Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[HypnoPsi]

No, not really
'"I" that is aware of it's own existence as a conscious being ' is a behavior, whatever you choose to define that 'I' as. It is a set of behaviors in phenomena, matter or godthink.

I don't see "I" as a behaviour or any reason why I should.

So if the p-zombie is defined as exhibiting 'all behaviors of consciousness' this includes the 'private' behaviors as well.

Why? Are you saying here that you believe objective observation can lead to your knowing something is conscious?

Really, just stop and think about it. How can a p-zombie prove that it is a p-zombie? Or not?

I couldn't care less. This is all your stuff that you need to figure out.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

I disagree entirely. Psi is extra sensory and I see no reason it's down to EM fields.

Why not, though?

I mean, we can't detect the EM fields associated with psi, but we can't detect the psi itself. So why can't the nonexistent psi be explained by nonexistent EM fields?

And by the exact same logic, Dennett's thermostat "behaviour" can be reduced to "thoughts" about 'too hot', 'too cold' and 'just right'.

Sure.

The problem is that description is not the same thing as reality.

No, it's not; it's a description of reality.

As I said earlier, I don't consider Dennett's thermostat to be conscious, merely aware. It builds descriptions of reality; that's what awareness is.

Building descriptions of oneself, self-awareness, that's what consciousness is. That's Descartes' cogito.

If you're creative enough, phenomenal objects can be described in terms of earth, air, fire and water. Still doesn't make it true. The computational theory of consciousness is a similar type of creative fiction.

No.

The computational theory of consciousness is sufficient to explain all observed aspects of consciousness, based on the observed behaviour of the brain. It makes a minimum of assumptions, while providing a maximum of explicatory power and without leading us astray with assertions of nonexistent phenomena.

Your... argument... fails here in every way it is possible to fail.

The original authors explain things much better than I do. Now, can you name a single researcher who has experimental evidence as opposed to theoretical beliefs that consciousness is nothing more than the result of cellular computation?

You mean like Koch and Ramachandran?

Oh, and there's no such thing as "theoretical beliefs". There are beliefs, and there are theories. The computational theory of consciousness is a theory, like it says on the label.

 

[HypnoPsi]

You just said the following:

P1. There is no evidence for any self-sustaining entities.

P2. There is evidence for human consciousness.

C1. Therefore there is evidence for self-sustaining universal consciousness.

1 and 2 are fine but I've never said there is evidence for a self-sustaining universal consciousness. I have no knowledge either way.

You theorize that he has memory, that he can sustain the universe, that the universal consciousness can be individuated.

No, I do not theorise that God has memory. Again, for all I know God might have just thought up the laws that are the Universe and individual consciousness and never looked back or even be aware of it in any self-conscious sense.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

You're asking us to prove that there is not something involved in consciousness over and above brain function?

No, I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you "can you name a single researcher who has experimental evidence as opposed to theoretical beliefs that consciousness is nothing more than the result of cellular computation?"

Are you also asking us to prove that there is not something involved in evolution over and above biology, or that there is not something involved in the weather over and above meteorological events?

If you can provide evidence that the Universe is self-sustaining then you would falsify the God theory.

The fact that this is not possible in practice though logically sound in principle makes things hard both ways.

But again, I've only argued that God is more parsimonious than information or matter being self-sustaining since God is predicated on consciousness and self-sustaining information/matter isn't predicated on anything.

I'm not saying the solution is perfect or that it solves all problems and leaves nothing unanswered. I agree it doesn't and that it isn't perfect. It is just that God is more parsimonious.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Thanks for showing off how blantantly moronic and dishonest your arguments are.

This here is the basic reason why I very rarely pay much attention to your posts.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I disagree entirely. Psi is extra sensory and I see no reason it's down to EM fields.

Why not, though?

Show me evidence for it and I'll believe it.

I mean, we can't detect the EM fields associated with psi, but we can't detect the psi itself. So why can't the nonexistent psi be explained by nonexistent EM fields?

Show me how you have conclusively falsified work like the Ganzfeld and Staring experiments and I'll believe you.

Now, can you name a single researcher who has experimental evidence as opposed to theoretical beliefs that consciousness is nothing more than the result of cellular computation?

You mean like Koch and Ramachandran?

Please provide your experimental evidence that computation - toaster ovens or brain cells - produce subjective experience.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[paximperium]

This here is the basic reason why I very rarely pay much attention to your posts.

~
HypnoPsi

Does it look like I care? I have zero interest in changing your mind. After reading your garbage for a few pages, it was pretty clear you're as dishonest as DOC, Radrook or Plumjam.

I have an agenda of showing how completely and utterly moronic and dishonest your arguments are. Put me on ignore for all I care. It'll just show how silly you are by repeating each and every dismantled argument. The lurkers can see all your garbage torn apart as you ignore me and keep spouting your garbage....well, maybe it may not make a difference since you seem to keep doing that anyway.

 

[PixyMisa]

I do not presume to have even the slightest idea what consciousness is.

Ah. Indeed.

Well, it's a wise man who knows what he does not know.

Start with Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach, then proceed with Wolfe's MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series. Then once you have some idea of the subject you have been arguing about for a dozen pages, we can continue.

So? I can't prove I'm conscious to anyone else either. All I know is that for me as a conscious being with no knowledge of any self-sustaining information or substance that another consciousness is the most parsimonious solution to existence.

No, you do not know that. You claim that. It is false.

 

[PixyMisa]

Show me evidence for it and I'll believe it.

I presented the evidence. Looks pretty conclusive to me.

Psi doesn't exist. EM fields relating to psi don't exist.

Perfect correlation.

Show me how you have conclusively falsified work like the Ganzfeld and Staring experiments and I'll believe you.

That's been hashed over ad nauseam in this forum, and on the science forum, and on the general skepticism forum as well. In any case, that's not how it works. You are putting forward a claim; you have to put forward the supporting evidence.

But tell you what: Pick a study you think is valid, and I'll show you why it's worthless tripe. Just one to start with. Once that's dealt with, I'll let you pick another. And so on.

Please provide your experimental evidence that computation - toaster ovens or brain cells - produce subjective experience.

What is subjective experience?

There's an aspect of memory to it, I'm sure you'll agree. Toasters can remember stuff.

There's an aspect of perception to it - direct or indirect. Toasters can peceive stuff.

There's an aspect of reasoning to it. Toasters can reason.

If those are all the aspects of subjective experience, we can safely conclude that toasters have them.

If you want to propose that there are additional aspects to subjective experience, then tell me what you think they are.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't see "I" as a behaviour or any reason why I should.

Then the ball's in your court. It's not a behaviour, you say? Well, what is it then?

Why? Are you saying here that you believe objective observation can lead to your knowing something is conscious?

Yup.

Decarte's cogito. If something - another human, a toaster, a slime mold from 61 Cygni - can reason it's way through cogito, and show its work, on what basis can we deny its self-awareness?

 

[PixyMisa]

Only because you make the same mistake a materialist makes, you assume that you know what 'consciousness' is, just as a materialist assumes they know what 'matter' is.

Nope.

Well, there are some materialists who assume that, I'll grant you. But look at what the actual materialists in this thread actually say.

They are not talking about what matter is, only what it does, only behaviours.

Maybe you don't consider such people as materialists, but that's how they label themselves, and there's gotta be a Scotsman in there somewhere.

I state in all serious, i can not prove that i am not a p-zombie. I exhibit all the behaviors of consciousness, but i can not prove that I am conscious.

P-zombies are not a coherent concept under materialism anyway.

 

[HypnoPsi]

The other claims that Rupert Sheldrake proves the existence of God.

Who has ever claimed that Rupert Sheldrake has proven God?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Who has ever claimed that Rupert Sheldrake has proven God?

Specifically? You.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Does it look like I care? I have zero interest in changing your mind. After reading your garbage for a few pages, it was pretty clear you're as dishonest as DOC, Radrook or Plumjam.

I have an agenda of showing how completely and utterly moronic and dishonest your arguments are. Put me on ignore for all I care. It'll just show how silly you are by repeating each and every dismantled argument. The lurkers can see all your garbage torn apart as you ignore me and keep spouting your garbage....well, maybe it may not make a difference since you seem to keep doing that anyway.

You know, if we can make you so miserable and raise your blood pressure that much, maybe you might actualy want to cut back on reading what we say.

But, alas, like a moth to flame...

Obviously, the real problem is that you can see the logic of our arguments and don't like it any more than you like our poking fun at all those self-aware toaster ovens you take so seriously.

Rant on.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

All I know is that for me as a conscious being with no knowledge of any self-sustaining information or substance that another consciousness is the most parsimonious solution to existence.

No, you do not know that. You claim that. It is false.

How so? Be specific.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

But tell you what: Pick a study you think is valid, and I'll show you why it's worthless tripe. Just one to start with. Once that's dealt with, I'll let you pick another. And so on.

I have no intention of spoon feeding you anything or of getting involved in another debate I'll likely not have any time to participate in from Monday onwards.

I have successfully defended the parsimonious nature of the God theory as it pertains to existence against the self-sustaining information/matter theory. That's it.

What is subjective experience?

There's an aspect of memory to it, I'm sure you'll agree. Toasters can remember stuff.

There's an aspect of perception to it - direct or indirect. Toasters can peceive stuff.

There's an aspect of reasoning to it. Toasters can reason.

If those are all the aspects of subjective experience, we can safely conclude that toasters have them.

Toasters have 1's and 0's and particular patterns of input into the mechanics/programing of the toaster results in specific sets out outputs.

That's it for toasters. They have no thoughts about said input or output or the processing that goes on inbetween.

If you want to propose that there are additional aspects to subjective experience, then tell me what you think they are.

Thoughts is a good place to start. Where is your evidence that toasters think, have qualia and subjective experience?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I don't see "I" as a behaviour or any reason why I should.

Then the ball's in your court. It's not a behaviour, you say? Well, what is it then?

Nope. I don't claim to know what the "I" is. You do. Just because I don't believe you that "I" is a behaviour I don't have to prove a negative at all.

Are you saying here that you believe objective observation can lead to your knowing something is conscious?

Yup.

Decarte's cogito. If something - another human, a toaster, a slime mold from 61 Cygni - can reason it's way through cogito, and show its work, on what basis can we deny its self-awareness?

How do you know a toaster oven can reason it's way through Decarte's cogito?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[paximperium]

You know, if we can make you so miserable and raise your blood pressure that much, maybe you might actualy want to cut back on reading what we say.

Huh? Man, what an ego. You amuse me. You're arguments are so weak that it doesn't even give me much of a challenge. I've read better pseudo-philosophy and apologist from ancient Christians.

Well, whatever makes you happy, you've created a little belief system that no one else cares about or believes, even your fellow theists. You're claims are nothing more that a philosophical punching bag; practice.

But, alas, like a moth to flame...

Yeah, can't quit looking at a car wreck. A little character flaw on my part.

Obviously, the real problem is that you can see the logic of our arguments and don't like it any more than you like our poking fun at all those self-aware toaster ovens you take so seriously.

Logic? What logic? You use it when it suits you and then throw it away when it doesn't. It is pretty interesting seeing how you twist and misuse logic and rhetoric.

I see the sad little delusion that is your arguments.
I see the dishonesty and semantic acrobatics.
I see how completely and utterly worthless of your arguments are.
I see how the rest of science progresses as little people keep to their magic thinking believing in myths and magic...oops, sorry god and psi.
I see progress in neurosciences even as you sadly attempt to wiggle away and play little games to make your delusions seem more plausible.

Happily, I really doubt you've convinced anyone with your garbage except those who are already true believers.

BTW: You making fun of the self-aware toasters is amusing since it just shows your ignorance. Keep poking fun at the toaster, I don't think it cares.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Who has ever claimed that Rupert Sheldrake has proven God?

Specifically? You.

When? Quotes please.

As far as I was aware I didn't even believe God could be proven, but on you go if you're so sure. Let's see where I've supposedly claimed this.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[rocketdodger]

I disagree entirely. Psi is extra sensory and I see no reason it's down to EM fields.

Ok, I can see why you have difficulty grasping the concepts underlying this issue. You are utterly uneducated in the relevant fields.

Neurons -- the cell thing-a-majigs in your brain -- function via electrochemistry. A signal propagating along a neuron is actually a wave of ions moving across the cell membrane powered by an electrochemical gradient that has been set up across the membrane.

So if you remove the electrochemical reactions -- by burning a guy's head off, for instance -- there will be no more consciousness. Hence consciousness is completely dependent upon electrochemical reactions.

That we have to explain this to you, when you presume to argue with us about the mechanisms of consciousness, is indicative of the quality of your arguments in this thread.

And it is the reason why I am not going to even bother trying to explain things to you anymore -- you literally do not know what you are talking about. You apparently don't even have a foundation in science that we can build on if we wanted to.