I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

Nonpareil said:
Oh, it's not evasion. It's a refusal.

I am not going to jump through your hoops. I have already said everything that needs to be said about your gibberish. Even if there was anything left to say, I really don't see any point when it would just result in more condescension and lack of comprehension on your part.

Post something other than meaningless waffle that tries to look more intelligent than it actually is, and then we'll talk.
Click to expand...
An evasion of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10439351&postcount=1449 also have been noted.
 
Nonpareil said:
Post something other than meaningless waffle that tries to look more intelligent than it actually is
Click to expand...
Since by your own "that sort is my best guess. No idea if it's correct" evidence you actually do not understand it, you logically contradict yourself by

("that sort is my best guess. No idea if it's correct") AND ("tries to look more intelligent than it actually is") that can be reduced into

("I don't actually understand it") AND ("I actually understand it") that is a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Since by your own "that sort is my best guess. No idea if it's correct" evidence you actually do not understand it, you logically contradict yourself by

("that sort is my best guess. No idea if it's correct") AND ("tries to look more intelligent than it actually is") that can be reduced into

("I don't actually understand it") AND ("I actually understand it") that is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

You don't understand that people can talk about more than one thing, do you?
 
Nonpareil said:
In which case it would not be a mimic any more.

This is not complicated.



It would be possible. Brains are computers.

And the result would be self-conscious.



Because it behaves in every way exactly as though it were conscious.

That is what "is" means.
Click to expand...

You state such assumptions, brains are computers, or we can determine if an thing is self conscious by its behavior . . . as if these assumptions have been proven, or can be proven even in principle. Neither has been proven, and there is much serious debate on how to even proceed.
 
Doron must be the *only* person on the planet not able to answer the question:

"How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck would chuck wood?"
 
Nonpareil said:
That's not an assumption. The brain is a computer. It accepts input, computes it internally, and generates output. It is a computer.



That isn't an assumption. That is a definition.
Click to expand...

The notion that the brain is a computer is an best an analogy, and one that is falling from favor. Self consciousness is not defined by any observable behavior. Not defined by Third person observation.
 
LarryS said:
The notion that the brain is a computer is an best an analogy, and one that is falling from favor.
Click to expand...

No. It is literally true. The brain is a computer. It computes. It is not the same type of computer that you are using to write these posts, but it is a computer nonetheless.

We have been over this before.

LarryS said:
Self consciousness is not defined by any observable behavior. Not defined by Third person observation.
Click to expand...

Literally everything in the world is defined by observable behaviors.
 
Belz... said:
Again: it receives input, computes, and produces output.

How is that an analogy ?
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say that some brain function fit that analogy, but not everyone is a die-hard fan of the computational model to the point it can explain everything about the brain.
 
Nonpareil said:
No. It is literally true. The brain is a computer. It computes. It is not the same type of computer that you are using to write these posts, but it is a computer nonetheless.

We have been over this before.



Literally everything in the world is defined by observable behaviors.
Click to expand...

I searched for a link where anyone proposes a technique to establish third person observed self consciousness, and with the exception of vriations of the criticized 'mirror test' I could not find any. Do you have a link?
Again, I am not referring to intelligence as with the Turing Test-but self consciousness, which I think Punnush was referring to.
 
LarryS said:
I think it's safe to say that some brain function fit that analogy, but not everyone is a die-hard fan of the computational model to the point it can explain everything about the brain.
Click to expand...

Again. The brain is a computer.

We know that it computes. We know that we can manipulate its processes by altering the inputs or the hardware (chemicals, brain damage). Everything, up to and including the sense of self, can be altered by doing this.

It's either computation or it's magic. Take your pick.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
I searched for a link where anyone proposes a technique to establish third person observed self consciousness, and with the exception of vriations of the criticized 'mirror test' I could not find any. Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

This isn't a study. This isn't a matter of checking. This is not a scientific claim. This is a matter of definition.

Whatever your definition of consciousness, any entity which exacts in every situation exactly as though it meets that definition is conscious. That is what "is" means.
 
Nonpareil said:
This isn't a study. This isn't a matter of checking. This is not a scientific claim. This is a matter of definition.

Whatever your definition of consciousness, any entity which exacts in every situation exactly as though it meets that definition is conscious. That is what "is" means.
Click to expand...

Nonpareil and Belz - these definitions are yours and a few other extremists.
 
LarryS said:
Nonpareil and Belz - these definitions are yours and a few other extremists.
Click to expand...

No. You are not reading what I am saying.

Whatever your definition is, if you behave exactly in every situation as though you are conscious, you are conscious.

That is what "is" means.

This is not an extremist position. This is an extremely simple concept. If you behave in every situation exactly as though you are blue, you are blue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom