(August 31, 2013 at 12:43 am)genkaus Wrote: I see your philosophical zombie and raise you a brain in a vat.

Good one! LOL

(August 31, 2013 at 12:43 am)genkaus Wrote: Give us time.

Someday, maybe...

(August 31, 2013 at 12:43 am)genkaus Wrote: My brain...takes the event of data-processing itself as an input and processes that to generate experience.

That's what you keep saying. And yet you have not provided any reason why 'generation' is better than 'representation'.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: If you are an adamant person then even learning Arabic will not help you. Translation of Quran is sufficient to have the basic idea on what Quran is commanding. It’s only a matter of reading it with a neutral mind.

And anyone reading it with a neutral mind would see it for the bullshit it is.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: If you say brain function IS consciousness then why brain is functioning at all? In other words, what is keeping brain to function? You know better than I do that behind every effect there is a cause.

That would be the food you eat - that provides the energy to keep your brain functioning.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Car needs a driver in order to perform its functions. Behind the functioning of car the cause is the driver’s intensions.

We're trying to correct that limitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Today scientists and philosophers, whether they belong to theist or atheist schools of thoughts, agrees that within or outside the universe there is nothing so called “Nothingness”.

Wrong. Most scientists and philosophers would say that "outside the universe" is nonsensical to begin with.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Almost everyone now agrees that there is nothing in the universe, which comes out of “Nothingness” as “Nothingness” simply doesn’t exist.

No, they don't.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Now if there is “No Nothingness” then from where the roots of this universe grew?

That's a nonsensical question. Any answer would automatically make that entity a part of the universe.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Why there is a balance in the universe, why not a chaos?

Because the concept of balance is dependent upon the universe.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Things like Chance has least value scientifically, logically, rationally, and empirically in all aspects of human understanding. CHANCE sparkles mostly in the vicinity of human desires.

Which is why no one uses chance as an explanation for existence of universe.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Theist uses the word God and simplifies his task to explain this “No Nothingness”. However, atheist finds it hard to give explanation to this “No Nothingness” and come up with different theories and models. Like multiverse model, inflationary model, string theory, etc. but all these hypotheses are highly speculative scientifically.

Exactly. The theists go for immediate gratification and come up with whatever comes to their minds first and go with that. Atheists, in their search for truth, are not afraid of a little intellectual hardship.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Before atheist argued that universe exists from eternity, will exist up to eternity but scientific facts force him to accept that universe was not eternal, and will not be eternal.

No they haven't. All scientific facts have established is that the came into its current form from a singularity 13.77 billion years ago (a figure which, by the way, is missing from your quran).

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Now atheist doesn’t argue against the origin of universe but in parallel he has no logical explanation on what caused this universe if there is no Super Intelligent Being, “God”.

And the theist has no logical explanation for god. Atleast we are intellectually honest.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Another thing, which astounds all scientists and philosophers, are the subjects of Grand Design and Supernatural Balance in the universe.

No it doesn't. Scientists and philosophers alike don't even acknowledge something like "supernatural balance". What the hell is that? And they certainly don't assume anything to be designed.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Universe is a place of order, balance, and symmetry.

No - order, balance and symmetry are properties of the universe.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Think of the earth if it moves only 1 cm towards or away from the sun, this short deviation from its path becomes a threat to life on earth.

IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT.

The farthest distance on earth's orbit from the sun is 152,098,232 kilometres.

The closest is 147,098,290 kilometres

That a variation of about 5 million kilometers. One centimeter either way would not make any difference.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Look at the human body how accurate and perfectly balanced functions are happening within it without our own incentives. Simply look at the function of genes and that alone gives you surprises after surprises.

You have evolution to thank for that - not god.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: By words, one can deny the existence of God but no one can explain how this grand design and fine-tuning is running on its own.

Yeah they can. Open a science book every now and then. Its all in there.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: It is a laughable joke for us if someone says his wristwatch caused by some desert as a matter of chance and it is running precisely by its own without the need of an operator. However, we don’t laugh when we say this humongous and intricate universe caused by itself as a matter of chance and it is running super precisely by its own.

Because the first one is known a-priori to be artificial. Whereas no agency with regards to the universe has been proven.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water which Allah sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering of winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth, are indeed Ayat (proofs, evidences, signs, etc.) for people of understanding.
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 164-
Al Quran

Bullshit.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Try to tackle with the following arguments:

First Argument
(1) Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore the universe was caused to exist; and the cause of its existence is God.
Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid (1058-1111)

Premise 1 - Unproven.
Premise 2 - Unproven
Conclusion - Even if the argument was true, it would only establish a cause - not that the cause is god.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)Harris Wrote: Second Argument
We recognize that we ourselves are not made by ourselves but by something else; however, we as rational beings are certainly superior to the world of non-rational things[1]. This would not be so if that world were something that caused itself, because anything which relies only on itself for its subsistence is superior to anything that relies on something other than itself.[2] Hence that world is brought into existence by something else, a maker or ruler, and this we call God.
Abelard, Peter (1079-1142)

[1] - Invalid. Never been established
[2] - Invalid. Fallacy of equivocation.
Hence, the conclusion is invalid as well.

---

Thanks for the palate cleanser.

(August 31, 2013 at 11:03 am)ChadWooters Wrote: That's what you keep saying. And yet you have not provided any reason why 'generation' is better than 'representation'.

In what sense of the word do you mean "better"?

If we compare the generation/representation hypotheses (putting aside strict scientific criteria for the moment), I'd regard 'generation' hypothesis to be better because:

1. Its explanation of reality fits better with our current knowledge of it.
2. It does not invoke inexplicable factors - such as independent soul.
3. The current scientific facts support it.
4. It remains falsifiable.

Any reason why I should choose 'representation' over 'generation'?

Quote:(1) Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore the universe was caused to exist; and the cause of its existence is God.

(1) May or may not be true. Quantum particles and wave-fronts appear (at the present state of knowledge) to be uncaused phenomena. Causality gets fairly weird at the quantum level - effects preceding causes and so forth.

(2) Unjustified assumption. There is no philosophical or physical reason why the Universe cannot be infinitely old.

(3) Given the objection to #2 above, the most you can say here is that the Universe and God are coeval, which pretty neatly eliminates God as a cause of, well, anything, really.

Boru

Harris.

Quote:Most biologists also disagree that genes of apes can be developed through evolutionary route into human genes,

Human genes developing into ape genes makes no sense.
It's the same as saying biologists disagree that felines can be developed into cats, cats are felines.
Biologists classify humans as apes, great apes (hominidae) The family also includes chimpanzees and gorillas. Human genes are the genes of apes.

Harris.

Quote:Web is full of such controversies.

The web is full of controversies that giants exist, this point is irrelevant.

Harris.

Quote:Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad were intended to humiliate Islam based on hatred and Jealousy. There was no literary contention behind that act.

This is another irrelevant point.

Quote:They are well aware about their audiences in Muslim world who are around 2 billion in numbers.

This is a relevant point which supports my argument, why would the BBC one of the most politically correct tv stations look at the political climate, muslims murdering cartoonists, book publishers and other people in the media then come to the conclusion that they should commission a program which intentionally tries to debunk the quran. Also being aware of how many muslims are in the audience?

Quote:Now Quran claims it is a Divine Word. It built its case based on the claim that it has no discrepancies and holds this claim for last 1400 years. So far, no one was able to challenge this claim but if someday someone will

Again people have challenged this but no one seems to know what the quran actually says and the people who do disagree on what it says.

Quote:You truly said there are many things in Quran, which seems to be ambiguous. Those things are ambiguous because we have not yet reached to the level of understanding based on our acquired knowledge.

No there are many ambiguous statements in the quran that are ambiguous because of the definition of the words they use.

Here is one example.

Quote:And of everything We have created pairs, that you may remember (the Grace of Allah).

I've heard muslims say this verse is talking about electrons, and talking about pairs of sexual mates which they insist do all come in pairs.

This verse is giving no information. If I worked as a top scientist and one day I came into work and said to my colleges who were other respectable scientists. "Everything is created in pairs so that we be mindful" it wouldn't be a breakthrough, it's not a revelation. No one can prove it wrong or right or do any testable experiments on it because it isn't specific enough information.

Quote:A group of Muslims had presented this verse along with other similar verses to Dr. Keith Moore. Dr. Keith Moore is an eminent embryologist in the University of Toronto

Quote:In 2002, Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject of his work on Islam, stating that "it's been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur'an."

I assume he's actually embarrased about the work he did with the quran. Even in the interviews I've seen he did not say he converted to Islam. I could be wrong though.

Again this is a perfect example of a verse which is ambiguous, when PZ myers was interviewed by muslims who told him the quran says specifically the bones come first then the flesh he said it was incorrect because the bones and the flesh form simultaneously, to which the muslims responded by saying the words in the quran could also be taken to mean the bones and the flesh form simultaneously.

So again if muslims haven't agreed even in their own minds as to what the quran means then it can't be proven right or wrong, you need to first know what a book actually says before it can be proven right or wrong.

Harris

Quote:Does man (a disbeliever) think that We shall not assemble his bones?
Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.
Al Qiyaamah (75)
-Verses 3 & 4-

Above verses are talking about disbelievers’ distrust in the resurrection. Sir Frances Gold in 1880 had discovered that prints on our fingertips are not identical with the prints of another person even in million people

So what? You have just done exactly what I said is illogical about the way muslims look at verses of the quran.
You have took a verse which is saying god will be able to put every part of a mans body back together including the finger tips.
It is totally illogical and conjecture to think this is talking about unique fingerprints.
No where in the verse does it mention finger prints being unique.
If finger prints weren't identical it wouldn't make the verse false therefore the verse is not actually providing information that can be proved true or false.
I genuinely hope you will at least try to understand the point I'm trying to get across to you here.
I'm not saying it's definitely all bullshit, I'm saying from what I've seen it isn't valid information that can be proved true or false to any serious degree at all.

(August 31, 2013 at 6:54 am)genkaus Wrote:

(August 31, 2013 at 4:18 am)bennyboy Wrote: But you're just proving that all dogs have tails. Now you have the task of proving that wherever there's a tail, there's necessarily a dog.

Actually, I never claimed that wherever there is a tail there is a dog. Put in other words I never claimed that experience is only possible with human minds.

I think you saw the syllogism in the most sensible way, but I wasn't talking about that: I'm saying that EVEN IF some people actually experience and have brain function X, brain function X cannot be taken as sufficient proof that someone actually experiences.

In fact, it's not even that. The truth is I have access to exactly one consciousness-- and I cannot infer from any physical similarity to me that anyone else actually experiences. I can only assume it.

Quote:

(August 31, 2013 at 4:18 am)bennyboy Wrote: Actually, you're not quite proving that all dogs have tails, because we don't have to infer the existence of tails from any aspect of the dogs' behavior.

We do - as a matter of fact. A dog can't wag his tail if he does not have one.

Maybe not. But if the brain is a physical mechanism and nothing more, then it can process data and output behaviors without actual awareness. Any physical machine that requires that special quality is really evidence for a soul, rather than a proof that there isn't one.

Quote:

(August 31, 2013 at 4:18 am)bennyboy Wrote: Again, you are correlating behaviors with brain function, not the actual mental experience.

No, I'm saying experience is a brain function. Therefore, I'm correlating behavior to both brain function and experience at the same time.

You can say whatever you want. But I don't accept it-- it must be proven.

Quote:

(August 31, 2013 at 4:18 am)bennyboy Wrote: So when you say, "All conscious people have brain function X," what you're really saying is, all people who (report their experiences/move their eyes/show emotion) have brain function X. At no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of their subjective experience.

When you say that dinosaurs existed, what you are actually saying is that existence of fossils suggest existence of dinosaurs - at no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of dinosaurs.

When you say that black-holes exist, what you are actually saying is that motion of certain astronomical bodies suggest its existence - at no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of their existence.

When you say that global warming occurs, what you are actually saying is that scientists have reported its occurrence - at no point do you have access to its existential reality.

When you say that the accused committed a crime what you are actually saying is that evidence and eye-witness testimony suggest that he committed the crime - at no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of the crime itself.

As I've said before - direct perceptual access to something is not required to establish its existence.

All those things are inferred purely based on what you can see, or believe that you COULD see, if you chose to go do it yourself. If you want to start attributing qualities to them that are not required to explain observations, then you are on weak ground.

I accept that the brain takes in light and processes touch, sound, etc. I accept that brains result in behaviors. I do not accept that any of these processes necessarily indicates actual experience. This must be assumed.

Why does it matter? Because it may soon come that man-made machines can simulate human behavior closely enough to elicit sincere emotional responses (love, anger, etc.) from actual humans. So should we strive to sustain these mechanisms and give them rights? No-- because it may very well be that they don't actually experience, in the way that we do.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think you saw the syllogism in the most sensible way, but I wasn't talking about that: I'm saying that EVEN IF some people actually experience and have brain function X, brain function X cannot be taken as sufficient proof that someone actually experiences.

Actually, it is sufficient evidence. If I establish the simultaneous existence of actual experience and brain function X, then, in future, I can regard the presence of brain function X as sufficient proof of existence of that person's awareness.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: In fact, it's not even that. The truth is I have access to exactly one consciousness-- and I cannot infer from any physical similarity to me that anyone else actually experiences. I can only assume it.

No, you can infer it. We infer things about existent entities without direct access all the time.

For example, I see the physical similarity between the jaw structure of lions and sabre-tooth tigers and I infer carnivory of the sabre-tooth.

As a matter of fact, I can infer existence of actual experience based on physical appearance alone. If you are overweight, it'd suggest a certain fondness for food which would not be possible without existence of subjective experience.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Maybe not. But if the brain is a physical mechanism and nothing more, then it can process data and output behaviors without actual awareness.

Processing data is itself a form of awareness. When you are aware of something, it means you receive information from that entity to process. The specific form of awareness you are talking about here is a type of self-awareness, i.e. being aware of the fact that you are aware of external environment. It is another layer of awareness on top of other layers.

So yes, brain as a physical mechanism can process data and output behaviors (as it does for most of our body functions) without actual subjective awareness - but, addition of the subjective awareness function would not magically make it a non-physical mechanism.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Any physical machine that requires that special quality is really evidence for a soul, rather than a proof that there isn't one.

No it isn't. Since that "special" quality is easily explicable as an additional layer of pre-existing function, invoking an arbitrary and undefinable concept like 'soul' is not required. And by the way, we don't need to prove that there isn't a soul - the same way we don't need to prove there isn't a god.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You can say whatever you want. But I don't accept it-- it must be proven.

Your acceptance is unnecessary. That's what the evidence suggests.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: All those things are inferred purely based on what you can see, or believe that you COULD see, if you chose to go do it yourself.

All those things are based on what I can see - evidence of existence, though not existence itself - and its the same for consciousness. And like consciousness, I cannot directly see the black holes or the dinosaurs or the crime being committed - all I have to go on is the evidence.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If you want to start attributing qualities to them that are not required to explain observations, then you are on weak ground.

You are the one doing that - not me. You are the one attributing qualities like soul when the naturalistic explanation is sufficient.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I accept that the brain takes in light and processes touch, sound, etc. I accept that brains result in behaviors. I do not accept that any of these processes necessarily indicates actual experience. This must be assumed.

Only if you ignore any and all behaviors that require experience to occur. Simple processing of external stimuli would result in one set of behavior - such a flinching from touch or pupils contracting from light. Processing of this process - which is what experience is - results in a whole different set of behavior. You cannot answer any personal questions (why did you pick a banana instead of an apple, which do you like better - chocolate or vanilla?) without there being actual experience.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Why does it matter? Because it may soon come that man-made machines can simulate human behavior closely enough to elicit sincere emotional responses (love, anger, etc.) from actual humans. So should we strive to sustain these mechanisms and give them rights? No-- because it may very well be that they don't actually experience, in the way that we do.

What we have here is the naked fallacy of "appeal to consequences". You do not like the possible consequence of the given explanation - an explanation which, by the way, has been philosophically justified and has scientific support - and that is your reason for rejecting it. In doing so, you are wrong - plain and simple.

As fro the consequence you have envisaged:
1. For machines to simulate human behavior without actual experience would be, in my opinion, impossible. A great deal of human behavior is contingent upon personal desires, knowledge, beliefs and past experience - all of which require actual subjective awareness. Replicating these without that awareness would not be possible.

2. We do not grant rights based on the capacity to be self-aware. We know that a lot of animals are, in fact, self-aware and capable of subjective experience like love, hate, anger and also capable of evoking similar response in humans. But they are not given any rights and if that is the level of awareness displayed by the machines, they wouldn;t be either.

3. The criteria for granting rights, i.e. the capacity for acting rationally, the capacity to act with reference to one's beliefs, knowledge, emotions etc. is to be applied in this case. If the machines fulfill this criteria, then they should be given equal human rights - regardless of allegations of true Scotsman's experience.

(September 1, 2013 at 12:00 am)genkaus Wrote: Actually, it is sufficient evidence. If I establish the simultaneous existence of actual experience and brain function X, then, in future, I can regard the presence of brain function X as sufficient proof of existence of that person's awareness.

That is exactly right. You can easily establish the existence of brain function. Now go ahead and establish the existence of actual experience. Careful, though, that you don't refer to brain function X in your attempts to do so, or you're begging the question.

Quote:As a matter of fact, I can infer existence of actual experience based on physical appearance alone. If you are overweight, it'd suggest a certain fondness for food which would not be possible without existence of subjective experience.

Only because you are using the mind-existential word, "fondness." If you used "genetic tendency to consume particular foods," then that implies nothing about subjective experience.

Quote:Processing data is itself a form of awareness. When you are aware of something, it means you receive information from that entity to process. The specific form of awareness you are talking about here is a type of self-awareness, i.e. being aware of the fact that you are aware of external environment. It is another layer of awareness on top of other layers.

This is an interesting model, founded on a strange definition. Next comes the idea that the Earth is a giant consciousness, since we are all layering up on the internet, or the idea that each particle has a kind of particular consciousness that, when structured, adds up to a human consciousness. But to what degree any of these interesting ideas constitute reality is another issue altogether.

Quote:So yes, brain as a physical mechanism can process data and output behaviors (as it does for most of our body functions) without actual subjective awareness - but, addition of the subjective awareness function would not magically make it a non-physical mechanism.

Given that the brain can process data without awareness, we need a good reason why awareness is required, or how it happens. Waving at the brain, or poking it with needles to see if people smell burning toast, doesn't achieve either of these. At best, we have some plausible theories.

Quote:Since that "special" quality is easily explicable as an additional layer of pre-existing function, invoking an arbitrary and undefinable concept like 'soul' is not required. And by the way, we don't need to prove that there isn't a soul - the same way we don't need to prove there isn't a god.

I'm not actually a big fan of the soul. However, neither am I big on the idea that any physical mechanism requires self-awareness in order to operate. That's pretty magi-tastic.

Quote:

(August 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If you want to start attributing qualities to them that are not required to explain observations, then you are on weak ground.

You are the one doing that - not me. You are the one attributing qualities like soul when the naturalistic explanation is sufficient.

BOP hot-potato game is fun. No, YOU have BOP, since I'm not asserting anything except that the things you are saying are scientific theories supported by evidence actually cannot be anything but assumptions, or at least derived from assumptions, which beg the question.

Quote:Simple processing of external stimuli would result in one set of behavior - such a flinching from touch or pupils contracting from light. Processing of this process - which is what experience is - results in a whole different set of behavior. You cannot answer any personal questions (why did you pick a banana instead of an apple, which do you like better - chocolate or vanilla?) without there being actual experience.

I'm pretty sure machines will be able to do all these things eventually. I'm not sure, however, that they will actually have subjective experiences as I do.

(September 1, 2013 at 2:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: That is exactly right. You can easily establish the existence of brain function. Now go ahead and establish the existence of actual experience. Careful, though, that you don't refer to brain function X in your attempts to do so, or you're begging the question.

For that you use the non-mental indicators of experience - the subject's verbal testimony, physiological reactions, physical reactions (both conscious and subconscious). Should there be actual experience occurring, all these lines of inquiry would be consistent and complement each-other and thus form a comprehensive body of evidence for the existence of experience.

(September 1, 2013 at 2:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: Only because you are using the mind-existential word, "fondness." If you used "genetic tendency to consume particular foods," then that implies nothing about subjective experience.

That's the point. "Genetic tendency to consume particular foods" is not fondness - fondness requires the entity to be aware of that genetic tendency, which means being subjectively aware. Being overweight would normally require more than simple genetic tendency, it'd require that the person be aware of that tendency and act accordingly.

(September 1, 2013 at 2:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: This is an interesting model, founded on a strange definition. Next comes the idea that the Earth is a giant consciousness, since we are all layering up on the internet, or the idea that each particle has a kind of particular consciousness that, when structured, adds up to a human consciousness. But to what degree any of these interesting ideas constitute reality is another issue altogether.

I've corrected this misconception before.

Consciousness is a form of data-processing. That does not mean that all data-processing are forms of consciousness. Therefore, earth is not a giant consciousness and each particle does not have a particular kind of consciousness. The complexity of the system is very much relevant to this.

(September 1, 2013 at 2:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: Given that the brain can process data without awareness, we need a good reason why awareness is required, or how it happens. Waving at the brain, or poking it with needles to see if people smell burning toast, doesn't achieve either of these. At best, we have some plausible theories.

Actually, that is the first step t achieving precisely that. When you open a hood of the car, you don't automatically find out what does what and how the whole thing works. You have to poke and prod at various places to figure that out.

(September 1, 2013 at 2:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: I'm not actually a big fan of the soul. However, neither am I big on the idea that any physical mechanism requires self-awareness in order to operate. That's pretty magi-tastic.

You are the one who brought up the soul. Anyway, if you believe that a physical system can completely simulate human behavior without the requisite self-awareness inherent to humanity, then by all means, provide justification.

(September 1, 2013 at 2:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: BOP hot-potato game is fun. No, YOU have BOP, since I'm not asserting anything except that the things you are saying are scientific theories supported by evidence actually cannot be anything but assumptions, or at least derived from assumptions, which beg the question.

Criticisms to philosophical positions are not exempt from the burden of proof.

The "assumptions" here is the knowledge that:
- Physical systems exist.
- Physical systems capable of information processing exist.

The mind-hypothesis compatible with these assumptions is that "consciousness is a form of information processing done by the physical system referred to as the brain".

The testing parameters for this hypothesis would require explaining different aspects of consciousness (data-processing) as functions of brain and providing evidence that they are, in fact, functions of brain. While this testing is not complete, it is well on its way with mounting evidence explaining different aspects of consciousness as brain functions.

The falsifiability criteria would be presenting an aspect of consciousness that simply cannot be explained as a brain function - not just currently, but in perpetuity. The most common candidate for this would be the hard problem of consciousness or subjective experience. However, there is a hypothesis addressing that specific issue - one that is compatible to the physicalist-mind hypothesis and has sufficient evidence for it so that it cannot be rejected out-of-hand.

Thus, I've met my burden of proof - to the extent our current knowledge allows. Criticizing this position simply based on limitations of current knowledge would be - by definition - arguing from ignorance.

Despite your protests to the contrary, your assertion here is simple - "subjective experience cannot be explained/tested/proven by physcalist hypotheses/experimentation". The position to the contrary has given ample evidence to justify itself. You have given none. Science has met its burden of proof - you have not.

(September 1, 2013 at 2:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: I'm pretty sure machines will be able to do all these things eventually. I'm not sure, however, that they will actually have subjective experiences as I do.

Behavior indicative of subjective preference without actual subjective awareness? How the hell is that even possible?

(September 1, 2013 at 3:27 am)genkaus Wrote: For that you use the non-mental indicators of experience - the subject's verbal testimony, physiological reactions, physical reactions (both conscious and subconscious). Should there be actual experience occurring, all these lines of inquiry would be consistent and complement each-other and thus form a comprehensive body of evidence for the existence of experience.

Things are not always what they seem. You can come at this problem from as many angles as you want-- but they all have one thing in common: they do not give you direct access to subjective experience, and therefore require assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that there is any subjective experience happening at all.

Quote:That's the point. "Genetic tendency to consume particular foods" is not fondness - fondness requires the entity to be aware of that genetic tendency, which means being subjectively aware. Being overweight would normally require more than simple genetic tendency, it'd require that the person be aware of that tendency and act accordingly.

You can prove that an organism behaves in a certain way. You cannot prove that the reason it behaves in this way is because it has actual experience of the information it is processing.

Quote:I've corrected this misconception before.

Consciousness is a form of data-processing. That does not mean that all data-processing are forms of consciousness. Therefore, earth is not a giant consciousness and each particle does not have a particular kind of consciousness. The complexity of the system is very much relevant to this.

Layers in layers, dude. You have yet to come up with any test that proves the existence of actual experience in an organism, rather than it behaving as you suppose a feeling organism might behave.

Quote:You are the one who brought up the soul. Anyway, if you believe that a physical system can completely simulate human behavior without the requisite self-awareness inherent to humanity, then by all means, provide justification.

IF and only IF behavior is a mechanical, deterministic result of processed data, then why not? Once upon a time, it was said a computer could never beat a grandmaster, because it lacked "imagination." We now know that a computer can beat almost any player, even a grandmaster; we do not know, however, that the computer has an imagination.

Quote:

---

Criticisms to philosophical positions are not exempt from the burden of proof.

The "assumptions" here is the knowledge that:
- Physical systems exist.
- Physical systems capable of information processing exist.

The mind-hypothesis compatible with these assumptions is that "consciousness is a form of information processing done by the physical system referred to as the brain".

The testing parameters for this hypothesis would require explaining different aspects of consciousness (data-processing) as functions of brain and providing evidence that they are, in fact, functions of brain. While this testing is not complete, it is well on its way with mounting evidence explaining different aspects of consciousness as brain functions.

The falsifiability criteria would be presenting an aspect of consciousness that simply cannot be explained as a brain function - not just currently, but in perpetuity. The most common candidate for this would be the hard problem of consciousness or subjective experience. However, there is a hypothesis addressing that specific issue - one that is compatible to the physicalist-mind hypothesis and has sufficient evidence for it so that it cannot be rejected out-of-hand.

Thus, I've met my burden of proof - to the extent our current knowledge allows. Criticizing this position simply based on limitations of current knowledge would be - by definition - arguing from ignorance.

Despite your protests to the contrary, your assertion here is simple - "subjective experience cannot be explained/tested/proven by physcalist hypotheses/experimentation". The position to the contrary has given ample evidence to justify itself. You have given none. Science has met its burden of proof - you have not.

---

The problem here is that a circle can't rightly be reasoned to be an arrow. ALL the science done is done by minds. If what those minds perceive is an accurate representation of reality, then the science is valid, even to the degree of determining where mind comes from. However, if reality is other than what it seems, which is very possible, then the validity of the science is limited to the scope of the assumptions you listed: specifically, that there is a physical reality, and that it is (pretty much) what it seems to be.

So if I use science to determine how to build a bridge, and I have the experience of a standing bridge, that's fine. In the context of the universe as it seems, it doesn't matter what the underlying reality of the bridge is. And as satisfying as it is to meet the BOP of ideas set in this context, and as elegant as your proofs in this context are, you are forever limited to that context.

If you want to use science (read: the mind) to determine the nature of mind in an absolute sense, then you have a parent/child relationship in which the two are identical. You must resolve the validity of the parent to validate ideas about the child, but cannot for obvious reasons-- you've thrown yourself into an infinite loop.

Quote:Behavior indicative of subjective preference without actual subjective awareness? How the hell is that even possible?

Well, the Cyberboy 2000 says, "Yum yum, I want the chocolate ice cream, not the yucky strawberry," rubs its belly, drools a little, and opens its eyes slightly wider to show that what it is looking at "pleases" it. It stamps its little cyber-feet if you tell it no, and make annoying noises in the car on the way home. None of this means it's actually experiencing anything.

(September 1, 2013 at 6:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: Things are not always what they seem. You can come at this problem from as many angles as you want-- but they all have one thing in common: they do not give you direct access to subjective experience, and therefore require assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that there is any subjective experience happening at all.

And as I've indicated many, many times before, direct access is not required to establish existence. Not for black-holes, dinosaurs or a murder and not for subjective experience either. The only assumption here is that subjective experience, like any other existent entity, have a specific form of existence and provide specific evidence of its existence. That assumption is made for all the other objects as well. Your continuous repetition of "if can't directly observe it, you can't know it exists" has been invalidated by science in multiple scenarios.

(September 1, 2013 at 6:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: You can prove that an organism behaves in a certain way. You cannot prove that the reason it behaves in this way is because it has actual experience of the information it is processing.

If I prove that the behavior requires actual experience of processed information, then I have proven that it is capable of actual experience. And guess what, this is precisely what the scientists ins the field of neuroscience have done.

(September 1, 2013 at 6:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: Layers in layers, dude. You have yet to come up with any test that proves the existence of actual experience in an organism, rather than it behaving as you suppose a feeling organism might behave.

That is the test. How are you not getting this? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. If I independently ascertain facts about your life and then ask you questions about it and you answer me without any external prompting, then the conclusion that you are speaking from memory is a reasonable one. Similarly, if I see that in all subjects giving verbal testimony of anger, there are consistent hormonal and physiological reactions such as spike in adrenaline, increased heart-rate, vasodilation then the conclusion that the entity is actually experiencing anger is a reasonable one.

(September 1, 2013 at 6:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: IF and only IF behavior is a mechanical, deterministic result of processed data, then why not?

Given, my argument is that subjective experience itself is mechanical, deterministic form of data-processing, I don't see the point of this statement.

(September 1, 2013 at 6:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: Once upon a time, it was said a computer could never beat a grandmaster, because it lacked "imagination." We now know that a computer can beat almost any player, even a grandmaster; we do not know, however, that the computer has an imagination.

Actually, we do know that it has imagination. All we have to do is look at the Chess program. Nobody has programmed in all possible moves and all possible strategies into it. Only the rules of the game and parameters of analysis have been given. Based on those, the program comes up different possible scenarios that are not a part of reality. That is precisely what imagination is - coming up with scenarios that are not a part of reality based on the knowledge of reality.

(September 1, 2013 at 6:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: The problem here is that a circle can't rightly be reasoned to be an arrow. ALL the science done is done by minds. If what those minds perceive is an accurate representation of reality, then the science is valid, even to the degree of determining where mind comes from. However, if reality is other than what it seems, which is very possible, then the validity of the science is limited to the scope of the assumptions you listed: specifically, that there is a physical reality, and that it is (pretty much) what it seems to be.

Is it possible? That reality is not what it seems? We are not talking about errors in perception here. Science accounts for those errors and has measures in place for correction. What you are suggesting here is the possibility that perception itself is invalid. Got a way to justify that possibility?

(September 1, 2013 at 6:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: So if I use science to determine how to build a bridge, and I have the experience of a standing bridge, that's fine. In the context of the universe as it seems, it doesn't matter what the underlying reality of the bridge is. And as satisfying as it is to meet the BOP of ideas set in this context, and as elegant as your proofs in this context are, you are forever limited to that context.

If you want to use science (read: the mind) to determine the nature of mind in an absolute sense, then you have a parent/child relationship in which the two are identical. You must resolve the validity of the parent to validate ideas about the child, but cannot for obvious reasons-- you've thrown yourself into an infinite loop.

Do I really have to remind you that science does not deal in absolutes?

The reason this argument fails is that the parent/child statements are not identical. One addresses the nature of perception, the other addresses the nature of mind.

The statement "mind perceives reality" (parent) is axiomatic - make no mistake about that. But it says nothing about the nature of mind itself. Any question regarding the nature of mind is a separate consideration.

The statement "mind is a physical system" (child) does require validation - which has been given. This statement lies squarely within the given context and is valid within it. If you wish to question the context itself, i.e. challenge whether we truly perceive reality, you may do so. But beware: any such challenge would implicitly assume that very concept and any such denial would therefore commit the fallacy of stolen concept.

(September 1, 2013 at 6:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: Well, the Cyberboy 2000 says, "Yum yum, I want the chocolate ice cream, not the yucky strawberry," rubs its belly, drools a little, and opens its eyes slightly wider to show that what it is looking at "pleases" it. It stamps its little cyber-feet if you tell it no, and make annoying noises in the car on the way home. None of this means it's actually experiencing anything.

If we establish that the specific behavior is not present in the initial programming, then yes, it most certainly means that it is actually experiencing something.