ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th April 2018, 11:23 AM   #81
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,401
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I bet you it's not.


I don't think that will be a problem. We have plenty of experience imagining conscious machines. And we seem to be extremely good at coming up with expedient solutions to pressing problems without getting bogged down in philosophical concerns.

And so what if we have doubts? Humans have doubts about a lot of stuff. Humans are also adept at pressing on in spite of their doubts.


Changing horses. You were arguing that we needed to solve the problem of consciousness in order to solve these ethical problems. In fact, we're actually pretty good at solving ethical problems without getting bogged down in philosophical concerns.

Self-driving cars are a tool, like table saws or hydraulic presses or airplanes. And it turns out that we are actually pretty good at pricing our tools in units of human lives. We'll end up dealing with self-driving cars the same way we deal with self-loading firearms. It won't be pretty. It won't be entirely consistent. It won't be philosophical. But it will work.

I think philosophy is a waste of time in part because the problems you say we need philosophy to solve, it turns out we actually are solving without philosophy.
That too. ... Except for the firearms .

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2018, 08:17 PM   #82
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 498
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What if it could create another you without destroying the first you (aka, "the you" reading this right now)?
(This discussion has moved along quickly.)

One is the original and the other is not. That is the only distinction and not an important one. Treating the original as somehow special seems more emotional rather than logical to me.

The copy would be as much a continuation of my current consciousness as the original. Both would be instances of me.

Deciding which would own my possessions is an interesting question. Dividing them equally amongst my selves seems reasonable to me. My wife, I don’t know.

Last edited by jrhowell; 11th April 2018 at 08:33 PM.
jrhowell is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2018, 08:46 PM   #83
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
(This discussion has moved along quickly.)

One is the original and the other is not. That is the only distinction and not an important one.

The copy would be as much a continuation of my current consciousness as the original. Both would be instances of me.

Deciding which would own my possessions is an interesting question. Dividing them equally amongst my selves seems reasonable to me. My wife, I don’t know.

We think we are distinguishable from our environment, capable of being snipped out, copied and or transported - however, there isn't a clear physical boundary that distinguishes us from that which is not us. Do I end at my skin - or the immediate array of photons, temperature and pressure? If I am looking at a collection of items on my desk - can you copy me without including those items?
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2018, 08:48 PM   #84
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,538
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
(This discussion has moved along quickly.)

One is the original and the other is not. That is the only distinction and not an important one. Treating the original as somehow special seems more emotional rather than logical to me.

The copy would be as much a continuation of my current consciousness as the original. Both would be instances of me.

Deciding which would own my possessions is an interesting question. Dividing them equally amongst my selves seems reasonable to me. My wife, I don’t know.
"You" refers to a single individual.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2018, 09:48 PM   #85
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,737
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
The copy would be as much a continuation of my current consciousness as the original. Both would be instances of me.
Both are a continuation of your current conscious but you would only be aware of one. Obviously the copy is a completely different person and will immediately begin having their own unique experiences. The you could no more tell what the copy was thinking than it could for any other human being and your experiences would diverge more and more over time.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 01:59 AM   #86
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 498
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
If I am looking at a collection of items on my desk - can you copy me without including those items?
I have no idea how the physics of a transporter would work. Perhaps a boundary would need to be established and there might be problems with duplicating what is on or near that boundary. But as long as it is sufficiently beyond the outside of my skin I don't see a problem with that.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
"You" refers to a single individual.
Perhaps we would need more precisely defined words to accurately describe a new situation.

There would be two of instances of jrhowell with a common past but separate futures. Each would refer to himself as "me".

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Both are a continuation of your current conscious but you would only be aware of one.
Again, words like "you" and "me" are imprecise at describing the situation. Two distinct individuals would have equal claim to call themselves jrhowell based on their shared history.

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Obviously the copy is a completely different person and will immediately begin having their own unique experiences.
I agree completely.

---

I see an analogy with divorce. First there is one couple then there are two individuals, having a shared history but each now going their own way. Property needs to be divided. Outside relationships need to change.

Or with twins that started life as the same clump of cells, but split into two new individuals.
jrhowell is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 02:30 AM   #87
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
Perhaps we would need more precisely defined words to accurately describe a new situation.

There would be two of instances of jrhowell with a common past but separate futures. Each would refer to himself as "me".
Because the two would occupy different points in space, the you that exists from and as a first person point of view right now, would be "in" one or the other, not both.



Quote:
Or with twins that started life as the same clump of cells, but split into two new individuals.
No, with identical twins, the doubling happens between the single cell stage and the two cell stage. Nobody's sure how or why that happens, either. But I don't think we can take any clues from that on the outcome of a hypothetical doubling of consciousness.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 08:13 AM   #88
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,211
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
however, there isn't a clear physical boundary that distinguishes us from that which is not us.
Hmm, what do you base this statement upon?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 08:19 AM   #89
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,677
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Hmm, what do you base this statement upon?
The fact that there isn't one? Where would it be?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 08:37 AM   #90
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,737
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
The fact that there isn't one? Where would it be?
I'm not understanding this either. From our perspective the physical boundary is our physical body.

From the perspective of some entity seeing us interactingvwith our larger environment, perhaps we would not appear to operate independantly from other parts of it.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 08:42 AM   #91
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Hmm, what do you base this statement upon?
We are conditioned by our language to think there are two 'things', ie 'I see the tree', 'I taste the apple' . . . we are conditioned to think there are two distinct things, an 'I' and the 'tree' . . . but all there is is one 'thing', all there is is perceiving.
Likewise, we can think 'of course I exist and see the tree', but the 'I exist and see the tree' is the content of a thought, not the thinker. There is no thinker, there is only thinking.
There is only perceiving and thinking, there is nothing to copy or transport.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 08:59 AM   #92
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,677
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
I'm not understanding this either. From our perspective the physical boundary is our physical body.
OK. Just tell me where the boundary is then.

Will this boundary exclude parasites, infectious, bacteria, gut bacteria, the food in your mouth? Will I be able to find a way to cross this boundary and get from something that is you to something that isn't you? When does the water vapor and co2 you exhale transition from you to not you?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 09:04 AM   #93
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,039
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
(This discussion has moved along quickly.)

One is the original and the other is not. That is the only distinction and not an important one. Treating the original as somehow special seems more emotional rather than logical to me.

The copy would be as much a continuation of my current consciousness as the original. Both would be instances of me.

Deciding which would own my possessions is an interesting question. Dividing them equally amongst my selves seems reasonable to me. My wife, I don’t know.
Which one would own your car?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 09:09 AM   #94
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,039
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
The fact that there isn't one? Where would it be?
Where ever we define it to be. Not sure what the relevance is that "we" are rather fuzzy around the edges is hardly anything difficult to cope with since we do it all the time. I don't have to consider that I need to move the entire contents of the lightcone for me to fly to New York.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 09:09 AM   #95
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,842
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Which one would own your car?
That is a legal, political and what not question. Unless I am using the wrong definitions and if that is the case, then you won't explain the correct definitions. You will only point out, that is not the correct definitions, right, Darat?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 09:09 AM   #96
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,039
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
We think we are distinguishable from our environment, capable of being snipped out, copied and or transported - however, there isn't a clear physical boundary that distinguishes us from that which is not us. Do I end at my skin - or the immediate array of photons, temperature and pressure? If I am looking at a collection of items on my desk - can you copy me without including those items?
You must have a huge difficulty moving at all!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 09:11 AM   #97
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,039
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
We are conditioned by our language to think there are two 'things', ie 'I see the tree', 'I taste the apple' . . . we are conditioned to think there are two distinct things, an 'I' and the 'tree' . . . but all there is is one 'thing', all there is is perceiving.
Likewise, we can think 'of course I exist and see the tree', but the 'I exist and see the tree' is the content of a thought, not the thinker. There is no thinker, there is only thinking.
There is only perceiving and thinking, there is nothing to copy or transport.
Wow - I was ripped off to the sum of around 1500 quid the last time I moved house!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 10:00 AM   #98
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,401
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Which one would own your car?
I suppose we shall have to sort that out if we ever get the ability to copy people. Which is not going to be any time soon.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 10:02 AM   #99
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,401
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
"You" refers to a single individual.
And it will continue to do so as long as copying people remains solidly in the realm of science fiction. After that, we will need to figure out how to deal with "me and me".

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 10:03 AM   #100
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You must have a huge difficulty moving at all!
Zeno proved motion is impossible (or at least incoherent)!!!
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 10:18 AM   #101
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,410
Zeno only proved that if you don't define your terms properly, you get a nonsensical answer.
Just like when you claim that discrete objects don't exist because everything is connected.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 10:36 AM   #102
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,060
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
That too. ... Except for the firearms ; ).
Including "the firearms".
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 01:21 PM   #103
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,211
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
The fact that there isn't one? Where would it be?
A human body is a macroscopic object, so QM effects do not apply to boundaries.
The human body pretty much has a boundary.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 01:31 PM   #104
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,401
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Including "the firearms".
Really, I haven't noticed any dealing with them (I assume you mean in the US, since elsewhere ....).

But I stop here. I have promised myself not to discuss US firearms policy. Homeopathy, fine ... Flat Earth, fine ... alternative cosmologies, fine ... but, not that.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 01:43 PM   #105
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,677
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
A human body is a macroscopic object, so QM effects do not apply to boundaries.
The human body pretty much has a boundary.
I didn't say a single thing about QM and you haven't told me where the boundary is.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 01:50 PM   #106
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
I think you could consider the bacterial microflora on your skin (as well as the other "bugs" living on you) as part of "you". Or not. Doesn't matter. You could define "the boundary" a couple of ways, but there is a boundary, or very finite series of boundaries.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 04:22 PM   #107
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 498
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Because the two would occupy different points in space, the you that exists from and as a first person point of view right now, would be "in" one or the other, not both.
I disagree. If there was such a thing as a soul perhaps that would stick with the original body, but there is no such thing.

Instead I am a precisely structured pattern of matter that performs certain processes, among them being thought and awareness. If you copy that physical structure you copy everything there is to me.

The individual hydrogen, carbon, etc. atoms are all interchangeable. Only their organization makes them me.

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
There is only perceiving and thinking, there is nothing to copy or transport.
I believe that the opposite is true. There is only matter and it’s organization. Perception and thought result from that.
jrhowell is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 04:31 PM   #108
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
I disagree. If there was such a thing as a soul perhaps that would stick with the original body, but there is no such thing.

Instead I am a precisely structured pattern of matter that performs certain processes, among them being thought and awareness. If you copy that physical structure you copy everything there is to me.
So, suppose you're in a blue room, and I copy you and send the copy into a yellow room, what color walls do you see?

ETA: a first person POV is not a soul.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 04:36 PM   #109
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,894
Consciousness is hard. Figuring out all of its moving parts is a problem. That still doesn’t account for any sort of qualia.

The “hard problem of consciousness” basically seems to be “consciousness is reaally hard. Therefore: God”
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 04:41 PM   #110
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Consciousness is hard. Figuring out all of its moving parts is a problem. That still doesn’t account for any sort of qualia.

The “hard problem of consciousness” basically seems to be “consciousness is reaally hard. Therefore: God”
Some people think the complexity is a good excuse to default to something supernatural, but you can talk about it relating to AI and hard vs soft intelligence without it going into spiritual mumbo jumbo.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 06:40 PM   #111
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
A human body is a macroscopic object, so QM effects do not apply to boundaries.
The human body pretty much has a boundary.
Yes, we can say the human body is a macroscopic object, but we're not talking about the human body, we are discussing the copy and transport of a person.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 06:42 PM   #112
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
The “hard problem of consciousness” basically seems to be “consciousness is reaally hard. Therefore: God”
Now this is very typical straw man / special pleading . . . why not throw in a little 'woo' while you're at it?
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 06:58 PM   #113
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,677
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Now this is very typical straw man / special pleading . . . why not throw in a little 'woo' while you're at it?
Well, "The hard problem doesn't exist" and "consciousness is solved" are basically atheist woo.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 07:04 PM   #114
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Well, "The hard problem doesn't exist" and "consciousness is solved" are basically atheist woo.
But so is evoking "naturalistic dualism", to solve it. LOL
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 07:09 PM   #115
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,677
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
But so is evoking "naturalistic dualism", to solve it. LOL
Which I bet is mostly another strawman.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 07:16 PM   #116
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Which I bet is mostly another strawman.
What do you mean?

You think the people who claim to be "naturalistic dualists" are opposing something "materialists" don't necessarily claim?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 07:24 PM   #117
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,677
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What do you mean?

You think the people who claim to be "naturalistic dualists" are opposing something "materialists" don't necessarily claim?
No, I mean that naturalistic dualism is probably something you made up or exaggerated.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 07:35 PM   #118
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
No, I mean that naturalistic dualism is probably something you made up or exaggerated.
Err, google it? I'm seeing 6,590 results. David Chalmers coined the phrase, and some of his fans seem to lean towards accepting it.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 07:52 PM   #119
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,677
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Err, google it? I'm seeing 6,590 results. David Chalmers coined the phrase, and some of his fans seem to lean towards accepting it.
Are you a Poe? I just googled "poonlarp phantam" and got 17,660 results. 6,590 rounds off to zero in a google search.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 08:01 PM   #120
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Are you a Poe? I just googled "poonlarp phantam" and got 17,660 results. 6,590 rounds off to zero in a google search.

Quote:
Your search - "poonlarp phantam" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords


Try this:

466 results within scholar.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.