(October 11, 2018 at 11:25 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:23 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Science is not another word for math or whiskey; it does not prove, it merely shows us what the evidence indicates Evidence that our brains produce all of our mental states: all the evidence we have.

Scientists have never observed mental states they only observed behaviour

That is a flat out lie.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:32 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:29 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: 1 You don't have to emulate whole human brain but only one small part that is responcible for single qualia like feeling of pain.
2 You don't have to do it in real time. It doesn't matter if CPU is experiencing pain for 1 second or 40 minutes.

I disagree. Consciousness involves a real-time interaction with an environment. Furthermore, it is distributed over the brain and so modeling of one part of the brain is not sufficient.

Mice clearly feel pain. You can simulate their brian it is much smaller

(October 11, 2018 at 11:33 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:25 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Scientists have never observed mental states they only observed behaviour

That is a flat out lie.

He will just keep chanting "that's only a behavior "

(October 11, 2018 at 11:33 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:25 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Scientists have never observed mental states they only observed behaviour

That is a flat out lie.

P-zombies have same brain activity as conscious person

(October 11, 2018 at 11:33 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Can you prove it scientifically? What if brain is only transmitter/receiver?

So how did you reach the conclusion that the consciousness could be apart from the brain ?
What process did you go through to believe that a rational thing to believe ?

---

Quote:Scientists have never observed mental states they only observed behaviour

Decoding mental states from brain activity in humans

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn1931

Recent advances in human neuroimaging have shown that it is possible to accurately decode a person's conscious experience based only on non-invasive measurements of their brain activity. Such 'brain reading' has mostly been studied in the domain of visual perception, where it helps reveal the way in which individual experiences are encoded in the human brain. The same approach can also be extended to other types of mental state, such as covert attitudes and lie detection. Such applications raise important ethical issues concerning the privacy of personal thought.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:35 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:33 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: That is a flat out lie.

He will just keep chanting "that's only a behavior "

Yup, but look at this. Direct reconstruction from brain states. Only 1 min 15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZieFvCtMCc0

Dimitry has no choice but to pretend that this does not exist.

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

---

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

Sorry, but I am correct in this. Causality only happens in the future light cone. It is the action of physical laws from some initial condition giving rise to some later condition. So causality requires *at least* time and the action of physical laws.

Even in your theory of time, time is just coordinates that reflect an exact arrangement of matter in the universe. Your would never assign two time coordinates to the same exact arrangement of matter in the universe. So, who is driving the bus? A relative coordinate or physical change? 

I know you think metaphysics is "bunk", but time is not only a scientific concept.

Let's imagine an immaterial being existing in a state of complete changelessness with absolutely nothing else in existence (a possible world if you will).  Tell me, is there a passage of time?

Let's imagine the same being then has a thought about something. And subsequently has another thought. How much time has passed between the only two changes?

(October 10, 2018 at 9:57 pm)polymath257 Wrote: In terms of overall philosophy, I am closest to Hume. Kant made some mistakes in thinking space and time are synthetic a priori (they are not). The list of topics you gave can be largely addressed via the scientific method. To the extent they cannot be so, they are literally meaningless.

For a good explanation of the term synthetic a priori which also relates its use to metaphysics and mathe, see Synthetic A Priori Knowledge.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:37 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:33 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: That is a flat out lie.

P-zombies have same brain activity as conscious person

Then how can you tell the difference?

(October 11, 2018 at 11:38 am)possibletarian Wrote: Decoding mental states from brain activity in humans

Is this research based on direct observation of mental states or on reports by supposedly conscious persons?