(December 26, 2018 at 11:16 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 11:14 am)Rahn127 Wrote: This creature would not be able to move

No, p-zomibes would behave exactly like conscious humans including movements.

Yes, *exactly* like conscious humans. That includes talking about internal states of consciousness, talking about how wonderful the tastes are of the food they eat, expressing wonder at the beauty of a painting, etc.

Now, how exactly do you think that much expressiveness would be possible without having an internal state?

If you attempt to program such expressiveness, then you will be *forced* to model some sort of internal state in your programming and allow the program to be 'aware' of that model of the internal state. And that *is* the same as programming consciousness.

(December 26, 2018 at 10:57 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 10:52 am)polymath257 Wrote: I don't think that p-zombies are a coherent concept. Anything physically identical to something having subjective experiences will also have subjective experiences. 

In near future robots will have behavior that is identical to humans without having consciousness. Subjective experience seems to be unnecessary.

That's nothing more than conjecture. The problem here is your using the word 'identical'. Which makes your speculation rather implausible in addition to it being groundless.

---

@Polymath:

I never claimed that the intentional stance and a theory of mind based on our own experiences of consciousness was the only way to make sense of human behavior. I think it is a commonly employed heuristic for making sense of and predicting human behavior. But it's certainly not the only one, and eliminative materialism, to which I more or less subscribe, makes the point that this theory of mind might itself be based upon error and a culturally inherited set of assumptions, ala folk psychology. So, no, I wouldn't say what you attribute to me saying. If I wasn't clear, or said otherwise inadvertently, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

(December 26, 2018 at 2:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 10:57 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: In near future robots will have behavior that is identical to humans without having consciousness. Subjective experience seems to be unnecessary.

That's nothing more than conjecture.  The problem here is your using the word 'identical'.  Which makes your speculation rather implausible in addition to it being groundless.

---

@Polymath:

I never claimed that the intentional stance and a theory of mind based on our own experiences of consciousness was the only way to make sense of human behavior.  I think it is a commonly employed heuristic for making sense of and predicting human behavior.  But it's certainly not the only one, and eliminative materialism, to which I more or less subscribe, makes the point that this theory of mind might itself be based upon error and a culturally inherited set of assumptions, ala folk psychology.  So, no, I wouldn't say what you attribute to me saying.  If I wasn't clear, or said otherwise inadvertently, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

My personal view is that mental states are processes in the brain. We do have a mind and mental states, but those are both determined by the material world.

The analogy that I like to start out with is that of pressure. No single atom has a pressure. It is only collections of atoms that can have pressure and that pressure is ultimately another description of the activities of those atoms. It can be 'eliminated' if a low enough description is made. Nonetheless, pressure is a coherent concept that is useful for talking about macroscopic systems.

Interesting topic and question. Atheists are proof that "God" or "gods" exist. At the very least, the subject must exist conceptually because atheists talk and contemplate about "God" and "gods" so much. Of course the same would be true of theists. If you mean "exist naturally" then the category doesn't apply since the subject is said to be "supernatural." There are some exceptions though where the "natural" is assumed to be a "god", so at the very last it would be considered conceptual and subjective. If you're asking for evidence supernaturally, then it would make more sense to explain what would be assumed as evidence since the subject would supersede the natural world.

(December 26, 2018 at 2:54 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Interesting topic and question.  Atheists are proof that "God" or "gods" exist.  At the very least, the subject must exist conceptually because atheists talk and contemplate about "God" and "gods" so much. Of course the same would be true of theists.  If you mean "exist naturally" then the category doesn't apply since the subject is said to be "supernatural."  There are some exceptions though where the "natural" is assumed to be a "god", so at the very last it would be considered conceptual and subjective.  If you're asking for evidence supernaturally, then it would make more sense to explain what would be assumed as evidence since the subject would supersede the natural world.

There is a difference between something existing and the concpet of that something existing.

So, for example, the concept of unicorns exists, but as far as we know unicorns do not exist.

The concept of a deity exists. As far as we know, deities do not.

(December 26, 2018 at 3:08 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 2:54 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Interesting topic and question.  Atheists are proof that "God" or "gods" exist.  At the very least, the subject must exist conceptually because atheists talk and contemplate about "God" and "gods" so much. Of course the same would be true of theists.  If you mean "exist naturally" then the category doesn't apply since the subject is said to be "supernatural."  There are some exceptions though where the "natural" is assumed to be a "god", so at the very last it would be considered conceptual and subjective.  If you're asking for evidence supernaturally, then it would make more sense to explain what would be assumed as evidence since the subject would supersede the natural world.

There is a difference between something existing and the concpet of that something existing.

So, for example, the concept of unicorns exists, but as far as we know unicorns do not exist.

The concept of a deity exists. As far as we know, deities do not.

I stated the difference already.  If you want evidence for something, then it would make sense to explain in what context and what you consider evidence.

Unicorns do exist.  Likewise, you need to define what you mean, so that whoever you're discussing it with is on the same page.

The last bit of your statement is subjective, unless you define "we."   "We" can be as little as two and as many as everyone

At work.

"Unicorns do exist" ?

Wait? Are you a 'Brony' T0 th3 M4X?

(December 26, 2018 at 3:52 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

"Unicorns do exist" ?

Wait? Are you a 'Brony' T0 th3 M4X?

Heck ya!  I shall be henceforth known as "Wonder Dash" or maybe "Skittle Pants Lightfoot" as to display my fandom.

Actually I'm not all that into it, but no problem with bronies.  I might be into it more if I had more time for it.  But then again, the same could be said true of a million other things.

(December 26, 2018 at 11:16 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 11:14 am)Rahn127 Wrote: This creature would not be able to move

No, p-zomibes would behave exactly like conscious humans including movements.

What causes them to move ?

(December 26, 2018 at 2:54 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Interesting topic and question.  Atheists are proof that "God" or "gods" exist.  At the very least, the subject must exist conceptually because atheists talk and contemplate about "God" and "gods" so much.

It is my understanding, that theists are not talking about gods existing 'conceptually'. They believe gods actually exist, in reality.

The reason why some atheists talk about god so much, is because of believers. People's beliefs do not live in a vacuum, they inform one's actions. And many theist's beliefs have real world negative consequences.

If people's beliefs in unicorns had as many negative consequences as god beliefs, I would be speaking out about the irrational unicorn beliefs, too.

Quote:If you mean "exist naturally" then the category doesn't apply since the subject is said to be "supernatural."

Here's the problem. If the god one believes in, is able to affect the natural world; perform miracles, answer prayers, heal the sick, create life, etc, etc, then these actions would leave evidence in the natural world. For example, not a single religion or sect has ever shown that prayer works at better than chance.

If the god one believes in is a deist type god, then said god would not leave any evidence.

Quote:here are some exceptions though where the "natural" is assumed to be a "god", so at the very last it would be considered conceptual and subjective.  If you're asking for evidence supernaturally, then it would make more sense to explain what would be assumed as evidence since the subject would supersede the natural world.

It might not be possible to explain what evidence I would expect from a god, but said god sure would know.

But it is not my place to describe what sort of evidence I would expect from a god. As soon as an atheist does that, they get accused of building a strawman.

It is up to those claiming gods exist, to support their claim with whatever they seem to think is evidence.

I can tell you the criteria for the evidence I would accept, but not specific evidence. Evidence that would convince me, would be: demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable, and verifiable. It would also be supported by valid and sound logic. It is not my fault, that theists fail to meet this criteria.