(October 11, 2018 at 11:54 am)possibletarian Wrote:

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

To claim that consciousness exists it should be directly observed. Until then it doesn't exist and scientifically all human beings are p-zombies

---

(October 11, 2018 at 11:56 am)Mister Agenda 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.

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

Job creation. Scientists already spent 100 billion dollars on useless ISS

(October 11, 2018 at 11:33 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Scientists have never observed qualia

Every scientist has observed qualia by experiencing them directly.

Are you going to answer the question of your personal position on p-zombies? Do you think they actually exist? Do you believe everyone but you is one?

(October 11, 2018 at 12:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:33 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Scientists have never observed qualia

Every scientist has observed qualia by experiencing them directly.

That's subjective experience not scientfic experiment.

Quote:Are you going to answer the question of your personal position on p-zombies? Do you think they actually exist? Do you believe everyone but you is one?

Scientifcially we are all p-zombies

(October 11, 2018 at 11:57 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:54 am)possibletarian Wrote: 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 ?

To claim that consciousness exists it should be directly observed. Until then it doesn't exist and scientifically all human beings are p-zombies

---

(October 11, 2018 at 11:56 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: And the motive for spending tens (possibly hundreds) of millions of dollars just to hurt a supercomputer would be what?

Job creation. Scientists already spent 100 billion dollars on useless ISS

1) consciousness has been observed, every time i chat with someone in fact, every time i feel pain or emotion you are mixing the fact we do not know what consciousness is with whether it exists or not. Consciousness has a very clear observable definition.

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"



2) Why do you care what they spend on the space station, is it even real to you ?

(October 11, 2018 at 12:06 pm)possibletarian Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:57 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: To claim that consciousness exists it should be directly observed. Until then it doesn't exist and scientifically all human beings are p-zombies

---

Job creation. Scientists already spent 100 billion dollars on useless ISS

 Consciousness has a very clear observable definition.

Qualia was never observed in a scientific experiment

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

(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.

And I disagree with Kant. Mathematics is analytic, not synthetic in nature. Once we have the axioms and rules of inference, the rest of math follows. So, 2+2=4 is a result derived from a formal system in which 2, +, 4, and = are symbols with rules of inference from some axioms.

For this particular result, we have the following axioms:

1. If x is a number, x' is a number.
2. 0 is a number.
3. x+0=x for all numbers x.
4. x+y' =(x+y)' for all numbers x and y
5. x=(x) for all numbers x.

Rules of deduction:
1. If x=y and y=z, then x=z.
2. if x=y, then any time x appears in a statement, it can be replaced by y.

and the following definitions:
0'=1, 1'=2, 2'=3, 3'=4.

Then,
1 is a number by axioms 1 and 2.
2 is a number from axiom 1. So are 3 and 4.
2+2 = 2+1'  by definition of 2.
2+1' =(2+1)' by axiom 4.
2+2=(2+1)' by the rule of deduction 1.
(2+1)' = (2+0')' by definition of 1.
2+2 = (2+0')' by rule of deduction 1.
(2+0')' = ( (2+0)' )' by axiom 4.
2+2 = ( (2+0)' )' by rule of deduction 1.
( (2+0)' )' = ( (2)' )' by axiom 3.
2+2 = ((2)')' by rule of deduction 1.
((2)')' = (2')' by axiom 5
2+2=(2')' by rule of deduction 2.

(2')'=3' by definition of 3 and rule of deduction 2.
2+2=3' by rule of deduction 1.
3'=4 by definition of 4.
2+2 =4 by rule of deduction 1.

Any system that has those 5 axioms, those 2 rules of deduction, and those definitions will have 2+2=4. This is an analytic consequence of the axioms, rules of deduction, and definitions.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:21 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 10, 2018 at 8:36 pm)SteveII Wrote: There are no example in this universe of something from nothing. It is simply impossible. 

QM indeterminate particles are not an example of something uncaused. RR posted previously:

Quantum mechanics merely describe what takes place at the quantum level.  It makes no reference to causes, but that does not imply that there are no causal entities involved.
Feser hypothesizes that perhaps Oerter understands the law of causality to refer to some sort of deterministic cause, and since quantum mechanics are supposedly indeterministic (a disputed interpretation), the law of causality could not apply.  Feser notes that “[t]he principle of causality doesn’t require that.  It requires only that a potency be actualized by something already actual; whether that something, whatever it is, actualizes potencies according some sort of pattern –deterministic or otherwise — is another matter altogether.”

The fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics has not identified causeless effects or invalidated the causal principle.  For any event to occur it must first have the potential to occur, and then have that potential actualized.  If that potential is actualized, it “must be actualized by something already actual,”[2] and that something is what we identify as the cause. https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...principle/

Bad link.  This may be Feser and Roadie's understanding but it is not that of science.  There is a vanishingly small probability that local causes could yield a better prediction of events than quantum theory does, but it is so small as to be considered negligible.  As such, the theory that these events are uncaused provides a better explanation of these events than any theory in which they are locally caused (i.e. actualized from an existing potential).  So, no, it isn't simply that we don't know what the actual cause is, but rather that such a cause would yield a less accurate description of events than assuming no cause does.  This effectively rules out local causes of the type to which you, Feser, and Roadie are referring.  The exception to this is that it doesn't rule out non-local causes such as those in Bohmian mechanics, but in that case I would suggest that the burden is on the non-local advocate to demonstrate, at minimum, that such causes can coherently be described.  I've read Bohm and don't find his arguments for a non-local causation compelling or well argued.  If you have some other non-local theory, then I suggest you present it.  Otherwise, the science seems to be that these events are uncaused.  (I'll also note in passing that Roadie and Feser appear to be misusing the concept of potency, or, perhaps more accurately, using it as a buzzword without examining the content.)

The point was the causal principle. The quantum field provides the potency for the particle to appear and disappear and another reappear. Something actual from something actual. A causal link. It makes no sense to say the particle's appearance is uncaused. In fact, the whole characterization that it is uncaused seems to be solely for the purpose of coming up with something that is uncaused to make a philosophical/religious point. It where/when it will appear is simple indeterminate--we know that it will.

(October 11, 2018 at 12:12 pm)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 12:06 pm)possibletarian Wrote:  Consciousness has a very clear observable definition.

Qualia was never observed in a scientific experiment

Neither is charge, evidently. In both cases, however, the most efficient scientific hypothesis is that both exist and are detected by our methods.

(October 11, 2018 at 12:12 pm)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 12:06 pm)possibletarian Wrote:  Consciousness has a very clear observable definition.

Qualia was never observed in a scientific experiment

What do you think observed means? For instance do you believe in gravity ?

(October 11, 2018 at 11:35 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

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

Correction from my previous notation: It turns out that 40 minutes to simulate 1 second of brain activity was to simulate 1% of human brain activity. And supercomputers are very inefficient, they require millions of watts of power and cost over a million dollars a year just for the electricity. What you are proposing would be very difficult at this point in time, but had I one of the fastest supercomputers in existence at my disposal and tens of millions of dollars to burn doing that instead of something with a more immediate pay-off, I would be interested in trying it.

So we simulate a mouse brain and simulate hurting it, and get the same reaction as a real mouse. You say it didn't feel pain because it's a p-mouse and a p-mouse will always react just like a real mouse, so it doesn't really feel pain.

You're proposing a difference that doesn't make any difference. It's just as reasonable to propose that the wind is p-wind, not true wind, you just can't detect the difference. The sun isn't a real sun, it's a p-sun, it seems to be the same in every way to a real sun, but it's not.

If you can't tell any difference between something with or without 'p', 'p' is a functionally useless distinction.

---

(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 there is no reason to think they are not conscious people.