Speak for yourself.Your posts are always so full of argumentational content, Lois... :snake: Please react on the arguments, and answer the questions.
Speak for yourself.Your posts are always so full of argumentational content, Lois... :snake: Please react on the arguments, and answer the questions. Look in a mirror.
So, after exchanging these signs of courtesy, can you now start to give your reactions on the arguments I gave, and answer the questions I asked?
THX
I’m amazed at how reasonable we’re all being with Lois considering.
I think I’m going to have to just assume she’s a troll if this carries on.
if consciousness plays no causal role, how was it possible that evolution selected for it? What is the evolutionary advantage of consciousness?If consciousness plays no causal role, evolution didn't select for it, is the answer.
Speak for yourself.Your posts are always so full of argumentational content, Lois... :snake: Please react on the arguments, and answer the questions. Look in a mirror. I do. And I see arguments and questions.
Speak for yourself.Your posts are always so full of argumentational content, Lois... :snake: Please react on the arguments, and answer the questions. Look in a mirror. I do. And I see arguments and questions. That's not good, you'll cut yourself shaving. :-)
That's not good, you'll cut yourself shaving. :-)That's why I have a beard today.
That's not good, you'll cut yourself shaving. :-)That's why I have a beard today. :-)
OK this has been fun.
Time for a group hug pals.
Stephen, I appreciate you taking the time to share those various links with me.
Gregg Caruso’s TedTalk lost me - but that’s because I’m focused on the more immediate me and my interactions with the world
and because any talk about ‘societal’ reform that doesn’t address today’s outrageous over-population and all that flows from it - losses me.
I appreciate that wasn’t his duty in that talk, but still.
Peter Millican - now that guy’s style I like and I’ll probably take the time to listen to his entire series, good score that one, thanks
Likewise with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - It’s approachable for me though I’ve only gotten part way through it, I’ll be returning it.
GdB, thanks for keeping it alive, interesting and for articulating ideas, that resonate with my own perspective.
TimB and BugRib thanks for making it real, and likewise articulating ideas, that resonate with my own perspective.
Lois my apologies, this was never meant to blow your gasket, I’m not into a pissing match,
I’m into a provocative exchange of ideas that help me develop my understanding or should I say appreciation,
a bit of banter is fun, but i understand we each have different tolerances.
You know I love this CFI forum because of it’s civility and the intelligence of it’s participants.
It’s a pleasure to look in on and sometimes participate in folks wrestling over very different beliefs/perspectives,
and doing so constructively - genuine constructive exchanges of information.
Folks offering reasoned arguments and selective evidence to support those individual opinions,
then paying attention to the other doing the same.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t banter, perhaps getting hot, perhaps a few insults fly, bruised feelings even.
But, at the end of the day, it’s like, hey, we’re cool, we’re all fools on this ship doing the best we can with what we got.
No foul, no harm and all that. Lois we obviously look at the world from radically different perspectives,
I don’t just disagree with you, there are topics where I’ve totally related to your comments.
I like you; and in real life I’d much rather put a smile on your face, then leave you genuinely steaming - that’s not my intent.
peace
Cheers all and may providence bless,
Peter
And now it’s time for me to get back to the actual ugly battlefield and back to focusing Mr Steele and his fraud.
... Of course, conscious activities may also influence the decision mechanism. ...Thank you.
if consciousness plays no causal role, how was it possible that evolution selected for it? What is the evolutionary advantage of consciousness?If consciousness plays no causal role, evolution didn't select for it, is the answer. If evolution did not select for it, wouldn't we have a lot more, apparently unconscious humans? (On second thought, maybe that's what Republicans are.)
Stephen, I appreciate you taking the time to share those various links with me. Gregg Caruso's TedTalk lost me - but that's because I'm focused on the more immediate me and my interactions with the world and because any talk about 'societal' reform that doesn't address today's outrageous over-population and all that flows from it - losses me. I appreciate that wasn't his duty in that talk, but still. Peter Millican - now that guy's style I like and I'll probably take the time to listen to his entire series, good score that one, thanks Likewise with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - It's approachable for me though I've only gotten part way through it, I'll be returning it. GdB, thanks for keeping it alive, interesting and for articulating ideas, that resonate with my own perspective. TimB and BugRib thanks for making it real, and likewise articulating ideas, that resonate with my own perspective. Lois my apologies, this was never meant to blow your gasket, I'm not into a pissing match, I'm into a provocative exchange of ideas that help me develop my understanding or should I say appreciation, a bit of banter is fun, but i understand we each have different tolerances. You know I love this CFI forum because of it's civility and the intelligence of it's participants. It's a pleasure to look in on and sometimes participate in folks wrestling over very different beliefs/perspectives, and doing so constructively - genuine constructive exchanges of information. Folks offering reasoned arguments and selective evidence to support those individual opinions, then paying attention to the other doing the same. That doesn't mean there isn't banter, perhaps getting hot, perhaps a few insults fly, bruised feelings even. But, at the end of the day, it's like, hey, we're cool, we're all fools on this ship doing the best we can with what we got. No foul, no harm and all that. Lois we obviously look at the world from radically different perspectives, I don't just disagree with you, there are topics where I've totally related to your comments. I like you; and in real life I'd much rather put a smile on your face, then leave you genuinely steaming - that's not my intent. peace Cheers all and may providence bless, PeterCool
if consciousness plays no causal role, how was it possible that evolution selected for it? What is the evolutionary advantage of consciousness?If consciousness plays no causal role, evolution didn't select for it, is the answer. If evolution did not select for it, wouldn't we have a lot more, apparently unconscious humans? (On second thought, maybe that's what Republicans are.) Not necessarily. What if some computers are conscious? I'm not taking it seriously that they are but the point is it would have nothing to do with what they are designed for and would make no difference to their function.
if consciousness plays no causal role, how was it possible that evolution selected for it? What is the evolutionary advantage of consciousness?If consciousness plays no causal role, evolution didn't select for it, is the answer. If evolution did not select for it, wouldn't we have a lot more, apparently unconscious humans? (On second thought, maybe that's what Republicans are.) Not necessarily. What if some computers are conscious? I'm not taking it seriously that they are but the point is it would have nothing to do with what they are designed for and would make no difference to their function. Are you talking about spandrels?
if consciousness plays no causal role, how was it possible that evolution selected for it? What is the evolutionary advantage of consciousness?If consciousness plays no causal role, evolution didn't select for it, is the answer. If evolution did not select for it, wouldn't we have a lot more, apparently unconscious humans? (On second thought, maybe that's what Republicans are.) Not necessarily. What if some computers are conscious? I'm not taking it seriously that they are but the point is it would have nothing to do with what they are designed for and would make no difference to their function. Are you talking about spandrels? I don't think so but maybe. Say we wire a robot up to move away from heat. Now say that wiring up somehow makes it have a conscious experience as well. The point is the conscious experience isn't doing anything.
Say we wire a robot up to move away from heat. Now say that wiring up somehow makes it have a conscious experience as well. The point is the conscious experience isn't doing anything.This got me thinking... Are you familiar with the concept of "philosophical zombies"? Is there any scientific way--even theoretically--to prove that a given person (or any information-processing system) is conscious? I know I'm conscious (i.e. "I think, therefore I am"), but how can I possibly be 100% certain that anyone else is? How can I know for certain that you aren't all philosophical zombies--similar in appearance and behavior to myself, but devoid of consciousness? The question of whether it is theoretically possible to scientifically prove that a system is a conscious, experiencing, possessor of subjectivity is known as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness", and as far as I know, nobody has figured out a way to even approach this question, let alone solve it.
Is there any scientific way--even theoretically--to prove that a given person (or any information-processing system) is conscious? I know I'm conscious (i.e. "I think, therefore I am"), but how can I possibly be 100% certain that anyone else is? How can I know for certain that you aren't all philosophical zombies--similar in appearance and behavior to myself, but devoid of consciousness?You can be 100% sure. Any person who denies this is not honest in his thinking. It is only unsure for people who ask how can you 100% that not... ... the earth was created by God, including the radioactive materials, the fossils, etc in such a way that we think that the earth is 5 billion years old ... you came into existence just a second ago, including all the memories and the tiredness of the day so that it seems you have lived much longer, fitting exactly the environment you are in (you know the history of the picture that stands there) ... that the whole universe is just a projection on your mind, everything you experience has no independent existence (solipsism). Nobody in his right mind takes such ideas serious. (So in America you have quite a few such persons, considering that there might be many people who take the first point serious...)
The question of whether it is theoretically possible to scientifically prove that a system is a conscious, experiencing, possessor of subjectivity is known as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness", and as far as I know, nobody has figured out a way to even approach this question, let alone solve it.You do not have to prove it. It shows. The 'hard problem' is from the kind of questions what time really is, why there 2 kinds of electrical charge, and 3 colour charges, etc. In short, unanswerable and unscientific questions. What science can do is trying to find out under what circumstances consciousness arises. But why it arises under these circumstances is of the same order as asking why there is something, rather than nothing.
Forget philosophical zombies. How do I even know if any of you “fellow posters” are even real human beings rather than computer programs designed to post and reply? Subjectively, I have proof that I am a real human posting. But the rest of you?.. I suspect that BugRib is a real person, but “he” may just be a “higher quality” program.
One day I will find you all out!.. hahahahahahahaha! (insane cackling -you get the idea)