Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution

In article <1187974051.595860.28170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
someone2 <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 24 Aug, 16:15, Ymir <y...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1187920960.663316.264...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,





someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24 Aug, 02:45, Ymir <y...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1187880543.133892.32...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
First of all, as I said, I'd like to discuss the situation with a
robot. The reason being is that you admit, that the situation with the
robot if it were to be consciously experiencing, would be the same as
the situation with the human.

My argument with regards to the robot, doesn't rest on any hidden
assumptions.

We haven't yet got to discussing whether they were right or wrong to
not believe the story. Currently we are at the stage of getting you to
admit some basic truths to yourself.

You have admitted that the robots behaviour can be explained in terms
of the node interactions.

Yes, and this includes its conscious experiences.

So the theists could explain the robots
behaviour in terms of the node interactions.

Yes. Whether they are theists are not is irrelevant.

This is a simple point
that you have admitted. Why would they need to believe the story that
it was consciously experiencing when they can explain its behaviour
simply in terms of the node interactions?

Because the node interactions describe consciousness. The fact that it
can be explained in terms of node interactions is not a grounds for
denying that it is conscious.

Can you see that they can
explain the behaviour whilst not believing the story, whether they
were right or wrong to do so (not believe the story) is another
matter.

If your point is simply that people are capable of holding false
beliefs, then yes, we have ample evidence of that from reading your
posts, and I don't think anyone has ever denied this.

Now how about answering my questions about people?

Why are you so keen NOT to go through the reasoning?

I've actually gone through the reasoning with you many times. However,
on all occasions you seem adamant that everyone should accept your
conclusion, and yet you refuse to answer any of the questions asked of
you -- does it not occur to you that the reason we are asking these
questions is not necessarily to divert you from your argument, but
rather to clarify exactly what your position is, and that often will
involve moving away from your extremely narrow focus on the robot. The
reason I want you to answer questions regarding neural stimulation,
brain damage, synesthesia, etc., is because it will help me to get a
better idea of *why* you hold the particular beliefs you do, both
regarding your robot and people. If you refuse to address the various
objections which have been presented to you in this thread regarding
your position, it should come as no shock to you that people won't
simply accept your argument based on the number of times you repeat it.
You have not, after all, presented any new evidence or new examples
since this thread begun.





You don't seem to be able to come to terms with the simple point, that
they could explain the behaviour of the robot, the same as they could
any other machine. They could even show a causal trace on the robot
totally explaining its behaviour. You can claim it is consciously
experiencing if you like, like you said, people are capable of holding
false beliefs. They don't have to believe your story though, they can
explain its behaviour without it, same as they can explain a mobile
phones behaviour. The only reason you choose to believe it was
consciously experiencing is because you believe we are simply a
biological machine. If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be
thinking it was consciously experiencing either. You could still
explain its behaviour though, as you'd know how the machine worked.

You seem to be living in denial of the fact that they obviously could
explain how the machine worked, in order to cling to your perspective,
which is implausible by the way, and you'd see that if you stopped
denying simple obvious truths.

If the "truth" you are getting at is so simple and obvious, then why are
you the only one here who seems to grasp it? You seem to have a rather
different conception of what the word 'obvious' means than I do.

I think that what you are getting hung up on is our lack of a first
person perspective with respect to your robot. The problem is that we
lack such a perspective regarding *every* entity on this planet other
than ourselves.

The only one I can assert with absolute certainty is actually
experiencing consciousness is myself. I do not know with absolute
certainty that you or anyone else in this thread has such experiences.
Nor do I know it with respect to cats, hypothetical robots, or anything
else.

However, I infer that other people whom I have met do indeed have such
experiences because they behave in a way which would be pretty much
impossible to explain without attributing to them the same mental states
which I have, e.g. beliefs, desires, goals, fears, etc. Now these aren't
exactly the same thing as qualia, but qualia lie at the foundation of
things like fears and desires for example (i.e. experiences of pain and
pleasure).

Now, having observed that other people (as well as other animals) have
behaviours which seem to require the existence of such states to account
for, it would be rather unparsimonious for me to assert that they lack
conscious experiences similar to my own.

Would you think it is reasonable of me to assert that, because the
behaviour of other people (including their mental states) can be
explained simply in terms of physical laws (which they can, despite your
assertions to the contrary -- unless you are willing to provide an
example of some human behaviour which actually violates physical laws,
your assertion has no merit), that the physical mechanism provides a
sufficient explanation for their behaviour without asserting that they
are consciously aware (or, more radically, with the assertion that they
are *not* consciously aware), that other people do not in fact have
experiences parallel to my own?

If you don't subscribe to this particular brand of solipsism, then it is
rather difficult for anyone to fathom why you would not apply the same
reasoning to any other entity (be it cat, robot, or whatever) whose
behaviour was also dependent on the existence of intensional states.
Such inconsistent evidentiary standards suggests that all you are really
interested in is some sort of ad-hoc justification for why people are
somehow "special".

Looking through history, pretty much every example of such ad-hoc
justifications have ultimately proven to be nonsensical. Why do you
think that this particular one should be viewed in a different light?


Well because we are spiritual beings experiencing being humans.

Evidence?

You
don't have to believe that. Though your argument is weak anyway.

Weak how? Certainly no weaker than yours.

Even
as a physicalist, you wouldn't know that it wasn't something special
about organic chemistry that resulted in conscious experiences. Just
because you can't think of anything special about organic chemistry,
you have chosen to believe there are "special" configurations. That
when these configurations are made, the physical has conscious
experiences based upon what the configuration represented.

Well, even you must concede that the configuration is relevant. Or are
you suggesting that petroleum, plastic, candle wax, and other organic
compounds are also conscious?

Regardless, you are living in denial if you think the robot can't be
explained in the the same terms as a mobile phone.

Mechanistically, yes. In the same terms, no -- unless you are suggesting
that this robot also can be used to make phone calls.

They could even
have a causal trace, showing all the node interactions. They could
show you that if they changed the node configuration, it would behave
differently. So they could change the configuration so it behaved in a
way unlike a human, and explain it, and then change it back to the
configuration that made it act like a human being, and explain it in
exactly the same way. So the way it is behaving is just down to the
configuration.

Now, this is specifically why I asked my earlier questions regarding
neural stimulation, brain damage, synesthesia, etc. If you rewire the
human brain, it ends up acting differently. How is this different from
what you are saying about the robot? Why not try answering some
questions for a change?

They wouldn't be believing your story that the
configuration that made it behave like a human being was a "special"
configuration, that suddenly make it have conscious experiences.

It's "special" in the same sense that any other configuration of
physical mechanisms is "special". If you want something to exhibit
locomotion, or mobile-phone-like-behaviour, or whatever, the mechanism
must be arranged in a particular way. Not every physical system is
conscious anymore than every physical system is a mobile phone.

Its
just a simple fact you have problems coming to terms with because of
the story you believe in, but like it or not, they could explain the
robot, the same as they could explain any other machine. Once you get
over this denial period you're in, I'll go on to show you why the
story you believed in was implausible.

OK -- Why don't you simply lay out the rest of the argument -- I haven't
accepted your claim, but you could still lay out the remainder of it
here -- i.e. if one accepts X, then Y is implausible because of Z...

Why not simply present your complete thesis (backed up by arguments, of
course) rather than bogging down in this one initial claim of yours.
Show us where and how you plan on taking this...

Andre

--
use rot thirteen to email
ntvfnnx@xxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... interactions would be different if the robot was not experiencing. ... and had nodal interactions that correlated with conscious experiences, ... consciousness is part of those interactions. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... robot', as it would strictly follows the laws of physics,if ... it had any experience of being a robot, ... possible to describe conscious experiences and their effects in physical ... or not the robot is conscious, you cannot say whether consciousness ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... robot', as it would strictly follows the laws of physics,if ... it had any experience of being a robot, ... possible to describe conscious experiences and their effects in physical ... or not the robot is conscious, you cannot say whether consciousness ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
    ... subjective conscious experiences don't influence behaviour. ... configuration, which drove a robot. ... the single node in the lab was not influenced by consciousness, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Evil) rules is that the reason for the presentation is that it is ... physics and chemistry, rules about how you will experience the physical ... causes our consciousness, or if you are unable to do that, could you ... If a robot were to exhibit such behaviours, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading