I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Nonpareil]

No it's not self-conscious, it's just replicating all the computational processes employed by self-conscious agents. It's no more conscious than a toaster. To say it is self-conscious is an assumption.

No, it's a definition. If there is no way to tell, ever, that it is in any way not actually self-conscious, then it is self-conscious. Saying "oh, but it's not really" is meaningless waffle.

You really can't see it can you? Every computational process going on in the brain can be replicated, can be added together, is at no point self-conscious.

Except that it demonstrably is.

I differentiate metabolic consciousness from intellectual self-awareness. So we have.
Consciousness = metabolic consciousness = experience of living, being.

Self-consciousness = the mind = fully self aware with intellectual thought.

The distinction is that consciousness does not require mental processing, making all your arguments obsolete.

Experiencing the universe does not require a mind, and can also be done without a self existing to do the experiencing.

Welp. There you are, then. That's your problem.

You're relying on gibberish.

I'm happy to agree with you if the wording is altered to "thus it appears to have objective existence"

It does not need to be altered.

Word games do not substitute for an actual argument.

Remember the issue I pointed out with the word "is", it is presumptuous for a human to say something is such and such, it's the same with "it has" such and such in this context.

No, it isn't. It's a matter of definition.

I was well aware of this logic, but it is too simplistic as I pointed out. It goes like this,

Mimic(or appearance)of X AND ~X is coherent.

No, that's what your logic is like. What is being said to you is certainly simplistic, but it is not wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Every computational process going on in the brain can be replicated, can be added together, is at no point self-conscious.

How would you know ?

How do you define "conscious" ?

 

[Dancing David]

Right, however we can construct and evaluate theories on how a computer generates an image to a screen, and how water is wet and flows - but we can't generate a theory how a biological machine generates consciousness. We don't know if we can build a theory in principle . . . so we are left with - Well what else could it be but material process?

Except for the people who study neurology and then the cross with other fields.

Those are bold assertions without evidence.

Who says what and where that "but we can't generate a theory how a biological machine generates consciousness", which aspect of consciousness would you like me to look for papers upon.

 

[Dancing David]

ok.
No it's not self-conscious, it's just replicating all the computational processes employed by self-conscious agents. It's no more conscious than a toaster. To say it is self-conscious is an assumption.

Um, how do you know that all things are mimicking self-consciousness?

How do you know you aren't mimicking self-consciousness yourself?

 

[LarryS]

I don't know how it could be done. Other than to compare it to examples we already have of self-conscious beings.

yes, I am not saying all AI are not self-conscious, I am saying that it is unlikely that they are self-conscious due to computation alone, because they will be mimics unless they are specifically designed to have experience. However it may not be possible to determine if AI which appear to be self-conscious, are or not. Or if that self-consciousness is the same as human self-consciousness.

As I suggest above you (we) have not made the leap to a Materialist POV, self-consciousness is a physical process, like photosynthesis. If a plant, animal or synthetic machine is doing x, where x is photosynthesis, then it's photosynthesis.

 

[Dancing David]

If it is not physical then it leads to dualism.

 

[LarryS]

If it is not physical then it leads to dualism.

and if a person accepted that consciousness was the result of physical processes - but then believed that there was then this conscious "I" in our heads looking and sniffing about, and enjoying the show, then they'd be right back to Dualism. There can be no one there in our heads except as an illusion calculated as a determinate retrospect.

 

[Nonpareil]

and if a person accepted that consciousness was the result of physical processes - but then believed that there was then this conscious "I" in our heads looking and sniffing about, and enjoying the show, then they'd be right back to Dualism. There can be no one there in our heads except as an illusion calculated as a determinate retrospect.

No.

 

[Dancing David]

and if a person accepted that consciousness was the result of physical processes - but then believed that there was then this conscious "I" in our heads looking and sniffing about, and enjoying the show, then they'd be right back to Dualism. There can be no one there in our heads except as an illusion calculated as a determinate retrospect.

anatta - there is no one in there, there is a body

There is no 'I', there is a body, thoughts, emotions, perceptions and habits

Descartes was wrong...

 

[MRC_Hans]

anatta - there is no one in there, there is a body

There is no 'I', there is a body, thoughts, emotions, perceptions and habits

Descartes was wrong...

Well, to be fair, we don't know. There is just no evidence for an 'I'.

Hans

 

[punshhh]

As I suggest above you (we) have not made the leap to a Materialist POV, self-consciousness is a physical process, like photosynthesis. If a plant, animal or synthetic machine is doing x, where x is photosynthesis, then it's photosynthesis.

Yes I agree, I have not made the leap to this kind of materialism. I prefer to accept our limitations and that there are things out there which we may not understand and that they can be addressed and discussed.

Have you noticed the inability to accept that there is anything outside the mind? Well apart from what science tells us, that is.

 

[Nonpareil]

Have you noticed the inability to accept that there is anything outside the mind?

I forget - which of us keeps attempting to fall back on solipsism?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes I agree, I have not made the leap to this kind of materialism. I prefer to accept our limitations and that there are things out there which we may not understand and that they can be addressed and discussed.

Have you noticed the inability to accept that there is anything outside the mind? Well apart from what science tells us, that is.

I can accept that there is something outside the mind, apart from what science tells, if you can give evidence for that.

 

[LarryS]

I can accept that there is something outside the mind, apart from what science tells, if you can give evidence for that.

The claim that there is something outside of mind is a materialist claim.

 

[doronshadmi]

And your arms are tuned to flying. Have you tried yet ?

Yes, it did not work.

Now, did you try to practice techniques like TM, which enable you to directly be aware of the simplest state of existence (such that you are fully aware without any thoughts' process)?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10446527&postcount=1617 clearly says NO to this question.

 

[doronshadmi]

Sorry, Doron, but you don't get to ask other people for evidence before you have the decency to provide same for your own claims.

An evidence about X is not X in itself, and if X=the simplest state of existence, then no evidence about it is a satisfactory evidence.

Yet two peer-reviewed scientific papers of researches that are independent of TM movement have found that awareness without thoughts' process can be considered as 4^th major state of awareness, in addition to sleeping, dreaming and waking, known as restful alertness (http://www.dejanrakovicfund.org/radovi/1999-INFORMATICA.pdf and http://www.ece.uah.edu/~jovanov/papers/C1997_Tomasevic_TM.pdf).

You ignored their results (as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10423422&postcount=1085) and also ignored the simple topological fact (which provides the answer to your HOW http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10422095&postcount=1061 question) that a non-composed 1-dimesional element is topologically the same thing, whether it is vibrating (equivalent to awareness at the level of thoughts' process) or not (equivalent to direct awareness of the simplest state of existence). Here is more detailed reply of it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10422180&postcount=1064 and here is your very poor reply to it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10422211&postcount=1067 which ignores both topology and peer-reviewed scientific results that actually deal with neurons' coherent activity as a result of one's awareness of the simplest state of existence.

As long as you ask for answers only in terms of about X, you are actually missing X in itself (where in this case it is not less than direct awareness of X).

Moreover, it has been realized that you don't follow after your own standards, as clearly demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10444268&postcount=1532, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10444401&postcount=1535 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10444465&postcount=1543.

So, your "Sorry," has no basis what so ever, you simply can't show what is wrong in my analysis of objective evidence, as given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10435584&postcount=1388.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it did not work.

That's because you keep thinking in terms of arms instead of wings. Try again.

 

[Nonpareil]

And he's bringing up Dejan Rakovic again. This is just getting sad.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's because you keep thinking in terms of arms instead of wings. Try again.

I have tried and failed, but at least I have tried it, after all dear Belz... "we can't be 100% sure of anything", isn't it?

Now dear Belz... why are you so sure that by practicing, for example, TM, you are going to fail to be aware without thoughts' process?

Is it because you think that reasoning and critic can't be done without thoughts?

If this is the case, then you don't have to be worry, because being aware without thoughts is the natural state of mind of being aware of the simplest state of existence.

The benefit from such an awareness is that it actually gives you the best perspective to be aware of any degree of behavior (in your case, Matter's behavior) and actually improves your reasoning and and critic abilities.

If you are still can't get what I say, it is like tuning your musical instrument (being aware without thoughts) before you are going to play on it (being aware with thoughts).

Generally, currently you ontologically exclude the simplest state of existence.

Please explain why do you exclude it?

 

[punshhh]

No, it's a definition. If there is no way to tell, ever, that it is in any way not actually self-conscious, then it is self-conscious. Saying "oh, but it's not really" is meaningless waffle.

Well that sounds clever, but it is in ignorance of physical reality. If a mechanism is self-conscious it is due to a physical mechanism, not due to a definition, or assertion.
We only have one kind of example of self-consciousness as a result of a physical mechanism. Unless the same physical process is reproduced in an experiment to reproduce self-consciousness. There is no rational basis to consider or presume that it will be Self-conscious.

This is simple enough isn't it?

If one endeavours to replicate only one of many physical processes involved in self-consciousness, it cannot be presumed that it will exhibit all the processes of self-consciousness, whatever the definition.

Except that it demonstrably is.

But that demonstration is solely behavioural, a mimic, automaton, or mime artist could fein it. I.e. replicate the required behaviour to fulfill the requirements of the experiment/definition.

Experiencing the universe does not require a mind, and can also be done without a self existing to do the experiencing.

Yes, no mind required(ref' primitive life forms), but no, self is independent of mind. Each of those primitive life forms is an individual self. I am not saying they are self-conscious, I am saying they have a conscious self.

Welp. There you are, then. That's your problem.

You're relying on gibberish.

Looks like a slam dunk/checkmate then, as you've brought out the gibberish word.

All your arguments are obsolete, what else can you say?

It does not need to be altered.

Word games do not substitute for an actual argument.

who's using word games? Your objection to solipsism is that because physical reality appears in every case to be objective, it demonstrably is objective.

There's that problem with is again. Humanity dictates that physical reality is an objectively existing thing, it must be so.

Well that's settled it then, the human intellect is on a pedestal.

No, it isn't. It's a matter of definition.

Physical reality has an objective existence, because I (humanity) says so. Nice!

No, that's what your logic is like. What is being said to you is certainly simplistic, but it is not wrong.

So,

X* and ~X. (Where X* is not replicating all the physical processes of self-consciousness, but is merely replicating the behaviour of self-consciousness.)Is not coherent?