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

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

---

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?

Well, spacetime is the basis of the geometry. You are correct that the specific coordinates used are rather arbitrary, but the future light cone is part of the actual geometry and it is only within that light cone that causality manifests.

Time is not only a scientific concept? Really? Well, neither is chemistry, I guess. But it is, at base, a scientific concept.

In your description, you already have an internal contradiction: you have a 'being' that is changeless. Now, I might accept an *object* that is changeless, so let's go from there. if you have an object that is the only thing in the universe, with no background space or time (so it can be changeless), then there is no time. But there is also no causality *because* the universe in this model is changeless.

The being could not have a thought, because such would be a process, in other words a change. having two thoughts would also be a change, thereby destroying your whole setup as illogical.

Given that you didn't describe the spacetime geometry of said object, all we have in your scenario is two *different* objects: one with one thought and another with a different thought. Even to say they are the same object in this scenario requires the introduction of physical laws and time.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:44 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 10:59 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: And you claim that consciousness is a product of brain activity without any proof.
Prove it scientifically

Do you believe p-zombies are more probable than other humans possessing consciousness the same way you do?

Scientifically default position is that we all are p-zombies.

Quote:P-zombie can't experience qualia

That's not really an answer

This guy reminds of of 'Lion of judah' guy

makes a statement, then just sticks with it without a shred of evidence.

---

(October 11, 2018 at 11:50 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:P-zombie can't experience qualia

That's not really an answer

He hasn't actually answered any questions asked of him yet

(October 11, 2018 at 11:48 am)possibletarian Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:46 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Observing p-zombie brain states will give you same result

When did the experiment take place to determine that ?

P-zombie is identical to conscious person in any experiment unless consciousness/qualia is directly observed.

(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

They've observed brain states in real time, to the point of being able to discern simple thoughts and crude mental images. Your contention seems to be that brain states aren't mental states. How about you prove THAT scientifically, to borrow your favorite phrase?

(October 11, 2018 at 11:51 am)possibletarian Wrote: This guy reminds of of 'Lion of judah' guy

makes a statement, then just sticks with it without a shred of evidence.

Oh yeah he was fun .Kinda sad he's gone

(October 11, 2018 at 11:50 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:44 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Do you believe p-zombies are more probable than other humans possessing consciousness the same way you do?

Scientifically default position is that we all are p-zombies.

How can we be scientifically by default be p-zombies when they only exist hypothetically ?

Can you provide some reason to think your statement is true ?

(October 11, 2018 at 11:29 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:26 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The most advanced supercomputer of our time would takes about 40 minutes to simulate about one second of human brain activity. 

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.

And the motive for spending tens (possibly hundreds) of millions of dollars just to hurt a supercomputer would be what?

And you said a supercomputer was more powerful than a human brain. Are you going to just pretend you didn't make that claim, or have the courtesy to acknowledge and withdraw it?

(October 11, 2018 at 11:52 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:48 am)possibletarian Wrote: When did the experiment take place to determine that ?

P-zombie is identical to conscious person in any experiment unless consciousness/qualia is directly observed.

Then answer the question, when did that experiment take place ?