(August 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You say tomato, I say "begging the question." By "empirical," you mean observations which can be part of our mutual experience. Let me ask you this, would you accept mental self-reflection or self-observation as an act of empirical observation? If not, then put your thesaurus away, because you are using "physical terms" and "empirical terms" interchangeably.
Yes, I would accept mental self-reflection as an act of empirical observation. And no, by "empirical" I do not exclusively refer to observations necessarily a part of mutual experience. This is just another strawman created by your failure to understand established concepts.
(August 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Your ideas are based on reality? As in, objective reality? Tell me, pray tell, how are you to confirm this confident assertion, but with your mental faculties? And should these faculties turn out to be too limited to comprehend the truth that the entire universe offers, what then?
Yes. Yes. The confirmation of the assertion lies in its negation being self-refuting. And as long as these faculties are capable of comprehending the truth, their limitations are irrelevant.
(August 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: What's this "true" stuff? Sentience, as in the ability to ACTUALLY experience rather than just to process information from the environment, cannot be shown to exist, except as a concept.
Any evidence for this assertion? Any evidence to show that the ability to ACTUALLY experience is something other than the ability to process information? What's the criteria of falsifiability in this? That is, what evidence do you require so that you may accept that sentience has been shown to exist?
(August 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: So basically, there is some unique quality of mind which cannot be represented by any mechanical process, no matter how complex? I mean people are pretty varied-- I don't think passing the Turing test is going to be so hard.
Wrong. The unique quality of mind called "sentience" is a specific form of data-processing and its results cannot be mimicked by any other form of data-processing. So, if a mechanical process is to represent results specific to the quality of sentience, it'd need to be sentient itself.
(August 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The preponderance of evidence shows that every mind which is able to communicate the fact of its awareness to human beings supervenes on the human brain. It says nothing about how any physical system CAN supervene the important quality of actual awareness, or about what other physical systems might have some level of awareness.
Evidence also shows that not every mind that is aware can actually communicate the fact of its awareness. So the fact that your argument says nothing about the quality of awareness is irrelevant.
(August 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Strawman much? I've never said we shouldn't try to find out about the brain or the mind. I've said that the ASSUMPTIONS we make about mind are neither proven nor provable, due to limitations intrinsic to the subjective perspective.
[Emphasis mine] Your words, not mine. You are the one starting with the position that the assumptiones we make about mind are neither proven nor provable. This is precisely the position I'm accusing you of - therefore, not a strawman.
(August 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: But let me say this: all the science we do begins and ends with sentience. You think looking through a microscope is an objective process? Or gazing through a telescope? No. These things are all experiences, and so all of science happens at the level of concepts, not the level of any physical reality that might underly them.
Wrong. Again. Sentience is not necessary for engaging in science. I don't need to personally look through the microscope or the telescope - as a matter of fact, nowadays, we prefer to have machines that analyze the visual data and simply give us the results.
(August 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Don't believe me? Then answer me this: is a tree, for example, more properly referred to as an object, or as an emergent property of particles completely lacking tree-ness?
An object.
(August 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: lol this is an anthropomorphic example. The point is that we can see that all living things are intrinsically limited in their capacity to comprehend the truth. We can fully understand WHY a worm can never ever comprehend, for example, the doppler shift of stars moving at different speeds; the worm cannot see, and so it cannot be said to comprehend "reality." Now, what are the chances that humans are so perfect in our perceptions that we have no absolute system limitations of this kind? I say zero percent; what say you?
Now you are confusing comprehension for perception? What is wrong with you?
The limitations on an entity's perceptual capacity does not intrinsically limit its capacity to comprehend the truth. The reason why a worm cannot comprehend the doppler shift is not because it cannot see, its because it lacks the requisite higher brain functions required for comprehension. Perceptual perfection is not necessary for comprehending the truth. The advances made by science are definitive evidence of that - we are quite capable of comprehending the truths that go way, way beyond our perceptual capacity. Which is precisely why - so far - we do not know of any intrinsic limitations on our capacity to understand the truth and there is no evidence to suggest that any such intrinsic limitations exist.
