are relying on logic now, when you say rational.

First problem.

You trap yourself in solipsism, which crumbles the moment you have a functional definition of the word "is".

It is possible to work from our only a priori knowledge to the outer world without making the conclusion of solipsism. One is only required to recognise that all other knowledge may be as a consequence of y. Logically you can do nothing else. It is true that one can work in secondary knowledge and come to the conclusion, with the aid of science, that mind is a result of computation in the brain, but logically it is always secondary knowledge x, and may only have the appearance it does, while being something else.

 

[punshhh]

"ALL" behaviours means including those under a microscope, when talking about p-zombies. The thing is that consciousness is defined as a behaviour, both in everyday language and in rational circles. So why not use it as a standard for determining consciousness in machines ?

Yes, I agree we can use consciousness as a standard in machines, I just don't think we can assume it would be like what experience as consciousness. I have no doubt that a self-conscious machine will be built at some point, but whether that self-consciousness will be the same as human consciousness is another issue. It might be very different and we would never know what it is like for the machine.

 

[Belz...]

The speed of photons does not exist without the existence of photons as space\time objects.

If we research these objects we discover that they are not absolutely invariant since their position is changed in space\time (they are not remain the same under all possible space\time measurements).

All irrelevant. The SPEED does not change. Ergo it is invariant, regardless of what else may change about the photon.

This is not the case of the simplest state of existence, it remains the same under all possible space\time measurements, and the only way to know this fact is by direct awareness of it.

You don't know that.

 

[doronshadmi]

All irrelevant. The SPEED does not change. Ergo it is invariant, regardless of what else may change about the photon.

In that case we do not deal with a thing that is absolutely invariant, so you have no case.

Moreover, now you also ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10432892&postcount=1320.

Also please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_J._Padgett (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.3987.pdf)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Boyd (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all)

The reason why I'm not 100% [sure] of anything (except the axiom "something exists.") is that my point of view is not omniscient, and that future evidence may lead me to different conclusions.

So face the evidences about c (even if you currently do not comprehend the variant nature of space\time objects).

You don't know that.

Actually you don't know that exactly because you do not practice techniques like TM.

It also has to be stressed that direct awareness of the simplest state of existence does not make one omniscient, it simply enables one to be developed into an harmonious factor among space\time phenomena, and this is exactly the argument of my Neutral monist paradigm.

 

[gurugeorge]

You are a bit wrong here.

I think this stems from the misconception that both measuring and analysis are very rigorous, exact activities.

People not versed in science often have this misconception.

But measuring can be done on an extremely coarse scale; something takes up space or not. In that case my measurement is just 0 or NOT 0.
And measuring can go into Planck-space/Planck-time. And anywhere in between. But measuring it still is.

And this is exactly what happens when you 'experience' something; your brain analyses the status quo, notices some inputs (whether they are other neurons/ganglia, visual cortex or other nervous system inputs) are different and takes stock of what is going on. It then measures, according to it's situational awareness, what the differences are and from this it tries to produce a coherent (though not necessarily logical or even complete) new status quo report.
Then finally your verbalization/conscious thoughts get a signal with the updated SitRep.

Now, just because you never get to the conscious part (I'd say about 99% of your brain activity happens 'underwater', i.e. without 'words' and your conscious thoughts happily ignore the 'engine') that does not mean a lot of processing was needed to 'experience' something.

If you want to experiment yourself so you can become convinced of what I am telling you, buy something like a http://neurosky.com/products-markets/eeg-biosensors/ (buy here for 98 euro's http://www.mindtecstore.com/index.php/en/mindwave) and fiddle around with it.

It is cheap enough and unintrusive enough to find things out about your brain.

I know, sitting behind a computer and just typing words is easier and more convenient. But come on, if things are this important to you, what is 100 euro's to prove you are right?

Obviously I was talking about the 1% conscious part not having to analyze, and that's why I mentioned the moist robot, precisely because I'm well aware of the 99% of processing that goes on "unconsciously".

But philosophy can't start by taking that story for granted, it has to start where we actually start, as conscious beings conscious of ... something, something that seems like a world.

 

[Belz...]

In that case we do not deal with a thing that is absolutely invariant, so you have no case.

Of course it's invariant since it DOESN'T CHANGE.

Actually you don't know that exactly because you do not practice techniques like TM.

Appeal to personal experience. You have not demonstrated your claim.

You lose.

It also has to be stressed that direct awareness of the simplest state of existence does not make one omniscient

Ah, so you are not 100% certain, either.

 

[gurugeorge]

I'm unsure of what you're trying to say here. Do you believe that alternatives to materialism can explain how things came to be?

No.

Run a certain brain state through the OBOS, you get a visual representation of a thought.

Run that same input through your brain, and you get the actual thought.

Run a brain state through the brain? What do you mean?

The relevant input that's the same would be, e.g., light waves from a tree or whatever. So in one case, you see a tree, and you're looking at the OBOS and seeing a representation of you seeing a tree. Your seeing of a tree is the real thing, the thing that has ontological status; the representation in the OBOS is only a representation (i.e. it has ontological status too, but only as a representation, a picture, it is not your thought, and not what your thought really is).

IOW, nothing interesting ontologically is being said when one says that the mind is "matter". Yeah, and ... ? All that's saying is that the brain behaves in such-and-such a predictable way, giving rise to a particular kind of world/self-modelling process, the utterance of words, etc. That's scientifically interesting - hugely interesting - but it's got nothing to do with ontology.

Things are matter.

"Matter" is just a name for things, a naming system that carries with it precision and understanding of cause and effect, etc., etc. What things are is what they are like to live through - e.g. what your seeing of a tree really is, is the lived-through experience of seeing a tree, as you live through it. Everything else is an analysis of the causes and conditions of that event.

 

[doronshadmi]

Of course it's invariant since it DOESN'T CHANGE.

Even your "DOESN'T CHANGE" does not hold.

So you simply ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10432968&postcount=1324.

Appeal to personal experience. You have not demonstrated your claim.

No, direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is not done in terms of space\time variant subjective\objective phenomena.

Ah, so you are not 100% certain, either.

Being naturally and spontaneously 100% harmonious among space\time phenomena is not involved with detailed omniscient knowledge of each phenomenon, because you are naturally tuned with it right from the common substance of all possible phenomena (the simplest state of existence).

You wrongly understand 100% certainty as a complete knowledge in terms of multiplicity, but multiplicity is naturally variant and ever developed aspect of existence, which is derived from the invariant simplest state of existence that is the common substance of multiplicity, which enables that is directly aware of it to naturally be developed into 100% harmonious factor among the diversity of all space\time phenomena.

Actually being 100% harmonious factor among the diversity of all space\time phenomena, is exactly the fulfillment of the evolution of creatures like us.

 

[realpaladin]

Obviously I was talking about the 1% conscious part not having to analyze, and that's why I mentioned the moist robot, precisely because I'm well aware of the 99% of processing that goes on "unconsciously".

But philosophy can't start by taking that story for granted, it has to start where we actually start, as conscious beings conscious of ... something, something that seems like a world.

Let me explain it simpler:

- I think, therefore I am.
- There is *more* than just me...
- <anything you want>

The *more* is the crux here. Whether you like it or not, to be conscious of anything you *must* measure and/or analyze to be aware of anything outside of you.

Otherwise you become like Doron and the TM-cult; professional plants, being reactive biomass.

 

[realpaladin]

Even your "DOESN'T CHANGE" does not hold.

So you simply ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10432968&postcount=1324.


No, direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is not done in terms of space\time variant subjective\objective phenomena.


Being naturally and spontaneously 100% harmonious among space\time phenomena is not involved with detailed omniscient knowledge of each phenomenon, because you are naturally tuned with it right from the common substance of all possible phenomena.

You wrongly understand 100% certainty as a complete knowledge in terms of multiplicity, but multiplicity is naturally variant and ever developed aspect of existence, which is derived from the invariant simplest state of existence that is the common substance of multiplicity, which enables that is directly aware of it to naturally be 100% harmonious factor among the diversity of all space\time phenomena.

Again, you really have not read the science have you?

That the speed of light in free space is constant is a cornerstone of modern physics. However, light beams have finite transverse size, which leads to a modification of their wavevectors resulting in a change to their phase and group velocities. We study the group velocity of single photons by measuring a change in their arrival time that results from changing the beam's transverse spatial structure. Using time-correlated photon pairs we show a reduction of the group velocity of photons in both a Bessel beam and photons in a focused Gaussian beam. In both cases, the delay is several microns over a propagation distance of the order of 1 m. Our work highlights that, even in free space, the invariance of the speed of light only applies to plane waves. Introducing spatial structure to an optical beam, even for a single photon, reduces the group velocity of the light by a readily measurable amount.

And, Doron, what does it say? It says the speed of a *light beam*. Not the spead of a photon.

This stems from the fact that light *both* behaves like a particle *and* like a wave.

What the above says is that if you make a light *beam* then the photon will have to travel a longer distance, hence the speed of light (not the speed of a photon!) is different.

Reading comprehension vs Google Archeology by Doron Shadmi: 1 - 0

You lose. Again.

 

[Belz...]

Even your "DOESN'T CHANGE" does not hold.

No, it's really simple: a photon's speed is constant. Unchaning. Invariant. Always. You cannot argue against this. Your only argument is to make this discussion about something else, but it won't work because I'm not an idiot and I can see what you're doing.

No, direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is not done in terms of space\time variant subjective\objective phenomena.

Of course it is: YOU are a space/time variant phenomenon.

You wrongly understand 100% certainty as a complete knowledge in terms of multiplicity

No, that's what 100% certainty means.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, it's really simple: a photon's speed is constant. Unchaning. Invariant. Always. You cannot argue against this. Your only argument is to make this discussion about something else, but it won't work because I'm not an idiot and I can see what you're doing.

There is no something else, both speed and position's change are properties of the same object, therefore this object is not absolutely invariant.

Of course it is: YOU are a space/time variant phenomenon.

And also its substance (which is the simplest state of existence) which is really absolutely invariant.

No, that's what 100% certainty means.

This is exactly what 100% certainty means.

 

[Belz...]

There is no something else, both speed and position's change are properties of the same object, therefore this object is not absolutely invariant.

Yes but we are not talking about the object, but the speed.

Make _some_ effort, please.

 

[Belz...]

And also its substance (which is the simplest state of existence) which is really absolutely invariant.

Doesn't this also apply to photons ?

This is exactly what 100% certainty means.

Good. For once you admit that I am right.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes but we are not talking about the object, but the speed.

Make _some_ effort, please.

This speed does not exist independently of the object (called photon), so please open your awareness to the fact that this object is partially invariant, or in other words, it is not absolutely invariant, and this was exactly my original question.

 

[Nonpareil]

There is a problem with this, you have not defined consciousness.

Which is not really a problem. I could be using the word "falipperage" and this would still be valid. If something behaves exactly as though it is something, it is that something, no matter what definition you use for it.

Broadly speaking, however, I use the same definition that you do: self-consciousness.

So a machine made of ropes and pulleys with sufficient computation to replicate all the computation going on in a human brain is going to be self-conscious, beyond doubt?

Yes. Why wouldn't it?

It would have to be a hell of an intricate machine, with a lot of pulleys arranged in extremely odd and arcane patterns, not to mention the weird things you'd have to do to set up sensory apparatuses. But assuming that the end result did, in the end, act exactly as though it were aware of itself, it doesn't matter how strange the medium.

There's that word "claim" again, who's claiming anything?

Not necessary for the correct functioning of the apparatus... Through which the soul manifests.

You are assuming that the soul does manifest and using that to make your argument.

That is circular.

Another slippery word around here, can you provide a definition of evidence without using the word proof?

I am not going to play word games with you.

I'm just introducing you to the crux of the issue, which is:

You assume the same property of self-consciousness as in a human, in an artificial machine, in the absence of an understanding of what consciousness is, or what is required in a device/machine to initiate the presence of self-consciousness.

Which is not actually true. I assume that we are both taking "consciousness" to mean "sense of self", and we know - again, not think, not hypothesize, know - that this is material and computational in origin.

No I don't mean an imperfect mimic, why could it not be perfect?

Because if it were a perfect mimic, it would be the thing it is mimicking.

Provided the mimicking device is not required to replicate every biological(metabolic) process in the human body

In which case it is not a perfect mimic, but it's irrelevant, because we are interested in mimics of consciousness, not of gastric processes. It is you and you alone who asserts that consciousness is metabolic.

I have just got around it, the mimicking device is only self-conscious as a human is if it is a human down to every molecule.

No. It is only conscious of the same things as a human if it is a human down to every molecule. If it is not, it may not be a perfect mimic of a human - but it is still a perfect mimic of consciousness.

If it can perform all the required behaviour for so called self-consciousness by computation alone, it does not need to be a human to be equivalent to a human self-consciousness.

Quite. It is conscious whether or not it has a stomach.

And all the necessary qualifications for being called conscious are computational. Any sufficiently advanced computer can model them.

Well this would be a derail, but the word true is entirely subjective, meaning something can only be/is, when deamed true by a human.

No. It isn't.

" To be or not to be", be is part of the definition of self-consciousness. A human is a be-ing.

And now you're just spouting irrelevancies.

I see no requirement for conclusion or belief here. We are talking logic, are we not?

This is not in any way an intelligible response to what was said.

These problems are only relevant in reference to caricatures of idealism. I.e. When someone tries to explain how physical material is as a result of mind.

No. They hold entirely when looking at actual idealism.

This only holds as I have pointed out, if the imitation includes every chemical in the body of the duck. If those are not there it is clearly not a duck, it may be a duck equivalent, but also it might be a mimic, a zombie.

Yes. That is what I was saying.

So it's either a perfect mimic, in which case it is the thing it's mimicking, or it's not and it isn't and you can show that it isn't.

Well you are relying on logic now, when you say rational.

Which doesn't bear any relevance to the original statement I was replying to.

It is possible to work from our only a priori knowledge to the outer world without making the conclusion of solipsism.

Yes. At this point, idealism collapses.

One is only required to recognise that all other knowledge may be as a consequence of y.

Which leads you right back to solipsism until you climb out again. First problem.

Run a brain state through the brain? What do you mean?

Configure the brain so that it is in that brain state.

The relevant input that's the same would be, e.g., light waves from a tree or whatever. So in one case, you see a tree, and you're looking at the OBOS and seeing a representation of you seeing a tree. Your seeing of a tree is the real thing, the thing that has ontological status; the representation in the OBOS is only a representation (i.e. it has ontological status too, but only as a representation, a picture, it is not your thought, and not what your thought really is).

IOW, nothing interesting ontologically is being said when one says that the mind is "matter". Yeah, and ... ? All that's saying is that the brain behaves in such-and-such a predictable way, giving rise to a particular kind of world/self-modelling process, the utterance of words, etc. That's scientifically interesting - hugely interesting - but it's got nothing to do with ontology.

Yes, it does.

It just doesn't necessarily say anything you like.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doesn't this also apply to photons ?

Only partially (if c was, is and will be invariant) because position's change is also their property, which is definitely variant.

Here is my original question and your original answer:

Please show me even a single objective evident that is absolutely invariant.

That's easy: light travels at 300,000 km per second.

Even if you have changed light to photon, you still did not provide an objective evident (some object) that is absolutely invariant in terms of space\time.

Good. For once you admit that I am right.

Exactly as photons, the fact that we are also variant phenomena prevent omniscient knowledge of variant phenomena, but it does not prevent a complete knowledge of the absolutely invariant substance that enables us to be developed into 100% harmonious factors among the diversity of all space\time phenomena, and again, object\subject multiplicity is an aspect of space\time phenomena that no one of its objects or subjects is absolutely invariant.

 

[realpaladin]

This speed does not exist independently of the object (called photon), so please open your awareness to the fact that this object is partially invariant, or in other words, it is not absolutely invariant.

Doron

At what point did we get from *phenomenon* to *object* ?

 

[doronshadmi]

As for constant speed > 0, it is not absolutely invariant, since movement (and therefore variance) is involved with it.

 

[Belz...]

This speed does not exist independently of the object

Irrelevant. Bricks don't exist independently of the house they are part of, and yet you can still speak of them as things.

You lose.