Re: Converstation with Jeckyl and someone about implausibility of

"Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:13g3euad6gamu9d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

"someone3" <glenn.spigel3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1191294327.320604.127560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2 Oct, 00:38, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:35:56 -0700, someone3 wrote:
On 2 Oct, 00:19, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:38:11 -0700, someone3 wrote:

<sigh>

Yes, from a physicalist perspective there would be no expected
difference in behaviour between hypothesised realities
regarding a particular mechanism, where in one hypothesised
reality it consciously
experiences and in the other it doesn't.

Really?

Can you point me to a single physicalist who believes this?
(Name and academic institution, please, with citation.)

No?

Not a single one?

Can you not understand, that neither hypothesised reality would
need to differ with regards to the *known* laws of physics. Since
the mechanism is behaving as expected given the known laws of
physics, the expectation of its behaviour won't differ between the
two hypothesised realities (the hypothesis where it is consciously
experiencing, and the hypothesis where it isn't).

I'm sorry, was that a "No, there isn't a single physicalist that
agrees with that characterization"?


Well, they might not like to face up to the implications, they tried
there best to not understand the zombie argument, and to not face the
implications, but how are you suggesting they can get out of this
one?

There is nothing to get out of .. you are not discussing actual
physicalism or actual consciousness .. it is stuff you've invented so
you can win your own argument. That is called lying and cheating.

I think of it more as inventing a game with rules set up so he'll always
win.

That in itself is not cheating and lying.

However, he keeps claiming that its a fair game. There's where the
cheating and lying comes in.

























.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... The nature of your experiences is ... The organism will follow the laws of physics by analysing the situation ... that is presented in his/her consciousness and taking ... I assume you mean the brain is structured in such a way ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... you are conceding that consciousness is physical ... yet the brain does not violate any laws of physics. ... with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective experiences ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... The nature of your experiences is ... The organism will follow the laws of physics by analysing the situation ... that is presented in his/her consciousness and taking ... I assume you mean the brain is structured in such a way ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We Robot
    ... will follow the laws of physics. ... Only if your assumption that consciousness is a non physical ... section that computes behaviour needs to factor in the experiences ... are just neural states then ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... the relevant laws of physics. ... That no knowledge of whether it had or hadn't conscious experiences ... and consciousness would affect the ...
    (talk.origins)