The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.

[Dmitry1983]

I don't understand your question. Catching an object is external behavior.

External to what? Certainly not to the individual doing the catching.

They can't perceive an object but their brains can correctly process visual information to catch it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I mean, Boru is not wrong here. From what you posted, it seems like they are unable to have subjective experiences involving vision, but they could still have subjective experiences in other ways. For example, they could still hear, feel pain, etc.

Dmitry doesn't seem to grasp that even guessing where an object is, or if the object is moving, or catching an object, are ALL subjective experiences.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

External to what? Certainly not to the individual doing the catching.

They can't perceive an object but their brains can correctly process visual information to catch it.

Which makes it a subjective experience. Duh.

Boru

[Dmitry1983]

They can't perceive an object but their brains can correctly process visual information to catch it.

Which makes it a subjective experience. Duh.

No

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Which makes it a subjective experience. Duh.

No

Yes. If THEIR brain is processing information to move THEIR hand to catch an object, that is a subjective experience. It's what 'subjective' means, ffs.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

I mean, Boru is not wrong here. From what you posted, it seems like they are unable to have subjective experiences involving vision, but they could still have subjective experiences in other ways. For example, they could still hear, feel pain, etc.

Dmitry doesn't seem to grasp that even guessing where an object is, or if the object is moving, or catching an object, are ALL subjective experiences.

Boru

Oh, in that case, I disagree with you here. If by "subjective experiences", we're talking qualia. I guess what really needs to happen first is be clear on all the relevant terms here.

If one can "blindly" guess, like how an advanced computer would "guess" where nearby obstacles are, then it doesn't seem to me like this involves subjective experiences of the sort that appear to "run around in our minds".

[Dmitry1983]

No

Yes. If THEIR brain is processing information to move THEIR hand to catch an object, that is a subjective experience. It's what 'subjective' means, ffs.

No

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Dmitry doesn't seem to grasp that even guessing where an object is, or if the object is moving, or catching an object, are ALL subjective experiences.

Boru

Oh, in that case, I disagree with you here. If by "subjective experiences", we're talking qualia. I guess what really needs to happen first is be clear on all the relevant terms here.

If one can "blindly" guess, like how an advanced computer would "guess" where nearby obstacles are, then it doesn't seem to me like this involves subjective experiences of the sort that appear to "run around in our minds".

Making a guess is, in and of itself, a subjective experience.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

Oh, in that case, I disagree with you here. If by "subjective experiences", we're talking qualia. I guess what really needs to happen first is be clear on all the relevant terms here.

If one can "blindly" guess, like how an advanced computer would "guess" where nearby obstacles are, then it doesn't seem to me like this involves subjective experiences of the sort that appear to "run around in our minds".

Making a guess is, in and of itself, a subjective experience.

Boru

If one is conscious of their guessing, then that would be a subjective experience. If the guessing is happening without any awareness to it, then I don't agree that this is a subjective experience. You could get a computer program to "guess" and predict, does this mean it's having a subjective experience in doing so?

[The Grand Nudger]

It may, actually, but we tend to believe there's some fundamental difference between the two. If so, we're talking about two ways to skin a cat. Why that would be a problem for evolutionary theory is anyone's guess. We've not heard any explanation for why. Humans and ants found different ways to communicate. Birds and bees found different ways to fly. Heterotrophs and autotrophs found different ways to supply their metabolism. Do these things also prove that evolutionary theory is false?

Personally, i think this one goes into the "not even wrong" category. It fails to rise to that level. More like a lazy anything at all will do approach to reaching a desired conclusion. It might actually be difficult to see what evolutionary utility consciousness and/or subjective experience provides if it were not for the plethora of other methods that life has arrived at to achieve what subjective experience(or whatever it is giving us that apprehension) does in humans. Positing a p-zombie or pointing to those examples doesn't do what the arguer wishes, rather, it accomplishes the opposite. Demonstrating that there are many ways to bake a cake, and that the baking of cakes by any means is one hell of a useful trick. Life may yet come up with even more efficient and powerful planners and guessers than the planners and guessers who use subjective experience(or, again, whatever it is) to do so. Conversely, our planning and guessing apparatus (whatever it is) may one day become a liability (if it hasn't already, lol).