Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.


Ymir wrote:
In article <1157931354.441209.90460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ymir wrote:
In article <1157913777.283790.225770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ymir wrote:
In article <1157883314.617697.242360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We are presented with the physical world based upon our neural state.
The physical world is not the source of the presentation. The reason
we
are presented with a physical world with unbiased (towards Good or
Evil) rules is that the reason for the presentation is that it is a
game between God and the Devil about which it is better to be,
selfless, or selfish. Things within the presentation follow the rules
of the presentation, but the presentation allows us to make choices,
to
caste our vote if you like. Though God rewards those that follow it
with heaven.

If the physical world is not the source of our knowledge, and god
imparts some representation directly onto our brain, then why do we
have
senses? Why do we go blind if we seriously damage our eyes? Couldn't
god
continue to impart his presentation of the world onto our brains
without
requiring photons to strike our retinas? Why does he limit his visual
presentation to those things which are detectable within the fairly
limited band of the EM spectrum that our retinas are sensitive to?


Because it is just a game, and there are rules to what you are
presented with. You could look at it as though some of the rules are
effectively written in the structure of the brain itself.

This is a complete non sequitur. How does this even begin to address the
questions which I asked? Are you trying to claim that god has
established some 'rule' that even though eyes don't play any role in
perception that he's not allowed to provide us with perception unless we
have functioning eyes? If so, what possible rationale could there be
underlying such a rule, and what possible evidence could you provide to
suggest that this is actually how things work?


I thought it answered your question, it just seems like you are asking
for more detail. What are you finding hard to understand about your
experience being a translation of neural state?

What does 'it is just a game' have to do with 'translations of neural
states'? How does it being a game account for the fact that damage to
our eyes impairs our vision? You also completely fail to provide any
evidence supporting this rather peculiar view.


It means that there is a translation layer (the source) that causes
your experience based on neural state.

Some of the rules of the game are actually in the presentation itself.
For example the rules by which the physical presentation is governed,
physics and chemistry, rules about how you will experience the physical
world, in the structure of the brain.

The original post is a proof beyond reasonable doubt that the physical
world is not the source as you are suggesting.

I admit that you can say that I am saying more than what has been put
forward in the proof, and that it is unjustified. If that is how you
feel we can restrict the conversation to the original post.

What's wrong with the rules, how would you have done it?

How would I have done what? Accounted for the fact that you need eyes
for vision? Given that the retina is necessary to produce neural stimuli
in response to photons, the answer seems fairly obvious. If you
interrupt a link in the causal chain between photons and our visual
experience, visual experience will be affected.


How would you have decided on the rules by which beings experience
being an organism? Obviously you would have to be looking at it from
the same perspective as myself, but you seemed to be suggesting that
having the rules in the structure of the brain was not a good idea.
Personally I think it can be useful to be able to modify the experience
in some situations, which is possible because the rules are within the
presentation of the physical world which we can modify.

Ok, I assume that you have agreed to the debate, and that that was your
first question, which I have answered, so here is my question for you:

You haven't answered anything. I see no need to agree to any set of
rules which you might wish to impose unless you can give some compelling
reason for why they are necessary.


Well I thought they might lead to people avoiding answering questions,
which is quite different from people giving answers that the questioner
doesn't like.

Generally, a given post raises more than a single question. Asking a
single question among many will very often prevent one from getting to
the heart of the matter.


I find it makes it easier for people to get to more depth on a
particular matter, and thus the heart of the matter is reached.

Perhaps we can carry on like this, and if after say another 20 posts,
if we have made no more progress, we can try it the way I suggested,
what do you think?

Could you please answer why a robot should ever experience
consciousness without assuming your own conclusion that our brain
causes our consciousness, or if you are unable to do that, could you be
more specific about what you are suggesting the mechanism is by which
the states of different neurons are all known (to the conscious
experience) at the same time.

What I have said in the past and I will repeat here is that if an
artificial entity were created which exhibited the same range of
responses as a human we would have no reason to assume that it was
anything other than conscious. Would we know for certain? No. But then
again, I don't know for certain that other people are conscious either;
I assume that they are because they exhibit behaviour which tends to
suggest consciousness. If a robot were to exhibit such behaviours, what
reason would I have for establishing a different set of criteria for
judging it than the one which I apply to humans? Your position would
seem to make sense only if you start from the assumption that
consciousness is something which is unique to humans (or to organic
lifeforms). What basis do you have for making this assumption?

The second part of your question also fails to make sense. The states of
different neurons are not known to conscious experience. They *result*
in conscious experience, but it is certainly not the case that we are
aware of them individually. It is quite possible to be conscious without
even being aware of the existence of neurons, let alone their individual
states.

All of the details of how our neural states give rise to consciousness
are not yet completely understood. However, I would not use the absence
of a completely understood mechanism as an argument in favour of your
position unless you are actually in possession of a completely
articulated mechanism which accounts for all of the facts and which
makes concrete predictions. The claim that it is all a game played by
some divine beings hardly constitutes that.


The proof is in the original post, that the physical is not the source
of our experience, but you can't understand it.

It's not that I didn't understand it. It's that it failed to constitute
a proof for reasons which I outlined in my previous posts.


So which is the first sentance do you disagree with in the original
post? Is there anything in it we haven't defined through our
conversation so far that you need clarification on before you undertake
such a task?

It doesn't even mention
God.

Which is why I still don't understand how you would get from the
argument you laid down in your original post to anything having to do
with god.


I can see how it must be hard for you to make the link with the source
of our experience not being the physical world, beyond reasonable
doubt, and yes it is that you seem unable to follow reason.

What you are trying to do now, is show how it could even be a
coincidence.

I have never claimed that there is anything coincidental involved. Quite
the opposite.


So why was it expected?

It seems like you tried to answer the first part, but failed to give a
reason why a robot following its program would cause you to think it
was conscious.

Because it follows its program is not really an answer.

Nor is it the answer I gave.


What did your answer imply other than the robot will follow its
program?

As for your attempt at the second part, well it was more of a side step
really.

To highlight the issue, imagine the robot had four CPUs, but the
program makes it behave like a human. Which CPU is conscious, or is
there one consciousness, if there is one consciousness, then what is it
that is connecting the four CPUs simultaneously? Is it the circuit
board that is conscious. What causes it to experience. Does it metal
with a current through it experience?

This question does not make sense. This is analogous to asking of a
human being which specific neuron is the conscious one. Consciousness is
not a property of individual neurons, but of the overall organisation of
the neural system. In your robot example, the answer would be 'the robot
experiences consciousness'. This does not entail that its individual
parts all experience it, nor does it entail that consciousness can be
isolated to a single subcomponent. There will be components which
contribute to it and those which do not, but there is no necessary
reason to believe that one single component would be somehow privileged
in this regard.


You are funny,

"There will be components which contribute to it and those which do
not, but there is no necessary reason to believe that one single
component would be somehow privileged in this regard."

You talk as though you believe you know what you are talking about,
when obviously you know yourself that you haven't got a clue, and yet
you think your confident lack of understanding will convince others
that you do.

Oh one who thinks he has more understanding than God, tell us what
distinguishes between which components contribute to consciousness and
those which do not, and that it isn't that you are just an egotistical,
blasphemous, fraud.

Are you suggesting that there is some kind of energy linking the
neurons that can be experienced?

Once again I suspect that you are using the term 'energy' in some
non-standard sense which you will need to define. There will, of course,
be signals between the various neurons, and these signals will involve
energy, but not, I suspect, in the sense that you are using the term.


I just was giving you a chance to claim a physical link in a vague
term, so I could show how even that doesn't work.

Also why given that there can be no evolutionary advantage in creating
a translation layer so that the experience made sense do we not
experience the states of different neurons?

Thus far, I have not claimed that there is no evolutionary advantage to
experience, nor have I claimed that a 'translation layer' is somehow
necessary for our experiences to make sense. Having experiences which
make sense provides an extreme evolutionary advantage. Having
experiences which failed to make sense (by which I assume you mean form
a representation which bears some relation to the external world) would
probably make one considerably worse off than having no experience at
all.


So what would have happened if the universe had been organised in such
a way that the organisms were all set up the same e.g. in terms of
brain structure, but that there was no consciousness. In what way would
the behaviour differ and why?

Why is our experience divided up into senses as though it has to make
sense to us?

See above. If we didn't differentiate between our various senses, how
would we make use of the information which they provide to us? The
various senses feed into different parts of the brain, and it is
therefore not surprising that they should be experienced differently.


André

-- > use rot thirteen to email
ntvfnnx (at) tznvy.pbz


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... should assume that the robot really is experiencing consciousness, ... the human organism that I experience being appropriately. ... then given our understanding of physics and ... The whole reason we have developed such ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... should assume that the robot really is experiencing consciousness, ... the human organism that I experience being appropriately. ... then given our understanding of physics and ... The whole reason we have developed such ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... and claim it to be true for no reason. ... that consciousness arises as an emergent property of a very large ... collection of interacting neurons ... or the known laws of physics which the robot isn't ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Strong AI Thesis (No Chinese room, I promise)
    ... the entire position I'm putting forth is that the neurons firing ... requires awareness and not consciousness, ... that violates the laws of physics it would STILL be physical, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Strong AI Thesis (No Chinese room, I promise)
    ... how do neuron firings produce sound experiences? ... the entire position I'm putting forth is that the neurons firing does ... requires awareness and not consciousness, ... that violates the laws of physics it would STILL be physical, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)