(October 11, 2018 at 10:16 am)polymath257 Wrote: No, they are not. They are uniformly linear processors, based on a Von Neumann technology, which is quite different than the architecture of the brain.

You can emulate any architecture on regular supercomputer.

Quote: If we can correlate brain states to reported conscious states, that is more than sufficient to establish that consciousness derives from brain states.

P-zombie would report you same states.

Quote:P-zombie would report you same states.

Nope

(October 11, 2018 at 10:27 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:P-zombie would report you same states.

Nope

By definition p-zombie's behavior including speech is identical to conscious person

(October 11, 2018 at 8:53 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: How do you know that? How can you prove it scientifically?

Prove what scientifically ? that a hypothetical  being does not exist , you realise what hypothetical means.. right ?

Quote:There is correlation between behaviour and brain chemistry. That doesn't mean that scientifically consciousness exists

Of course it does, just because no one knows what consciousness is, does not mean it's reasonable to say it does not exist we interact all the time with other consciousnesses.

Lets look at the definition.

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+...refox-b-ab
consciousness
ˈkɒnʃəsnɪs/
noun
noun: consciousness; plural noun: consciousnesses

   1.
   the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
   "she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
   synonyms: awareness, wakefulness, alertness, responsiveness, sentience
   "she failed to regain consciousness"
   antonyms: unconsciousness
   2.
   a person's awareness or perception of something.
   "her acute consciousness of Luke's presence"
   synonyms: awareness of, knowledge of the existence of, alertness to, sensitivity to, realization of, cognizance of, mindfulness of, perception of, apprehension of, recognition of
   "her acute consciousness of Luke's presence"
       the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.

We can certainly prove that those things take place. Therefore to say that a state of consciousness exists in a person is reasonable to say. Unless of course you can show that an entity without any sensory faculties can also experience these things, but that would be for you to prove.

Quote:There is no evidence at all that consciousness exists. By default we are all p-zombies.

p-zombie are hypothetical not real, they were made up for thought experiments.  They have no scientific base at all.

You seem to live in some dream hypothetical world that bears no relational to reality, which is fine if you want to believe that but at least do us the honour of answering our questions.

Aaaaannnnnd we are devolving into masturbatory solipsism. A point of view that is functionally useless.

I find it amusing that solipsists, every single one, act as though reality is real, while having a mental wankfest about how clever they think they are.

thinking it feels pah

(October 11, 2018 at 6:20 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Consciousness was never observed in scientific experiment

To be pedantic, science has certainly observed the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness.

If you're making the argument that consciousness doesn't exist, make it. If you're making the argument that only you are truly conscious, have fun with your solipsism.

The problem with p-zombies is that the idea presumes that consciousness isn't a product of brain activity. The idea depends on consciousness being some extra, completely nonphysical state that can be absent while the brain goes blithely on 'pretending to be conscious', and engaging in such absurdities as thinking it can think, thinking it's in love, thinking it prefers Italian cuisine over French, thinking it feels pain when it's hurt, etc. P-zombies are just a thought experiment, most things that are conceivable are not actual; given the fact that each of us experiences consciousness directly, it's perverse to think that everyone else is a p-zombie. It's a situation that could only exist if the world was set up to fool you into thinking other people are real people. It would take a disordered consciousness to actually believe that is equally as likely as everyone else being what they appear to be: a person with consciousness, just like you.

If I thought you were actually serious about all this p-zombie nonsense, I'd recommend that you seek help. Bad things often follow when you stop believing other people are 'really real'.

Quote:By definition p-zombie's behavior including speech is identical to conscious person

Nope afraid not

---

(October 11, 2018 at 10:36 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Aaaaannnnnd we are devolving into masturbatory solipsism. A point of view that is functionally useless.

I find it amusing that solipsists, every single one, act as though reality is real, while having a mental wankfest about how clever they think they are.

Indeed P zombie rubbish and all 

(October 11, 2018 at 8:47 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 7:02 am)SteveII Wrote: Sources: Depends on the premise. The 27 documents contained in the NT. Other documentary evidence that discusses the existence of churches and their beliefs (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/), Josephus, Tacitus.

There you go using the word 'prove' again. You really need to re-read my post above. 

Further, what exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.
* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:
* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some).In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief. Another point, atheist constantly miss the fact that religious belief is due to a cumulative set of reasons to believe--all with their own kind/threshold of proof needed for that particular individual. So, to simply demand "proof" is insufficient. What kind, what threshold, single issue or cumulative, and to what end?

Well, let's eliminate 'personal proof', which is the same as anecdotal. We can also eliminate 'logical proof' since logic alone can say nothing baout the real world.

So, in this context, scientific and historical proof will be the main contenders.

For a claim in the existence of a deity, 'possible' is rather too weak. I would go for 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but this requires *all* of the evidence, including the nature of the society, the local history, the biases and personalities of those involved, the provenance of any writings (not just the claimed authors), and any scientific evidence that the events could actually happen as stated. Evaluation of texts should be done in the same way as any other texts from the time period and society. Any extraordinary claims made should be treated the same as similar claims made by other authors.

Which means, you loose, badly

I know lots of atheists think that I should be loosing badly. But the funny thing is I'm not losing at all. You lost when you agreed to play the game. But your feeling that you are winning comes from 1) bad logic (usually question begging) and 2) not actually understanding what the NT is.

You picked Scientific evidence as a standard and you said "and any scientific evidence that the events could actually happen as stated". That is question begging. You are assuming they could not have happened so the documents relating such events must be wrong.

The correct standard for the 27 NT documents and what we know about the churches is Historical (as you also identified). However, beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard historians use for believing a historical event happened.  To insist that be my standard is called special pleading (your second logical misstep). 

Give me an example of "Evaluation of texts should be done in the same way as any other texts from the time period and society. Any extraordinary claims made should be treated the same as similar claims made by other authors." in the ancient world and I will describe the 100 ways in which that example is different than the 27 NT documents.

(October 11, 2018 at 8:47 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 8:40 am)SteveII Wrote: That's wrong. Causality does not require time--time requires causality (events). 

Please demonstrate causality without time.

Theoretically, in the absence of a universe, there would be a false vacuum, quantum foam in which virtual particles blip in and out of existence, not constantly or often or seldom because there is no time, it's all instantaneous and takes no time at all. Each 'blip' would essentially be it's own Planck-level universe in which time is only another spatial dimension.

Or so some theoretical physicists say, it's above my pay grade. It has occurred to me before that the universe-less quantum foam checks many of the boxes we're told God must check: timelessness, the power to create universes (if its where universes come from), can't 'not exist' and therefore eternal, etc. Pretty much every box that doesn't require it to be a person.

When people say they worship whatever created the universe, this is what I think of. Of course, it's only one hypothesis, not yet potentially verifiable by experiment and only supported by the math working and it not contradicting what we already know.

(October 11, 2018 at 10:42 am)SteveII Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 8:47 am)polymath257 Wrote: Well, let's eliminate 'personal proof', which is the same as anecdotal. We can also eliminate 'logical proof' since logic alone can say nothing baout the real world.

So, in this context, scientific and historical proof will be the main contenders.

For a claim in the existence of a deity, 'possible' is rather too weak. I would go for 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but this requires *all* of the evidence, including the nature of the society, the local history, the biases and personalities of those involved, the provenance of any writings (not just the claimed authors), and any scientific evidence that the events could actually happen as stated. Evaluation of texts should be done in the same way as any other texts from the time period and society. Any extraordinary claims made should be treated the same as similar claims made by other authors.

Which means, you loose, badly

I know lots of atheists think that I should be loosing badly. But that usually comes from 1) bad logic (usually question begging) and 2) not actually understanding what the NT is.

You picked Scientific evidence as a standard and you said "and any scientific evidence that the events could actually happen as stated". That is question begging. You are assuming they could not have happened so the documents relating such events must be wrong.

The correct standard for the 27 NT documents and what we know about the churches is Historical (as you also identified). However, beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard historians use for believing a historical event happened.  To insist that be my standard is called special pleading (your second logical misstep). 

Give me an example of "Evaluation of texts should be done in the same way as any other texts from the time period and society. Any extraordinary claims made should be treated the same as similar claims made by other authors." in the ancient world and I will describe the 100 ways in which that example is different than the 27 NT documents.

I think a big issue (that I notice anyway) is that many atheists are inconsistent.  They operate by different rules and principles and they make them up as they go along.  There is a lot of special pleading / hyper skepticism.    There is also of course the things that you point out, and a healthy dose of scientism which seems to be popular here.   This doesn't mean that they are wrong, but just that it is based on poor philosophy.