Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists

On Mar 31, 10:58 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 31 Mar, 00:09, Sonofagunzel <soas...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 28, 11:35 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:01 am, Sonofagunzel <soas...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:26 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 27, 8:06 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 27 Mar, 23:55, Sonofagunzel <soas...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 27, 11:24 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 27 Mar, 00:15, Sonofagunzel <soas...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 27, 10:55 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 26 Mar, 22:38, Sonofagunzel <soas...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 26, 1:41 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 26 Mar, 00:44, Sonofagunzel <soas...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

I'm not talking about you having complete physical knowledge. The
question was about a robot following the known laws of physics. The
complete physical knowledge reference was earlier in relation to the
physicalist story we are examining, not the situation in the robot
thought experiment. You seem to be getting confused, and conflating
the two.

So if conceptually a robot which didn't show deviation from the 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 there would be no experiment to distinguish
between the two theories.

Again, even in this paragraph, you assume that it is possible to have
two indistinguishable but different physical theories. How is that
not a contradiction in terms? Without that contradiction, your
argument fails.

No response?

<snip>

They are different theories regarding the reality of the situation,
whether there is a first person perspective or not. You can hardly
suggest they are saying the same thing.

I can, and I am.

One theory explains behaviour without resort to consciousness. The
elemental particles in the robot behave according to the laws of
physics.

The other theory says that the robot has conscious experience.

The two are not inconsistent.

They aren't disagreeing about the known laws of physics, or the build
of the machine, they are disagreeing about whether function is
responsible for a first person perspective or the activity of certain
configurations in organic chemistry.

*If* they are disagreeing about what causes first person perspective,
then they must be disagreeing about physics, unless they are
disagreeing about something non-physical. But that would be assuming
your conclusion.

What you don't seem to be able to cope with is that a suggestion that
it could have a first person perspective, is a suggestion that having
a first person perspective makes no difference to behaviour. It's not
like the functionalists would have expected it to have behaved any
differently if their theory was wrong and it didn't have a first
person perspective.

You jump from the proposition that the functionalists don't need to
reference consciousness to explain behaviour, to the conclusion that
the robot would behave the same whether or not it had one. That
doesn't follow.

That is like saying that because the functionalists don't need to
reference the fact that the robot is a robot to explain behavior, the
robot would behave the same even if it wasn't a robot.

One theory is saying the robot has conscious experiences, the other is
saying it hasn't, that the first theory is wrong. Can you just not
face it or something?

*If* the theories are inconsistent, then the two theories are either:
(a) disagreeing about physical matters, which eliminates the
contradiction on which your argument depends, which causes your
argument to disappear; or
(b) disagreeing about something non-physical, which assumes your
conclusion.

You are simply assuming the first possibility away, without
justification.

One is saying that the first person perspective is linked to function.

The other is saying that it is linked to certain configurations of
organic chemistry.

Both groups are physicalists. So they are disagreeing about physical
matters, about which physical matters are responsible for a first
person perspective. They aren't disagreeing about the known laws of
physics, or the build of the robot though.

This has been going on for a while now, is it really that you don't
understand it, or that you are just desperately looking for a way out
so you don't have to face it?

*If* they aren't disagreeing about the laws of physics *and* they
aren't disagreeing about the build of the robot, in what sense *could*
they disagreeing about something physical?

They are both physicalists, and so whether the first person
perspective is linked to function, or activity of certain organic
chemistry configurations is a question regarding the physical reality
is it not?

That would be disagreeing about the laws of physics. Do the laws of
physics say that FPP may only be generated by organic chemistry, or do
they not say it?

They are in disagreement about whether the robot has a
first person perspective or not, are you suggesting this is not a
disagreement about something physical?

If they are in agreement about all the physical things, but not about
FPP, then logically FPP can't be physical. So you're either assuming
your conclusion or they're disagreeing about the laws of physics, take
your pick.

You took the words right out of my ... um ... keyboard.-

Sorry, I should have let you hold your own argument. I was bored, so
I butted in.

No apology necessary. It saved me the trouble of typing it.

A reply from someone2 would be nice, though.

They are in agreement about the known laws of physics. Not about what
it is about the physical that is responsible for an FPP.

Are you saying that they (think they) are in disagreement about the
*unknown* laws of physics?

Let me run you through some questions.

Only if you answer mine at the same time.

Do you agree to:

(1) In principle if a party were to assume a certain build of
mechanism would follow the known laws of physics, that they will be
expecting it to behave in a certain way

Restating your question, you asking me if I agree with the following
formula:

"certain build" + "laws of physics" = "certain behavior"

There are several unstated assumptions in your question. For example:
* that there are no random elements in play
* that there are no unknown laws of physics in play
* that there are no emergent properties in play, or that they are
predicable from the behavior of the components parts of the system
* that the *known* laws of physics are enough to formulate an expected
behavior
* the party's application or understanding the known laws is not
mistaken

Subject to those assumptions being true, I agree with your statement.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Significance (contd)
    ... robot build following the same laws of physics as things that it isn't ... built following the same laws of physics as a microwave oven. ... expect the toaster to exhibit Y, am I claiming simply that the same laws ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Significance (contd)
    ... robot build following the same laws of physics as things that it isn't ... built following the same laws of physics as a microwave oven. ... expect the toaster to exhibit Y, am I claiming simply that the same laws ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
    ... experiencing" on such a robot, because of the behaviour it displayed? ... are simply be mechanisms following the laws of physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.physics)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.space.policy)