Do copies of you = you...from a physical determinism POV

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

hammegk wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:
The raw feel of the cat seeing a tree branch is already documented. You can play the video back, anytime you want.
I'd say what is documented is the result *you* see after photons are processed via a cat's optic system and answer no part of the HPC aspect. That is, what is the raw feel for the 1st person cat if the cat was seeing the processing. (Hmm, I really don't like "raw feel", but it sorta points the way.)

We could use your optic system and perform the same operations. Do you think that I would then capture your raw feel of the experience of you seeing a tree?
Yes, the result is that the raw feel which the cat experiences has been observed by me, a third party. So the idea that the raw feel or phenominal consciousness of one being is private and can never be observed by third parties, has been trounced.

What has not been trounced, in the view of the non-materialists (whose domain has yet again been decreased), is how the raw feel experience of any being can be generated from neurons firing.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

DanishDynamite wrote:
hammegk wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:
The raw feel of the cat seeing a tree branch is already documented. You can play the video back, anytime you want.
I'd say what is documented is the result *you* see after photons are processed via a cat's optic system and answer no part of the HPC aspect. That is, what is the raw feel for the 1st person cat if the cat was seeing the processing. (Hmm, I really don't like "raw feel", but it sorta points the way.)

We could use your optic system and perform the same operations. Do you think that I would then capture your raw feel of the experience of you seeing a tree?
Yes, the result is that the raw feel which the cat experiences has been observed by me, a third party. So the idea that the raw feel or phenominal consciousness of one being is private and can never be observed by third parties, has been trounced.
Don't be absurd. You have not refuted the idea that experience is subjective and private. You might as well say that you have refuted the notion that experience is subjective and private because, by positioning yourself where a person was previously situated, and looking at the object they were looking at, we can be confident that your visual experiences are pretty much the same as theirs were! :shock:

And all this is irrelevant anyway. The point is that consciousness i.e the raw feel of experience, cannot be derived from physics. All physics can imply are the neural correlates of consciousness. So you have to say that basiclly consciousness is one and the same thing as such neural correlates. But I've been through all this. No point in repeating myself.
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

Interesting Ian wrote:Don't be absurd. You have not refuted the idea that experience is subjective and private. You might as well say that you have refuted the notion that experience is subjective and private because, by positioning yourself where a person was previously situated, and looking at the object they were looking at, we can be confident that your visual experiences are pretty much the same as theirs were! :shock:
I'm observing exactly what the cat is experiencing, "seeing" wise. Hence, the cat's 1st person experience is no longer private.
And all this is irrelevant anyway. The point is that consciousness i.e the raw feel of experience, cannot be derived from physics. All physics can imply are the neural correlates of consciousness. So you have to say that basiclly consciousness is one and the same thing as such neural correlates. But I've been through all this. No point in repeating myself.
As I'm sure you know, the experiment I linked to has once again reduced the scope of the immaterialists objections. It has trounced your view a few pages back where you said:
Now there is something peculiar about conscious experience which marks it off from all other existents. It is simply this. It cannot be observed or detected by anyone with appropriate faculties and/or suitable instruments!
Your final fall-back position is the argument from incredulity: "But how can phenominal consciousness be derived from physical laws? It just doesn't seem possible!".

Stick around.
User avatar
hammegk
Posts: 15132
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:16 pm
Title: Curmudgeon
Location: Hither, sometimes Yon

Post by hammegk »

DanishDynamite wrote:

Yes, the result is that the raw feel which the cat experiences has been observed by me, a third party. So the idea that the raw feel or phenominal consciousness of one being is private and can never be observed by third parties, has been trounced.
I don't agree. And what is your answer to the other half of my question:
hammegk
We could use your optic system and perform the same operations. Do you think that I would then capture your raw feel of the experience of you seeing a tree?
DanishDynamite wrote:
What has not been trounced, in the view of the non-materialists (whose domain has yet again been decreased), is how the raw feel experience of any being can be generated from neurons firing.
Agreed. Where we disagree is that materialists hold out hope it can ever be so explained.
The most important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real. Stay far back: I'm allergic to Stupid.

The simple rule, the greatest plan, that he should keep who has the power, and he should take who can.

The only enemies of guns: rust ... and politicians.

Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

“Jesus loves the little cheeses, all the cheeses of the world. Swiss and Cheddar, stinky, too. If He loved them, so should you. Jesus loves the little cheeses of the world.”

I'm right 98% of the time; who cares about the other 3%?
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Ian wrote:Constitutive!! Not constructive. When I see a table, that table is not part of me is it??
Constitutive means constructive.

Perhaps if you used simpler words, we could make more progress.

~~ Paul
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos wrote:
Ian wrote:Constitutive!! Not constructive. When I see a table, that table is not part of me is it??
Constitutive means constructive.
Huh?? Says who?
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

constitutive

1 : having the power to enact or establish : CONSTRUCTIVE
2 : CONSTITUENT, ESSENTIAL
3 : relating to or dependent on constitution *a constitutive property of all electrolytes*

Really, it's all solved by using smaller words.

~~ Paul
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Hammegk wrote:Agreed. Where we disagree is that materialists hold out hope it [raw experience] can ever be so explained.
But, you see, even if it never is, that is not evidence for immaterialism. It may be that we are not clever enough to understand it.

~~ Paul