Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-31-2002, 05:09 PM | #121 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 181
|
Quote:
I think it's my my poor vocabulary that unduly mis-represents my ability to reason, but sometimes I wonder; is using sophisticated terms really necessary to communicate sophisticated ideas? Anyhow, enough about me, I want to respond to your post in full when my room-mate is not here (making noise in the background and watching TV). I have a lot to say and I want to make sure I can focus and respond in full, without any distractions. So I will respond later when I have some time; it be Monday, but I will try to respond before that, if I can. |
|
01-31-2002, 06:59 PM | #122 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,886
|
Quote:
|
|
02-01-2002, 02:45 AM | #123 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Darwin
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
Yes I agree with you, the brain too is software, it is a genetic software which is why our brain is so much larger than that of a chimpanzee's. It is probably one of the few 1.4% of our genes in which we a different. The human mind is an emergent property of the brain and the human brain is an emergent our human our human genes, which all boils down to "information". Quote:
crocodile deathroll |
||
02-01-2002, 12:28 PM | #124 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Fidel
Posts: 3,383
|
Theophage,
I guess its just a fundamental difference in the way we view consciousness. I think my view is more correct (of course ) because it makes less assumptions about internal behavior based upon (visable/apparent) external behavior. I really don't believe that there are certain "conscious behaviors" that all conscious beings must display. I responded to a few parts of your post. Quote:
Quote:
The display of certain behaviors might lead us to believe that other humans possess a similar type of consciousness, but it does not indicate that objects that do not display the same behaviors lack consciousness. Which you said: Quote:
Exactly what I was saying (except for your reasoning part). You cannot determine anything "internally" about an object/being by its external behavior. So you have nothing with which to judge whether or not an object has consciousness. This goes back to my previous statement: In no way does (empirical) evidence indicate whether or not something (besides the observer) possesses consciousness. Which is a true statement (I think ). |
|||
02-01-2002, 01:25 PM | #125 | ||||||
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 181
|
Dear Farren,
I'm going to take a shot at answering your questions now cause I have some time before I leave for the weekend... You wrote: Quote:
By the way, I must tell you, it feels real nice to know that you're not going to ask me for 'evidence' to support what I just said. *sighs in relief....* Quote:
I am sure you agree. Quote:
Do you know what I am talking about? Of course, 'abstract' is a very vague term, which basically refers to something that exists, but not really, and it is kind of a self-defeating term in istelf, wouldn't you say?? It may be useful, but not very practical when trying to determine a certain fact with much more concreteness than that. I haven't investigated the Platonic view of reality (as described by Plato) as much as I would like to, so I can't say this with utmost certainty, but I think that my view of reality closely, if not exactly, parallels the Platonic view of reality where all things including time, space, mind, matter and even concept are embodied in one 'static' existence; each one in their own 'realm' or to put it in modern physics terms, their own 'dimension'. I'm not up to speed on modern multi-dimensional (theoretical) physics, but I am quite curious as to what possible phenomenon could exist in the other 8, theorized dimensions which apparently exclude the four that the materialists are so eager to accept as the only ones that exis. Have you ever wondered yourself? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just send me a private message if you would like to get deeper into this discussion. P.S. It's nice to know there are other smart people out there who I can share my ideas with!! [ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Filip Sandor ]</p> |
||||||
02-01-2002, 02:28 PM | #126 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Darwin
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
I do not believe any "thing" is conscious it just the pattern in which the right thing ingredients arranged into. Like for example if you had fallen into a mincing machine then although that matter will all be the same it before that unfortunate accident, but would no longer exhibit the behaviors that constitute consciousness, so the "matter" is not conscious it is the configuration of it . All the material parts will still be there but there will not be the slightest trace of consciousness. Just like if I arranged a deck of cards in numerical order then shuffled them thoroughly. Imagine a chess player #1 losing his temper and throwing the board and pieces across the room because player #2 is pinching the bottom of player #1s wife an kissing her on the cheek and run off with her. Would deep blue need exhibit such behaviors to prove that is is conscious? It would have digress outside the rules of chess to provide any further evidence that is conscious. If you empathize with that impatient person because he/she is behaving in a similar manner to how you would under those circumstances then that person too is just as conscious as you. Quote:
crocodile deathroll |
||
02-01-2002, 03:55 PM | #127 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Fidel
Posts: 3,383
|
Quote:
Quote:
Consciousness: 1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought (from The Merriam Webster Collegiate dictionary, <a href="http://www.m-w.com)" target="_blank">www.m-w.com)</a> The actions and behaviors of an object do not show if that object experiences emotions, sensations, volition, thought, awareness of self or external objects, etc. The "behaviors that constitute consciousness" are all internal to the conscious being unless that being both decides and has the ability to make its consciousness apparent. You have fallen into the "if it ain't actin' like me, it ain't got none of that there consciousness" trap. [sarcasm] If I did think that behaviors of things external to me constituted consciousness I would have to say that matter is conscious : Matter appears to be aware of other matter, and in fact, interacts with other matter in highly complicated ways (look at us). Matter is attracted to other matter over great distances, but is also repulsed whenever it gets 'close' to other matter. Matter combines with other matter, changes form, splits apart, forms many different configurations. I would have to say that matter displays behaviors that indicate it is conscious . I doubt matter considers the things it forms (such as humans) conscious because they (we) only display subordinate behavior to the behaviors of matter. Matter chooses not to recognize the consciousness of humans because humans act in such a mechanical way- only doing what the matter decides it wants to do. How could humans possibly be conscious? [/sarcasm] |
||
02-01-2002, 03:59 PM | #128 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Farnham, UK
Posts: 859
|
"'Mind matter' or what I prefer to call a 'mental form' as opposed to a 'physical form' is clearly influenced via it's causal connection, if not two way interaction, with physical forms. This as we both know, has been scientifically validated beyond much doubt."
What's been validated exactly, that there is a metaphysically distinct substance from matter that science has validated as affecting matter? "I believe that there is too much empirical evidence of [my own] minds concrete existence [for me], to vaguely label it [my own mind] an abstraction." Where's the empirical evidence? I can give you empirical evidence for a brain with a knife. But a mind? Where's your empirical evidence that I have a mind, for example, or anyone in your vicinity? Adrian |
02-01-2002, 04:11 PM | #129 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Farnham, UK
Posts: 859
|
"The actions and behaviors of an object do not show if that object experiences emotions, sensations, volition, thought, awareness of self or external objects, etc.
The "behaviors that constitute consciousness" are all internal to the conscious being unless that being both decides and has the ability to make its consciousness apparent. You have fallen into the "if it ain't actin' like me, it ain't got none of that there consciousness" trap. " This isn't the full picture. It is not enough simply to point out that behaviour alone is no guarantee of consciousness. I don't see why I can't add the proviso that in the case of a living human being with an intact brain, one can argue that while consciousness is not always displayed, the human being with a brain is the kind of being that can be conscious. You wouldn't want to fall into the trap of thinking that just because one isn't exhibiting consciousness that means anything could be conscious, that's at the very least counter intuitive, and at the worst, misunderstanding what kinds of thing can and can't be conscious. No, I couldn't guarantee consciousness in any-one, but I am confident that consciousness doesn't exist in any-thing that hasn't got the right arrangement of matter as part of its construct. Certain arrangements of matter are conscious. certain arrangements aren't. It's not a hard idea to conceive of. Adrian |
02-01-2002, 04:26 PM | #130 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,886
|
Kharakov:
Quote:
As I said earlier - I see consciousness as second-order awareness - being aware that you have thoughts in a second-order way. (Rather than just the ordinary direct way, like animals and babies) I said this near the top of page 5 in this thread. In fact, I was addressing YOU specificially. Basically it is easier to break this down into parts - the first part is to see what awareness means. I talked about that earlier. By my definition rocks aren't aware, but I guess they could be, if dualism is true. This definition of awareness is: "a process where a system receives input and responds according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works." Now about whether things that behave like they are aware (according to my definition) are actually aware or not.... Let's say that a remote-controlled robot behaved like it was aware - well the entire system includes the human that is controlling it - otherwise it wouldn't display that aware behaviour. As a whole, that system is aware and this can be verified because it contains an intelligent human, which is obviously aware. Another example might be a robot that doesn't really learn, but is preprogrammed to anticipate what it is going to "learn" to cheat in the experiments (aware systems need to learn things, according to my definition). Well it would have been programmed by a human who was very aware of what the robot would go through and what the robot had to pretend it would "learn". The human is required in that system because if that human was never involved, the robot wouldn't appear to be aware. I can't think of any exceptions at the moment, but if there are, I think the behaviour they display would be due to chance and not intelligence and after a while it would be likely that they are actually are incapable of learning new things and its behaviour was just an accident. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|