(October 10, 2018 at 12:17 pm)Dmitry1983 Wrote: [quote='possibletarian' pid='1828950' dateline='1539188121']
Why?  You still havn't explained why you think it's not just a property of the brain, nobody is claiming a computer can have similar experiences.

Quote:Actually many atheists claim that brain is just complex computer

By computer they mean 'something that computes' not something that is like a silicone based computing machine. now answer the questions put before you.

Quote:Do you know of anywhere else other than a material brain being present where you can establish the presence of a consciousness ?

Quote:Parallel universe, some supernatural realm, etc.

By 'establish' i mean establish that the consciousness is in fact conscious, or exists in any meaningful way.

(October 10, 2018 at 12:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 10, 2018 at 11:44 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: It's just as valid as hypothesis that consciousness exists inside brain

 Things that affect the brain affect consciousness, e.g., specific memories and feeling 'a presence' can be invoked by electrical stimulation of the brain, 'qualia' can be altered by drugs or damage that affect the brain, and the more we understand the brain, the more supported the hypothesis that consciousness resides there becomes. 

Affecting brain of p-zombie will give you same results so you can't claim that you are affecting consciousness

---

(October 10, 2018 at 12:25 pm)possibletarian Wrote: By computer they mean 'something that computes' 

How can you compute qualia?

(October 10, 2018 at 12:04 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 10, 2018 at 11:40 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What you said, I think means something different from what I said.   So I'll ask again, is your intention here rhetoric or discussion?  
Perhaps you should clarify what you are trying to say, if you're not just trolling.

You claim that an actual infinite can't exist. It necessarily follows that if God exists, it is not an actual infinite. Maybe potentially infinite in some ways, but not an actual infinite. It's only a trap if you're trying to have it both ways and won't admit that your positions contradict each other. It's a binary question can be answered simply: either God is not an actual infinite (in any way), or God is an actual infinite (in at least some way or ways). If it's the latter, in your case, there's a contradiction with your position that no actual infinites can exist, while the first option would be consistent with your position on actual infinites.

The question is genuine, I just want to find out your position on the matter; because there's an apparent contradiction between an infinite God and 'no actual infinities'; which can be resolved if God is only infinite in ways that aren't actual. I'm also curious about whether you will choose to answer forthrightly or evade giving a real answer. You won't 'lose points' if you don't believe God is an actual infinite, it would only establish your consistency. And I'm presuming here that you don't believe in a God that is incomplete in any way, which is why I haven't pressed on that issue'; feel free to correct me on that if I'm mistaken.

I already answered in the 2nd post (I believe) in this particular series.  I'm not claiming an actual infinity in respect to God either.  If you just say that God is incomplete, then I ask in what way (so I can clarify my position better).   For one it may depend on how you are using the term incomplete.

(October 10, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 10, 2018 at 12:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:  Things that affect the brain affect consciousness, e.g., specific memories and feeling 'a presence' can be invoked by electrical stimulation of the brain, 'qualia' can be altered by drugs or damage that affect the brain, and the more we understand the brain, the more supported the hypothesis that consciousness resides there becomes. 

Affecting brain of p-zombie will give you same results so you can't claim that you are affecting consciousness

---

(October 10, 2018 at 12:25 pm)possibletarian Wrote: By computer they mean 'something that computes' 

How can you compute qualia?

You seem to be stuck on this silicone computer, organic brain comparison, no one is making that. We openly admit there are thing about the brain we do not know (and by extension you do not know) but in the complete absence of any evidence of a supernatural world we don't add that in as a possibility.

We do not even know what consciousness is, but we do experience it and there is absolutely no evidence it happens outside of the brain, so why assume so, what reasoning or evidence do you have ? As for qualia (or experience) we know you can very much alter those by altering the chemical properties of the brain, again if you have reason to conclude it's not part of the brains function then elaborate why you believe so.

Try answering the questions first, you have been asked multiple times why you believe it to be so, and all you seem to managed to do is claim we can't prove otherwise, which really is not an answer as to why you believe it to be so.

(October 10, 2018 at 12:40 pm)possibletarian Wrote:

(October 10, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Affecting brain of p-zombie will give you same results so you can't claim that you are affecting consciousness

---

How can you compute qualia?

We do not even  know what consciousness is, but we do experience it and there is absolutely no evidence it happens outside of the brain, so why assume so ?

Why do you assume that consciousness is located inside brain if it was never observed scientifically?

Quote: As for  qualia (or experience) we know you can very much alter those by altering the chemical properties of the brain

Chemicals don't affect qualia(creating new color for example) they only change order/structure of what human perceives. If brain is only transmitter/reciever then chemicals will give you same result

(October 10, 2018 at 8:17 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(October 9, 2018 at 12:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: And here are my posts that you could not address because you got in way over your head:

1. An actual infinite consists of real (not abstract) objects.
2. In 100% of our experiences and 100% of our scientific inquiries, quantities of real objects can have all the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division applied to them.
3. As Hilbert's Hotel shows, these operations cannot be applied to the concept of an actual infinite without creating contradictions and absurdities
4. Classical propositional logic does not allow for contradictory statements to be true.
5. Therefore an actual infinite of real objects is logically impossible.

Infinite set theory is not a defeater for (2) because infinite set theory is not itself a conclusion derived from a logical process. To defeat (2) you have to give logical reasons why we should expect an infinite quantity of objects to behave fundamentally different than a finite quantity of objects.

---

1. An event is a change in a real object
2. From any point in the past, there is a finite amount of events to the present and can be counted down en...e3...e2...e1...e0(now).
3. If there are an infinite amount of events in the past, we could never count down from infinity to e3...e2...e1...e0 because there would always be an infinite amount of events that would still have happened on the leading edge of the series.
4. With an infinite series of past events we could never arrive to the present.
5. Therefore an actual infinite series of past events is impossible.

We can expect an infinite quantity to have different properties than finite quantities because they are different things. 

And right there is your problem. When you talk about THINGS like events, they are accumulated one after another. They can be plotted on a timeline, ticked off with a pencil. At no time does any amount of accumulated events become an infinite quantity. You think that just asserting there already is infinite amount of events somehow circumvents the impossibility. 

As I have challenged both you and Grandizer 20 times before. Just post an article from a reputable source that backs up your claim there can be an infinite amount of actual real concrete objects. I really don't think that is too much to ask and until you do, I don't think it unreasonable to point out that you are very confused. 
Make sure you differentiate between concrete and abstract objects in your article search.

---

(October 10, 2018 at 12:51 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(October 10, 2018 at 8:17 am)polymath257 Wrote: We can expect an infinite quantity to have different properties than finite quantities because they are different things. 

And right there is your problem. When you talk about THINGS like events, they are accumulated one after another. They can be plotted on a timeline, ticked off with a pencil. At no time does any amount of accumulated events become an infinite quantity. You think that just asserting there already is infinite amount of events somehow circumvents the impossibility. 
As I have challenged both you and Grandizer 20 times before. Just post an article from a reputable source that backs up your claim there can be an infinite amount of actual real concrete objects. I really don't think that is too much to ask and until you do, I don't think it unreasonable to point out that you are very confused. 
Make sure you differentiate between concrete and abstract objects in your article search.

I'm really wondering what you are expecting here. This is recognized generally by most cosmologists. For infinite space, it is supported by the zero curvature of space (although not proven).

Since most science articles are interested in the observational aspects, we don't see *proof* that there are infinitely many objects. But again, that is a different issue than whether it is a logical impossibility. After Cantor, it is generally recognized to not be a logical issue, but an observational one.

Take any article in cosmology and see if it allows for infinite space. Essentially every one does. Take any article that discusses something prior to the Big Bang and see if it allows for infinite time. Essentially every article of that type does.

if you really want a list from arxiv.org, I can supply one.

(October 10, 2018 at 12:59 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(October 10, 2018 at 12:51 pm)SteveII Wrote: And right there is your problem. When you talk about THINGS like events, they are accumulated one after another. They can be plotted on a timeline, ticked off with a pencil. At no time does any amount of accumulated events become an infinite quantity. You think that just asserting there already is infinite amount of events somehow circumvents the impossibility. 
As I have challenged both you and Grandizer 20 times before. Just post an article from a reputable source that backs up your claim there can be an infinite amount of actual real concrete objects. I really don't think that is too much to ask and until you do, I don't think it unreasonable to point out that you are very confused. 
Make sure you differentiate between concrete and abstract objects in your article search.

I'm really wondering what you are expecting here. This is recognized generally by most cosmologists. For infinite space, it is supported by the zero curvature of space (although not proven).

Since most science articles are interested in the observational aspects, we don't see *proof* that there are infinitely many objects. But again, that is a different issue than whether it is a logical impossibility. After Cantor, it is generally recognized to not be a logical issue, but an observational one.

Take any article in cosmology and see if it allows for infinite space. Essentially every one does. Take any article that discusses something prior to the Big Bang and see if it allows for infinite time. Essentially every article of that type does.

if you really want a list from arxiv.org, I can supply one.

You misunderstand. I don't want a science article. I want to see an article that argues that an actual infinity of concrete objects can logically exists. Your entire argument rests on this. You are making metaphysical (not scientific) claims and therefore you need metaphysical reasoning to support your metaphysical claims.

(October 10, 2018 at 12:48 pm)Dmitry1983 Wrote: [quote='possibletarian' pid='1828969' dateline='1539189651']

We do not even  know what consciousness is, but we do experience it and there is absolutely no evidence it happens outside of the brain, so why assume so ?

Quote:Why do you assume that consciousness is located inside brain if it was never observed scientifically?

I don't assume anything, we do however know there is always a brain involved the question is, if a brain is always present, then why assume something outside of it, what are your reasons for doing so ?

Quote: As for  qualia (or experience) we know you can very much alter those by altering the chemical properties of the brain

Quote:Chemicals don't affect qualia(creating new color for example) they only change order/structure of what human perceives. If brain is only transmitter/reciever then chemicals will give you same result

qualia means perception and experience which we have never witnessed outside the brain, again what reasons do you have to even start to believe that the brain may be some kind of remote device ?

If you have non, just say you have none.

You ma

(October 10, 2018 at 12:06 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(October 10, 2018 at 11:39 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: If each premise is 90% likely to be true, with 11 premises, the inductive conclusion is 31.38%. And that's being quite generous with the probability of each premise. Inductive arguments don't work well with many uncertain premises.

You do NOT multiply probabilities together to come up with a net probability in a syllogism. The conclusion's probability is equal to the lowest of the premise probabilities. Think about it--the more premises you have that are likely true would reduce the net probability if you multiplied them together.

You make a good point. On consideration, I realize that I was in error on how to arrive at the probability. Thank you for correcting me.

I'm afraid that based on that consideration, I think I still see a critical flaw in your argument. A valid inductive argument can't be built only of evidence that supports the conclusion unless all of the available evidence supports the conclusion. It also has to include evidence (if any) that renders the conclusion less probable. If, as you say, the evidence that supports the conclusion the least determines the probability of the conclusion, then adding one piece of evidence against the conclusion could significantly reduce the probability of the whole argument. I'm not sure about the 'least probable premise determining the probability of the conclusion' though; intuitively it seems like a large mass of strong evidence that supports a conclusion might outweigh one or two items that seem to render it drastically less likely. Maybe the strength of the evidence has to be considered, one disconfirming fact can topple the conclusion, but only if it is very strong.

It also occurs to me that the argument doesn't consider alternatives to the conclusion that you reached.

Inductive reasoning isn't really supposed to be an 'argument', it's essentially basing conclusions on the available facts. Like a doctor inducing your disease from your symptoms, and reasoning that it's most probably one condition, but hopefully ranking the others since they haven't been ruled out. Are there possible alternative conclusions, and is your conclusion more probable than all of them put together.

Again, thanks for prompting me to think more deeply about your argument and induction in general.

---

(October 10, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 10, 2018 at 12:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:  Things that affect the brain affect consciousness, e.g., specific memories and feeling 'a presence' can be invoked by electrical stimulation of the brain, 'qualia' can be altered by drugs or damage that affect the brain, and the more we understand the brain, the more supported the hypothesis that consciousness resides there becomes. 

Affecting brain of p-zombie will give you same results so you can't claim that you are affecting consciousness

---

If we're p-zombies, consciousness doesn't exist and there is no point in discussing its mechanisms, except as an illusion. I don't see the point of this discussion if you don't concede consciousness is real. Can you think of an experiment using the hypothesis of quantum mind or supernatural transmissions that would reveal a p-zombie? If you're not arguing that we are not actually conscious, this seems an irrelevancy.