(Yesterday at 9:06 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:02 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You made it pretty crucial when you said a particular viewpoint couldn't explain it and that was why that viewpoint was wrong or implausible.  Turns out that viewpoint can explain it and you cant.

So what should that mean...according to you?

You seem to be equivocating again on that word "explain".

Hence I don't even know what your argument is here.

(Yesterday at 9:05 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:23 pm)Jal Wrote: Let's consider your C# example. Suppose a C# developer said that he was hardcoding all his settings directly in the code instead of a configuration file.  You could reasonably offer some advice here, I think?  Or suppose that, instead of writing a static method called from 50 different places, he duplicated the method 50 times.  Might you possibly have some helpful suggestions here?  (I'm not saying you're suggestions would be authoritative, but they would be worth listening to). 

I've seen briliiant, doctorate-level coders write code like this:
    var result = processThisID(strID)
I don't have to be a C# expert to tell them it's more clear to write it like this:
   Customer c = processThisID(strCustomerID)
Yes, a newbie can sometimes give excellent correction to an expert.

You have to consider the CONTENT of what the newbie is saying, not simply disregard him for his lack of credentials.

You'e comparing apples to oranges, coding strategies (apples) to coding a specific coding language (oranges). I could, perhaps, recommend a strategy, if i knew enough about C# to know if that strategy is possible. Since I don't, I'm not going to offer advice on the subject because I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH UNDERLYING UNDERSTANDING! Much like you in the sciences.

(Yesterday at 8:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:46 pm)Jal Wrote: I am not getting your point here. You don't believe in differing degrees of self-awareness? Do you believe that plants are alive?
(A) Are plants as sentient as we are?
(B) Are plants the same as rocks in terms of sentiene?

You may disagree with my beliefs about sentience, but you haven't shown them illogical, implausible, or impossible. You just don't like my beliefs.  But I'm not sure why you think that your dislike of my beliefs is relevant to this debate.

I'm pointing to a structural deficiency in the way you are applying the concept of consciousness.  It means different things at different times.  That's equivocation, and until it's fixed, your words aren't worth anything.  It has nothing to do with whether I like your ideas or not.  It has to do with a problem in trying to stretch the one word to all these different things.  At the end of the day, the word doesn't mean anything in your mouth because you've applied it to things for which the only evidence that your claim is valid is your say so.  Panpsychism is neither here nor there with me.  I simply don't find it coherent for the reason stated.  Nor do I find ipse dixit arguments that a rock has some properties in common with me toward which the label consciousness can be meaningfully applied persuasive.  There's a reason such arguments are considered fallacious.  And to repeat a complaint which has already been lodged, it isn't my job to show that your ideas are implausible or impossible.  I have shown that they are illogical.  And your responses to that have been enlightening.

(Yesterday at 9:14 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I'm pointing to a structural deficiency in the way you are applying the concept of consciousness.  It means different things at different times.  That's equivocation, and until it's fixed, your words aren't worth anything.  It has nothing to do with whether I like your ideas or not.  It has to do with a problem in trying to stretch the one word to all these different things.  At the end of the day, the word doesn't mean anything in your mouth because you've applied it to things for which the only evidence that your claim is valid is your say so.  Panpsychism is neither here nor there with me.  I simply don't find it coherent for the reason stated.  Nor do I find ipse dixit arguments that a rock has some properties in common with me toward which the label consciousness can be meaningfully applied persuasive.  There's a reason such arguments are considered fallacious.  And to repeat a complaint which has already been lodged, it isn't my job to show that your ideas are implausible or impossible.  I have shown that they are illogical.  And your responses to that have been enlightening.

Sorry, but postulating degrees of senstience is not equivocation.  You may not LIKE that assumption, but you haven't shown it illogical.

(Yesterday at 9:12 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What do you think it means when people have shown the flaws in your reasoning but you can't see them?

Is it possible that it might mean..as I started out with earlier today, that we tend to think our beliefs are reasonable regardless of whether or not they are, in fact, reasonable?

(Yesterday at 9:26 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You know, it's perilous to say that consciousness is (or must be) fundamental, but sentience is parceled out by degree.  They're often synonyms.