Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists

On 25 Mar, 17:31, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:58 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 25 Mar, 16:12, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 25, 8:20 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 25 Mar, 15:04, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

You seem to have failed to understand the response.

<Snip>

Regarding the point you did what to focus on, stick to the robot brain
in a vat when you use a human, otherwise you get all confused, as you
have your experience that what it is like to be the human affects
behaviour, that you influence behaviour based on that experience, and
you have tried to convolute this with the physicalist story, though
the two are incompatible.

All clear now?  I should think that fine batch of prose would clear
everything right up.

You are right, it could have been clearer:

Regarding the point you did want to focus on, stick to the robot brain
in a vat. Otherwise you get all confused when you use a human. As you
have your experience that what it is like to be the human affects
human behaviour, and you have tried to convolute this with the
physicalist story, though the two are incompatible.

Considerably better, although perhaps you might try something like:

"Let's stick to the example of the robot brain in a vat.  When we use
a human as our example you get confused.  You are trying to convolute
your human experience of qualia affecting your behavior with the
physicalist story, though for some reason I'm unable or unwilling to
explain the two are incompatible.  Just take my word for it."

That is, just write in a normal conversational way.  Note that it
would become even clearer if you explained what you meant by "the
physicalist story," I did not want to guess.

No you added a fabrication in at the end all of your own,

Did I?  Gosh, what a sneak I am.





I didn't
suggest anyone just take my word for it. In the piece below it that
you had snipped, before you fabricated that I was suggesting people
just take my word for it, and was offering no reason, it said:

------------------
[As shown by the issue about where conceptually a robot which didn't
show deviation from the *currently known* laws of physics was built,
and it behaved in a way indistinguishable from us, as suggesting by
Alan Turing in 'Computing Machinery and Intelligence', then
functionalists could suggest that there is a "what it is like" to be
the robot (considing "what it is like" to be linked to function),
others could suggest that there isn't and that "what it is like" is
linked to organic chemistry. Since neither side is disputing the known
laws of physics, or how the robot is built, there is no difference in
expected behaviour, between whether there was a "what it is like" to
be the robot or not, therefore if there was it couldn't be thought to
influence behaviour, as the behaviour would always be as expected if
there wasn't. If you disagree, suggest how it could be distinguished
which theory was correct, and you'll see that you can't or you think
that you would be able to, but I'll point out where you were are
mistaken. ]
------------------

That's just silly, for reasons any number of people have pointed
out.

But just out of curiousity, on what basis could a reasonably informed
person say that qualia are linked to organic chemistry?  Can you
provide the actual physical laws you are referencing here?

Unless people had looked back in the history of the conversation, they
would have been deceived by your snipping and fabrication.

Oh what a horrible person I am!  Woe to those who have read my evil
words!

I notice
that you hadn't chosen to suggest how it could be distinguished which
theory was correct if you disagreed.

For that answer, refer to your previous thread on this group.

The role you seem to set yourself here, is to encourage people not to
look at the reasoning, and resort to dishonestly fabricating things in
an attempt to discredit the reasoning, without actually coming back
with any reasoned objections to it.

No, I'm just making fun of you, with a few writing tips thrown in for
your own good.  You really need to stop taking yourself so seriously,
no one else does.


You say "That's just silly, for reasons any number of people have
pointed out."

Well use one that seems sensible to you.

As for the reason to link qualia to organic chemistry, they link it to
activities of certain physical configurations.

They make a couple of points against functionalism, not understanding
how anyone could suggest it.

The first points out where the function of an artificial neural
network would be maintained if in principle the nodes within
artificial network were separated out such that each was a mile apart
and no longer communicated by via electrical conductor but by
transmission of light signals the system would still maintain its
function. They then suggest that for a "what it is like" to be the
neural network with a first person persective to be realised, and
references to it not be purely metaphorical, a multitude of discrete
bits of information would have to be simultaneously perceived, and
that given the composition of the system in the thought experiment, it
isn't a case of implausibility of the functionalist theory, it is a
case of physical impossibility.

The second would be how a robot brain could have a first person
perspective of any objects observed by its camera eyes for example. To
highlight the issue, consider the robot brain in a vat. Whether the
processing in a robot brain in a vat with lead walls 100 miles thick
represented visual information from the input, and processing of
visual information, and outputting of a report on the visual
information to a speaker system, or whether the processing represented
auditory information from the input, and the processing of it used to
determine which fairy lights should light up, and the output being
output to a fairy light controller system, would depend on context. If
the input source was indeed some type of automated synthesiser
keyboard, and the outputs did indeed go to a fairy light controller,
then the processing did indeed represent which fairy lights would go
on based on the sound input. In other words its function was to turn
fairy lights on and off based on sound input. How could the robot
brain in a vat experience what the processing represented without the
context, and how would there be context, given the 100 mile thick lead
walls, through which the inputs and outputs were fed. There is no
means by which the perspective could have context, and as mentioned
previously there could be no placing the likelyhood of one
representation over the other, devoid of context, based on raison
d'etre of the operations on such data, without a suggestion of
purpose, which physicalism doesn't allow for. I assume that to be a
physicalist, you must have an a priori assumption that your
"perspective" of the physical world reflects the context your physical
self finds itself in. Yet as just pointed out, how could that be,
composition has no intrinsic representation or function (purpose)
devoid of context.

I do take the issues we are discussing seriously yes. They are serious
issues.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... in a vat when you use a human, otherwise you get all confused, as you ... show deviation from the *currently known* laws of physics was built, ... the robot, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... in a vat when you use a human, otherwise you get all confused, as you ... physicalist story, ... "Let's stick to the example of the robot brain in a vat. ... though for some reason I'm unable or unwilling to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... though for some reason I'm unable or unwilling to ... No you added a fabrication in at the end all of your own, ... [As shown by the issue about where conceptually a robot which didn't ... show deviation from the *currently known* laws of physics was built, ...
    (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)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... there wasn't a "what it was like" to be the robot that they would ... the laws of physics is incompatable with influential experiences. ... and claim it to be true for no reason. ...
    (talk.origins)