(May 10, 2012 at 1:34 pm)Chuck Wrote: Both parts of this statement is nonsensical. Mass and charge are not properties of reality. Reality has existed as a perception for eons before the vaguest notion of charge and mass ever came into being.Let the record show that Chuck does not believe in mass or charge. And reality is a perception? By who? Humans? Reality (presumably) existed before humans. That leaves God. But you don’t believe in God. Who’s spouting nonsense now?
(May 10, 2012 at 1:34 pm)Chuck Wrote: So, clarify whether you assert mental phenomena to be fundamental to the perception of reality, but which is not necessarily fundamental per se to any universe that might provide an external framework in which perception of reality can emerge; or you assert that mental phenomena is indeed to fundamental per se to any universe, or a fundamental constituent that may exist independent of perception of really, but which thorugh contingents events, may have become part of perception of reality.I don’t understand the question. Try simplifying the grammar.
(May 10, 2012 at 2:06 pm)Chuck Wrote: It is trivial that consciousness effects the behavior of the possessors of the consciousness…Nothing is trivial about experiencing the rich tapestry of colors, sounds and scents of life. To say these have no effect on behavior is absurd. We avoid pain because it is painful. We seek pleasure because it feels good.
(May 10, 2012 at 2:06 pm)Chuck Wrote: How do you define necessary?... Do you mean "does consciousness fulfill a pre-determined purpose"?I use ‘necessary’ in the everyday sense, synonymous with ‘required’. In the context of my comment, my question is whether sensation is required to produce sentient behavior, i.e. does it have any purpose or effect?
(May 10, 2012 at 1:41 pm)genkaus Wrote: To properly simulate consciousness, your machine should have the capacity for sensations and self-awareness.Are you saying that a machine capable of simulating the outwards behaviors of a sentient being must have the inner experiences similar to our own?
(May 10, 2012 at 1:41 pm)genkaus Wrote: The mechanism in place that gives rise to and effects your subjective experience is a part of your identity…You would not be able to say for certain that the machine had a consciousness for a fact…Okay then we generally agree that subjective experiences can only be know by the sentient entity having them, i.e. “privileged access.” In my thought problem of the cyberlink, I was thinking of reports made by the human after severing the link. They’d say something like, “I felt the position of things, kind of like hearing, but more like a picture in my head.”
