Re: We Robot

On Sep 23, 5:35 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 23 Sep, 23:23, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sep 23, 2:47 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

You may have noticed that this was highlighted in
the paragraph that preceded them:

--------------
To help us investigate we shall construct potential stories which fall
with a general category that assumes that something that does
consciously experience could have its behaviour described in terms of
the same laws of physics that would describe the behaviour of
something that doesn't.

Good grief.

Damn few people think that consciousness doesn't affect behavior.
That's the *purpose* of consciousness; to move an organism about in
the environment and otherwise behave in ways that enhance it's
reproductive success. This is a strawman.

Nor are there many people who think that behavior of intelligent
creatures is explicable in terms of physics. My wife's degree is in
psychobiology; behavior is partially explainable by chemistry. Much is
not. Being *subject to physics (as everything is) doesn't mean that
physics should be used to try to explain it. This si as least one
fallacy, but I'm not sure which.

As you did months ago, you construct an imaginary world with your
conditions true by definition, then "conclude" that your conditions
are necessary and true. Begging the question.

Is your turgid prose a device to hide your weak arguments from us, or
from yourself?

If you point out which bits you are having trouble understanding I
will try to help you out.

The paper shows that that the suggestion that something that does
consciously experience could have its behaviour described in terms of
the same laws of physics that would describe the behaviour of
something that doesn't, is implausible.

I agree that it is implausible that:
Physics can be used to explain behavior.

It's not clear what you are trying to say.

If you are claiming that physicalists would typically insist that a
conscious entity and a non-conscious entity can be identical, no they
would not. I don't know of any who would say so, altho there may be
some. It is the dualist who would say this. You are using your
intended conclusion as a premiss.

If the mind is one characteristic of physical events (e.g. if the mind
and brain activity are one and the same),
then a conscious entity cannot be physically identical to a non-
conscious entity.

If you think that mind can be independent of physical activities, then
please present evidence for it.

Thought experiments which assume your conclusion do not establish
anything.

If you agree then fine, if you
disagree then feel free to point out where the conclusions drawn in
the paper were wrong. Feel free to point out where the strawman
argument is in the paper, or where it begs the question, or where
there is any other fallacy.

Try shorter, simpler, sentences. The one I responded to above has
several implicit assumptions interwoven in a confusing manner. To wit:
Few people suggest that the science of physics can explain the mind.
Meteorology does not explain snake venom, nor does archaeology explain
the cold snap last spring that killed several plants in my garden.

Physicalists do not typically suggest that people and mindless zombies
would be physically identical. If they did suggest this, they would be
dualists of some sort.

Any science (e.g. psychobiology) which would be sufficient to explain
a person's behavior would not say that consciousness played no role in
his behavior. Nor would it claim that a conscious person and a
mindless zombie were physically identical. Nor that a mindless person
(e.g. comatose) would *have any significant behavior. You cannot claim
they would say otherwise and then "proceed" to prove they are wrong.

If you think that psychobiology cannot explain the mind in principle,
then it is up to you to provide evidence for that claim. As it is, the
brain sciences are learning more and more about how this all works,
and there is no reason to think that there is any ultimate limit to
its explanatory power.

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The definition of consciousness
    ... >> Perhaps consciousness is a real phenomenon? ... > underlying degree of this uncertainty is, in the mind of the proposer. ... Event-related skin conductance responses to musical emotions in humans. ... There are other aspects of physics that should be further investigated for a ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... 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: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... physics, need not be composed of particles to be considered material. ... The activity in the brain is composed of balanced reactions, ... Our consciousness is the pattern of brain activity developed by ... they have faith in philosophical materialism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Identity Theory of Mind
    ... The granularity (biochemical, electrical, ... So is classical physics. ... >>underyling sublime from which dualism and other ... >>mathematics, paradox, religion, consciousness itself). ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... given that the laws of physics make no direct reference to ... consciousness, then consciousness must ultimately follow from those ... things which physics does make direct reference to. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading