Materialists......

[Belz...]

Yes. I don't think you understand the point of the zombie argument, or how it works, or why it eventually self-destructs, or what it ends up suggesting even though it doesn't actually work.

Perhaps I don't.

However, what I said was :

"No, really. Evolution is falsifiable. This means there POSSIBLY exist beasties that we could find that could completely invalidate the theory. But the mere fact that they're physically possible doesn't mean they exist. Get it ?"

Do you agree with that assesment ?

 

[Belz...]

Apologies, I should have clarified here. I didn't mention this in reference to the p-zombie argument, but rather, to the starkly deterministic proclamations of Belz, Mercutio, et al, who insist that they are little more than "meat-machines."

Sorry, man. I simply call it the way I see it. Once you get evidence for the existence of the soul or karma or whatever, let me know.

 

[Mercutio]

Apologies, I should have clarified here. I didn't mention this in reference to the p-zombie argument, but rather, to the starkly deterministic proclamations of Belz, Mercutio, et al, who insist that they are little more than "meat-machines." [Edit- though I suppose this could also have bearing on the p-zombie.]

Heh...unless you suppose that quantum mechanics influences people differently than other arrangements of particles, the meat machine metaphor still works.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't think quantum fluctuations have much influence on the macroscopic world.

And creationist don't think micro-evolution implies macro-evoluition. However, they can't draw the line between them, and you can't draw the line between the microscopic and macroscopic world.

There is only one world. Unus Mundus.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Perhaps I don't.

However, what I said was :

"No, really. Evolution is falsifiable. This means there POSSIBLY exist beasties that we could find that could completely invalidate the theory. But the mere fact that they're physically possible doesn't mean they exist. Get it ?"

Do you agree with that assesment ?

No. Even finding a pink Unicorn tomorrow would fail to invalidate evolution, because it would still be the best explanation for the origin of all the other species.

However, evolution is indeed falsifiable. But this hasn't got anything to do with this debate. Falsifiability is a failed criterion for defining science. This is metaphysics.

 

[Beerina]

1) Subjective experiences feel/look/smell/sound like something (anyone dumb enough to deny this one?).
2) Nobody has ever felt/seen/smelled/heard a brain process (and don't try to deny this one either, two people in this thread just suggested it themselves - it did not come from me).
3) Therefore there is a fundamental way to distinguish between these two "things", even if in some way or other they can also be considered to ultimately be "the same thing".
4) Anybody who denies 1,2 or 3 has got something seriously wrong with them.

We might ultimately end up in a situation as follows:

Advanced scientist pokes/floods chemicals at 13,000 well-defined points in a person's brain. Person reports a sensation of a red flower. Then what?

We do have a problem -- we still have not explained how the sensation "in the mind" arises out of (what appears to be) physical processes out there. For all we know, the physical process is just a reporting process to some other type of realm with completely different physics (which is why I reject calling it a spiritual realm -- a spirit realm, whatever that is, would operate according to its own, scientifically-discernable, rules.)



Francis Crick suggests it's time for scientists to take the first step. Begin looking for the NCC, the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Map that out, and only then we can begin to draw theories as to what's going on. Prior to that, it's all pointless philosophical speculation.


If people are denying 3, they are missing the point. Yes, consciousness may arise out of this physical process (and I think almost certainly does) but that does not imply the essence of experience is the same as stuff "out there". Clearly there are other building blocks used to construct consciousness, and we don't understand those whatsoever.

 

[hammegk]

I think you might have it reversed. It is the choice of monisms (or escape, as you say, to dualism) that is irrelevant.

I notice you haven't posted "I, Mercutio, am 100% certain god and/or free will do not exist". How do you explain the slight possibility remaining in your worldview?

I have no problem in mine.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

We might ultimately end up in a situation as follows:

Advanced scientist pokes/floods chemicals at 13,000 well-defined points in a person's brain. Person reports a sensation of a red flower. Then what?

Then you've got a person who is experiencing a red flower, you've got his report that he is experiencing a red flower, and you've got 13,000 bits of data about what is going on his brain.

We do have a problem -- we still have not explained how the sensation "in the mind" arises out of (what appears to be) physical processes out there.

Correct. You haven't touched the problem that matters.

For all we know, the physical process is just a reporting process to some other type of realm with completely different physics (which is why I reject calling it a spiritual realm -- a spirit realm, whatever that is, would operate according to its own, scientifically-discernable, rules.)

Erm.....not if we are the person doing the reporting. In that case, you also have the direct experiencing the redness of the flower.

Francis Crick suggests it's time for scientists to take the first step. Begin looking for the NCC, the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Map that out, and only then we can begin to draw theories as to what's going on. Prior to that, it's all pointless philosophical speculation.

Wrong. We have already granted, for the purpose of the argument, that we can establish a perfect set of neural correlates for consciousness. At this point, we are still in exactly the same position that we are right now. We are not one millimetre closer to explaining why there are two correlates.

If people are denying 3, they are missing the point. Yes, consciousness may arise out of this physical process (and I think almost certainly does) but that does not imply the essence of experience is the same as stuff "out there".

There's plenty of people denying 3. Paul alternatively denies it and accepts it. Mercutio claims there aren't even correlates because minds don't exist.

Clearly there are other building blocks used to construct consciousness, and we don't understand those whatsoever.

I don't think there are any building blocks for consciousness, physical or otherwise. Such a position sounds like panspychism, which, IMO, suffers from an inverted mind-body problem. All there is is a brain process and a mystery ingredient to explain the apparent duality. You do not need any new building blocks because all of the complexity and information required for conscious experience is there in the brain process. All that is missing is some explanation of why there are two correlates/perspectives on the same set of building blocks.

 

[I less than three logic]

I notice you haven't posted "I, Mercutio, am 100% certain god and/or free will do not exist". How do you explain the slight possibility remaining in your worldview?

I have no problem in mine.

You still don't seem to understand that one can accept the possibility that their worldview may be incorrect after all. To be 100% certain that you are correct requires a sense of arrogance that I do not possess. So while I may hold that god and/or free will is 100% impossible if my worldview is correct. I don't hold that I am 100% certain my worldview is correct, and therefore, can not have 100% certainty that god and/or free will do not exist. If you don't understand why this is so, perhaps you should review some basic probability and pay particular attention sections about conditional probabilities.

 

[Mercutio]

I notice you haven't posted "I, Mercutio, am 100% certain god and/or free will do not exist". How do you explain the slight possibility remaining in your worldview?

I have no problem in mine.

Nearly 30 years ago, I would have had no problem saying "I am 100% certain that God exists."

Being 100% certain is not the same thing as being right.

If I am right, god and free will do not exist. Personal experience prohibits me from saying I am 100% certain I am right. Frankly, it should do the same for you.


....or....what I<3logic just said...

 

[Belz...]

And creationist don't think micro-evolution implies macro-evoluition. However, they can't draw the line between them, and you can't draw the line between the microscopic and macroscopic world.

There is only one world. Unus Mundus.

Point taken. I was just drawing from memory something that another JREFer said about the subject.

I'm still not sure if quantum fluctuations have ANY effect.

 

[Belz...]

No. Even finding a pink Unicorn tomorrow would fail to invalidate evolution, because it would still be the best explanation for the origin of all the other species.

However, evolution is indeed falsifiable. But this hasn't got anything to do with this debate. Falsifiability is a failed criterion for defining science. This is metaphysics.

That wasn't my question: do you admit that there ARE fossils that COULD be found that, IF they were found, WOULD invalidate evolution ?

Do you admit that those fossils ARE possible, physically, conceptually and logically ?

Does that mean that evolution is wrong ? No. Because those fossils may not be ACTUALLY possible.

Is that a good analogy to your p-zombie syllogism ? You tell me.

 

[hammegk]

You still don't seem to understand that one can accept the possibility that their worldview may be incorrect after all. To be 100% certain that you are correct requires a sense of arrogance that I do not possess.

You are wrong. You are another person who chooses (interesting word, that) to accept a worldview that is illogical at less than that 100% certainty, assuming you would classify yourself as a wannabe materialist.

The part less than the full 100% needs to explained. Dualism, illogical as it is, is the unthinking man's fallback, either admittedly or tacitly, if he otherwise accepts materialism as his worldview.

So while I may hold that god and/or free will is 100% impossible if my worldview is correct. I don't hold that I am 100% certain my worldview is correct, and therefore, can not have 100% certainty that god and/or free will do not exist.

Choose (that word again) which illogical worldview you accept. And also note that idealism does not have the same problem, since at heart it is "free will", or "intent", call it what you will.

Or, have the courage to actually assert your 100% position. It is logically defensible.

If you don't understand why this is so, perhaps you should review some basic probability and pay particular attention sections about conditional probabilities.

ROTFLMGDAO! Thanks for nothing.

....or....what I<3logic just said...

You are free (perhaps? ) to choose to accept as "truth", and defend, whatever illogical and indefensible pap that strikes your current fancy.

 

[Belz...]

I notice you haven't posted "I, Mercutio, am 100% certain god and/or free will do not exist". How do you explain the slight possibility remaining in your worldview?

I have no problem in mine.

Typical. Both 100% and <100% are, by definition, impossible under your philosophy. So why don't we simply drop this line of argument.

 

[Belz...]

All there is is a brain process and a mystery ingredient to explain the apparent duality.

For the benefit of those new to the thread, let me repeat that I see no such apparent duality, and that, even if there were apparent duality, it wouldn't entail anything about its actuality.

 

[hammegk]

Typical. Both 100% and <100% are, by definition, impossible under your philosophy.

Where did I say that? Hint: I didn't.

So why don't we simply drop this line of argument.

If we only talked about things you seem to understand, it would be a short conversation, huh?

 

[Robin]

So, to recap, the problem with the p-zombie "proof" is that it has a hidden assumption that there are p-zombies. Not that it assumes its conclusion. If we remove this assumption, the inconsistency vanishes. Also, then we can't conclude that consciousness is not physical.

Oh, by the way, I apologise for the tone I took about you earlier. Too much coffee.

Anyway, what we all seem to be missing is that we already have a candidate zombie. There is no need for conceivability or logical possibility arguments.

Just take a normal conscious human being and let p-zombie refer to every characteristic of that person except for their consciousness.

In other words if there is a set {a₀,a₁,a₂,...,a_n} then there is by definition a subset {a₁,a₂,...,a_n}

No?

So all that is required to demonstrate that a zombie exists is to hypothesise that a conscious being exists with physical characteristics.

So if the logic is sound then it can be proved that consciousness is not physical.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

And creationist don't think micro-evolution implies macro-evoluition. However, they can't draw the line between them, and you can't draw the line between the microscopic and macroscopic world.

There is only one world. Unus Mundus.

You misunderstand. Your analogy is flawed because "microevolution" IS "macroevolution" (in small parts) when talking about evolution. They all stack up to produce situations that would not otherwise occur if evolution was false. However, quantum mechanics is pretty much fully equivalent with other theories in describing the macroscopic world (pretty much meaning that part of it that isn't complete). Unlike micro to macro, which stacks, quantum to macro is a cancelling effect. All the quantum events, at least as I understand it, seem to cancel out to classical effects in the macro world. Micro makes it's presence KNOWN in macro evolution. Quantum seems to hide itself FROM the macro world.

And saying catchy things like "unus mundus" doesn't mean much. Yeah there's "only one world" but we can only say that because the evidence seems to indicate that, and that's it. What I'm getting at is this. Everything we've seen about the brain, that is, the interactions, is on a macroscopic scale. At this scale, nothing about the brain could possibly be affected by quantum irregularities. Anything quantum that did happen at that scale would, by definition, be very uncommon and the brain simply would not be designed to deal with that. If anything it is more likely to do harm than to provide some subtle unexplained thing.

And why exactly would this only apply to the brain? Why wouldn't it apply to everything else in the universe? I ask only because the brain is NOT operating on a quantum scale, that is to say none of the pathways, the means by which a brain seems to work, operate on a quantum scale. If the source of conciousness is random background quantum effects that the brain isn't even designed to detect or deal with, then why wouldn't this apply to other systems? You might as well say that there's a possibility of a computer suddenly gaining some other magical quality, or maybe an entire new program, due to quantum effects. In both cases, despite how small components have gotten, they aren't nearly small enough, nor do they work with, quantum events.

So in other words the idea that somehow a complete model of quantum physics will yield some sort of answer is silly. And, by the way, the observer's role in a lot of quantum physics seems to be incidental and there's some pretty good models in place to eliminate that role altogether. It's just math. If they could make a good mathematical model involving the fat content of KFC buckets O' chicken they'd use it all the same but there's no reason to get all philosophical about the role of chicken weight. It's a model of convenience.

 

[I less than three logic]

You are wrong.

How so? Care to explain how it is wrong, or do you expect your mere assertion to hold?

You are another person who chooses (interesting word, that) to accept a worldview that is illogical at less than that 100% certainty, assuming you would classify yourself as a wannabe materialist.

The part less than the full 100% needs to explained. Dualism, illogical as it is, is the unthinking man's fallback, either admittedly or tacitly, if he otherwise accepts materialism as his worldview.

The less then the full 100% can be explained, and it doesn't have to be dualism. You false dichotomy is getting old. I am simply willing to allow the possibility that your view (or Geoff's or some other) is correct. Is your worldview dualism? If not, then why do you continually insist that materialism and dualism are the only choices?

Choose (that word again) which illogical worldview you accept. And also note that idealism does not have the same problem, since at heart it is "free will", or "intent", call it what you will.

Or, have the courage to actually assert your 100% position. It is logically defensible.

Being willing to admit you may be mistaken excludes one from asserting their position with 100% certainty. I'm not sure why you don't understand this. Do you consider your opinion on the subject infallible? If not, then you can't claim 100% either.

ROTFLMGDAO! Thanks for nothing.

Rolling around laughing and getting dirty won't help you learn anything.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That wasn't my question: do you admit that there ARE fossils that COULD be found that, IF they were found, WOULD invalidate evolution?

You have a reverse zombie situation here. Conceptually, yes. In reality, no.

Do you admit that those fossils ARE possible, physically, conceptually and logically ?

Not in reality. For similarly inductive reasons that one provides cumulative empirical evidence against the actual possibility of zombies, you could argue that we would never actually find such fossils.

Does that mean that evolution is wrong ? No. Because those fossils may not be ACTUALLY possible.

No. But this is not a valid comparison to the p-zombie argument. I understand why you are asking these questions, but they are not relevant in the way that you think they are. You are assuming that the consciousness problem is no different to a normal empirical problem. That is not an assumption I will allow to stand. Therefore, the comparison fails anyway.

Is that a good analogy to your p-zombie syllogism ? You tell me.

No. The zombie question straddles the objective/subjective split. The questions you are raising about evolution are purely objective/empirical. In effect, you are still assuming your conclusion. Your comparison only works if consciousness is physical.