RE: On naturalism and consciousness
August 31, 2014 at 2:11 am
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2014 at 2:37 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(August 31, 2014 at 1:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: I don't think the sand possesses mind as a singular entity, but at the subatomic and atomic levels, there would still be mind there (IF single-substance, dual-property is true).Word salad, how are we to handle such a proposition? How do you handle it? What operation can you perform upon it and how have you determined that this claim is sound?
Quote:I think observation is very helpful. It helps us make formulas about things, build bridges and computers, and allows us the power to indirectly (but very greatly) change our life experience.Clearly not, you've decided that it's useless to the subject in question (I don't want to see you attempting to use it now..........)
Quote:I don't see any other way to conceive it that conforms to basic logic. If I'm trying to use observation to make inferences about observation, I end up with a nasty circle, and circles are the enemy of logic.Computational theory of mind is -all- about "basic logic" - so this comment really mystifies me. What do you think I'm talking about when I offer a gate? No logic, no computation - no computation, no computational theory of mind. I'm literally referring to nothing else. Fuck man, logic itself is observation......just where can we even go from this point?
Quote:The problem here is that by defining the subjective in objective terms, you might end up with results that don't accord with reality.That would be a problem for someone who has thrown away observation in this area why?
Quote:You might, for example, end up with a robot that you assume and believe to experience qualia, but which in fact does not.Why would I assume that, why would you?
Quote:And all the scientific articles and reviews, all the confirmation of one observer with the results of another, won't change that fact.What fact? The fact that you are capable of imagining me making an assumption that I wouldn't make (and have no reason to make)? Conceded, good game sir?
Quote:As soon as words get defined in a way that begs the question, we already know that our results are going to fit our world view. This is not a process of inquiry, but of semantic reflection-- the logical equivalent of a dog happily chasing its own tail.Inquiry about what? No observations allowed Benny. They're useless here, if you'll recall.
Quote:We all criticize X-tians for doing this. "What's God? He's the all-powerful being described in the Bible. What's the Bible? It's the infallible proof of the existence of God." It's a fun enough game to play if you like that kind of thing-- but it thwarts any sincere investigation into whether an actual God could or does exist.That has bearing on computational theory of mind....how?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
