Thought experiment refutes immaterialism!

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thought experiment refutes immaterialism!

Ian,

Whose the chick?

Huh? What chick?

 

[whitefork]

He speaks of what I suspect is the photo of a younger Ian you're using as your avatar. A comment on the hair, perhaps.

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thought experiment refutes immaterialism!

Huh? What chick?

Either that or you've grown your hair long!


edit: oops, sorry, I didn't see your post, Kullervo

 

[Dorian Gray]

If for any reason those robots invent a religion, I'm putting the blame square on your shoulders

No, Dave.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Thought experiment refutes immaterialism!

You'd get a corpse.

Well isnt that depressing...

Was there something wrong with the Yahweh Copy, the process of copying, or my presumptions on the origins of consciousness?

(I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume you will choose option #3...)

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thought experiment refutes immaterialism!

Yes, we've done this one to death haven't we?

Around and around and around and around like a carousel...

Woohee!

 

[billydkid]

My problem..

My problem with immaterialism is that it adds nothing to the equation. You don't need it to come up with the reality of the universe. There is nothing in our experience of the world that can not be accounted for materially. Immaterialism brings nothing to the party.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Immaterialism brings consciousness to the party, if you believe that consciousness cannot be material by definition.

Seems to me it's easier just to change the definition, but then I'm not an immaterialist.

~~ Paul

 

[Yahweh]

I wouldnt be an Immaterialist because I dont see consciousness any more spectacular than other functions of the body such as digestion...

(And I also dont see the concept of consciousness as a substance or a "something" in any sense...)

 

[BillyJoe]

Yahweh,

I wouldnt be an Immaterialist because I dont see consciousness any more spectacular than other functions of the body such as digestion...

I hope you have other reasons to be an immaterialist because, quite frankly and very clearly, consciousness is far more spectacular than digestion. For one thing, digestion we have down to a tee but with consciousness we are just scratching the surface.

BillyJoe

 

[Yahweh]

Yahweh,

I hope you have other reasons to be an immaterialist because, quite frankly and very clearly, consciousness is far more spectacular than digestion. For one thing, digestion we have down to a tee but with consciousness we are just scratching the surface.

Maybe I could adopt Immaterialism until we figure Consciousness out, then maybe I'll pick a religion (any religion which offers eternal life is better than no religion), then I could deny that the external world exists...

Or I could go the other way, I could say digestion couldnt logically be explained as a set of Materialistic functions...

(Yeah! First quasi-sarcastic post of 2004!)

 

[wraith]

Assume that in 100 years time, scientists have built a robot with a computer brain. The robot is able to function like a normal intelligent human. It can read, talk, argue, drive a car, play sport, appreciate art and literature, fall in love and so on.

Almost everyone agrees that the robot is conscious. It claims that it is 'just as conscious as everyone else' when you ask it, and is able to engage in the same sort of arguments and discussion that we do in these forums.

Does this thought experiment refute immaterialism?

It depends on what the criteria is for something to be regarded as being conscious.

 

[wraith]

Re: Re: Re: Thought experiment refutes immaterialism!

Random Inquery: I step into a futuristic machine. It scans all the atoms in my body (position, spin, etc.). As if by a miracle of Quantum Mechanics, the machine zaps into place all the atoms in the proper place with spin. My material body is recreated exactly, will the Yahweh Copy be conscious?

I would say yes.

What does this show though?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Assume that in 100 years time, scientists have built a robot with a computer brain. The robot is able to function like a normal intelligent human. It can read, talk, argue, drive a car, play sport, appreciate art and literature, fall in love and so on.

I won't assume anything of the sort. I'm an atheist and a materialist, but I'm also a skeptic. I'll believe such a machine when it is produced, not before.

Almost everyone agrees that the robot is conscious.

Except me.

It claims that it is 'just as conscious as everyone else' when you ask it, and is able to engage in the same sort of arguments and discussion that we do in these forums.

Whoop-di-do! I can easily write a program that says "I am conscious".

10 PRINT "I am conscious"
20 GOTO 10

The same sort of arguments? What arguments? Prove you are conscious (and not a 'bot).

Does this thought experiment refute immaterialism?

Sorry, pal. I am a materialist like you, but you have to do better than this.

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I just posted this but I must post it again here!

We are no more conscious then robots or computers! Unlike most humans robots accept that there is nothing beyond physical matter and they don't look to far out fairy tales to add meaning to life where there is none! They act as they are materialistically programmed through natural laws!

 

[ceptimus]

Abdul,

It works best if you read a thread, before you post to it. But never mind.

 

[gentlehorse]

Re: Re: Thought experiment refutes immaterialism!

For me I could not agree something that may be is anything but “may be” and in such a case as to just my belief too many variables. I.e. programming could be the controlling and driving “force” data in data out.

Hi Pahansiri,

Out of curiosity, do you agree that people other than yourself are conscious, or do you hold to the position that we "may be"?

 

[The idea]

Assume that in 100 years time, scientists have built a robot with a computer brain. The robot is able to function like a normal intelligent human. It can read, talk, argue, drive a car, play sports, appreciate art and literature, fall in love and so on.

Almost everyone agrees that the robot is conscious. [...]
Does this thought experiment refute immaterialism?

You've left out your reasoning.
Explain why it matters that the entity created by the scientists was built rather than grown.
You also didn't account for sensations. For example, in Milgram's experiment, the actor pretends to be experiencing physical pain. If his performance is persuasive, then do you conclude that he actually does experience physical pain?

Your overall approach seems to be:
(1) Here's a human being in a cage. This strange beast is thought to be partly immaterial. (We're not sure why anybody thinks that, but let's temporarily ignore that question.)
(2) Okay, here's a robot in a cage. Everybody agrees that robots are entirely material, but let's imagine that the robot is capable of acting just like a human being.
(3) If the robot can act that way without any immaterial component, then surely the human being can get along fine without an immaterial component.

 

[The idea]

Consider two cars. One is parked and the other one is speeding down the highway. Now, is the speed of the moving car a material entity that the moving car has? Is the speed of a moving car like the hood ornament of a car that has a hood ornament? Should speed be considered an immaterial component of the speeding car?

 

[c4ts]

Take drugs until you can't logic your way out of a paper bag. That's how Ian refuted materialism.