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 »

Interesting Ian wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:3rd person observation of 1st person experience is becoming technically possible, Ian.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/471786.stm

[Edited to add: How the devil does one make proper links on this board?]
I was just going to say your link doesn't work, and do you mean the cat has a tiny camcorder glued to the top of his/her head! :P

Not much different though ;)
In what sense is seeing directly what the cat sees not a case of 3rd person observation of 1st person experience?
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

It's just the 3rd person observation of the neural correlates of 1st person experience, you fool! 8)

~~ Paul
User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain

Post by Cool Hand »

DanishDynamite wrote:3rd person observation of 1st person experience is becoming technically possible, Ian.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/471786.stm

[Edited to add: How the devil does one make proper links on this board?]
Wow, DD. That is awesome.

Win and Ian, start back peddling and coming up with yet more post hoc rationalizations. The materialists are coming to the rescue once again with yet more evidence to refute your claims with actual scientific data, not mere arm-chair speculation. Can we finally put the hard problem to rest once and for all? Oh, and while we're at it, let's kill all the p-zombies too.

Cool Hand
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd
User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain

Post by Cool Hand »

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos wrote:It's just the 3rd person observation of the neural correlates of 1st person experience, you fool! 8)

~~ Paul
That's great, Paul. I'm really laughing out loud right now. He he.

Cool Hand
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd
User avatar
Skeptician
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:41 am

Post by Skeptician »

Cool Hand wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:3rd person observation of 1st person experience is becoming technically possible, Ian.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/471786.stm

[Edited to add: How the devil does one make proper links on this board?]
Wow, DD. That is awesome.

Win and Ian, start back peddling and coming up with yet more post hoc rationalizations. The materialists are coming to the rescue once again with yet more evidence to refute your claims with actual scientific data, not mere arm-chair speculation. Can we finally put the hard problem to rest once and for all? Oh, and while we're at it, let's kill all the p-zombies too.

Cool Hand
Yes yes!! This is proof!! Proof that materialism is correct!! :D All the non-materialists are completely flummoxed! :D The silence is deafening!! :D
User avatar
hammegk
Posts: 15134
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:16 pm
Title: Curmudgeon
Location: Hither, sometimes Yon

Post by hammegk »

Cool Hand wrote: Wow, DD. That is awesome.

Win and Ian, start back peddling and coming up with yet more post hoc rationalizations. The materialists are coming to the rescue once again with yet more evidence to refute your claims with actual scientific data, not mere arm-chair speculation.
Sorry, but the 1st person problem is what does the cat see (or should I really say *what* sees what the cat "sees"), not what mechanisms are employed in animal optics.
Can we finally put the hard problem to rest once and for all?
Cool Hand
Since this doesn't address it, I think not.
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 »

Stand by while the neurophysiologists work their way up the visual pathways of the cat.

~~ Paul
User avatar
Skeptician
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:41 am

Post by Skeptician »

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos wrote:Stand by while the neurophysiologists work their way up the visual pathways of the cat.

~~ Paul
Yes yes!! That's right!! Final proof is within our grasp!! :D
User avatar
hammegk
Posts: 15134
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:16 pm
Title: Curmudgeon
Location: Hither, sometimes Yon

Post by hammegk »

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos wrote:Stand by while the neurophysiologists work their way up the visual pathways of the cat.

~~ Paul
Sounds neat. Once we find the master control program that is the 1st person cat, we can build a whole bunch of 'em that don't eat, drink or defecate, but kill mice and purr.

Think what we can do one once we work out the homo sap MCP. Be Godlike, huh? :wink:
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 »

I think that's what the genetic engineers do, not the neurophysiologists.

~~ Paul
User avatar
MRC_Hans
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by MRC_Hans »

Interesting Ian wrote:
MRC_Hans wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
MRC_Hans wrote:Not that I really, really want to get into a "discussion" with II, but:
Utterly impossible. It is vacuous to state that something non-physical can be stored anywhere. It is not possible that there could be any such scientific evidence. There never could be any evidence in principle.
Why do you say this? Information is non-physical, and that is what we store all the time. Even your computer is full of it.

Hans
Information is non-physical huh?? Glad to hear you reject materialism.
Oh? Materialism claims information is physical? Interesting. 2+2=4 is physical? Mmm, them materialists must be strange people.

Hans
That's not information.
I'm sorry (no I'm not), but you are wrong. That is what we call information. But this is not about words; call it anything you like. 2+2=4, or any other kind of math is total abstraction, it is entirely non-material. Yet it is no problem whatsoever to store it in a physical system.

Hans
[i]Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe...[/i]
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

As I said in another thread, confusion arises here because people are using different definitions of materialism.

When Ian uses the word, he has a specific definition in mind. I'm not quite sure what that definition is, but he seems to think it rules out emergent phenomena. When others use the word, they are simply using it to contrast some sort of immaterialism.

~~ Paul
User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain

Post by Cool Hand »

Skeptician wrote:
Cool Hand wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:3rd person observation of 1st person experience is becoming technically possible, Ian.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/471786.stm

[Edited to add: How the devil does one make proper links on this board?]
Wow, DD. That is awesome.

Win and Ian, start back peddling and coming up with yet more post hoc rationalizations. The materialists are coming to the rescue once again with yet more evidence to refute your claims with actual scientific data, not mere arm-chair speculation. Can we finally put the hard problem to rest once and for all? Oh, and while we're at it, let's kill all the p-zombies too.

Cool Hand
Yes yes!! This is proof!! Proof that materialism is correct!! :D All the non-materialists are completely flummoxed! :D The silence is deafening!! :D
Nice strawman. Did you notice I said "more evidence," not conclusive proof. Do you even know what the hard problem is?

Cool Hand
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd
User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain

Post by Cool Hand »

hammegk wrote:
Cool Hand wrote: Wow, DD. That is awesome.

Win and Ian, start back peddling and coming up with yet more post hoc rationalizations. The materialists are coming to the rescue once again with yet more evidence to refute your claims with actual scientific data, not mere arm-chair speculation.
Sorry, but the 1st person problem is what does the cat see (or should I really say *what* sees what the cat "sees"), not what mechanisms are employed in animal optics.
Once again, Hammy, you demonstrate your obtuseness. That link demonstrates that the experimenters were in fact seeing what the cat sees (or at least a fuzzy version of it). That IS the hard problem. You can wave your hands and call it phenomenal consciousness all you want, but at the end of the day it's just so much bullshit.
Can we finally put the hard problem to rest once and for all?
Cool Hand
Since this doesn't address it, I think not.
I think we can conclude from your many posts and non sequiturs on the subject that you don't understand what the hard problem is.

Once again, as Stimpy has stated repeatedly, there will never be enough evidence for the anti-materialists to accept that the "mind" is simply the brain itself (and perhaps its neurological pathways in and out of it). Each time neuroscientists come up with more evidence to explain away ancient philosophical conundrums, the philosophers back peddle and try to invent a new "problem" for materialism. Face it, it's bullshit armchair nonsense. Meanwhile, actual scientists are in the laboratories learning about the brain and its functioning, instead of making ridiculous assertions that philosophers can never explore beyond mere speculation and conjecture.

Cool Hand
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Cool Hand wrote:
hammegk wrote:
Cool Hand wrote: Wow, DD. That is awesome.

Win and Ian, start back peddling and coming up with yet more post hoc rationalizations. The materialists are coming to the rescue once again with yet more evidence to refute your claims with actual scientific data, not mere arm-chair speculation.
Sorry, but the 1st person problem is what does the cat see (or should I really say *what* sees what the cat "sees"), not what mechanisms are employed in animal optics.
Once again, Hammy, you demonstrate your obtuseness. That link demonstrates that the experimenters were in fact seeing what the cat sees (or at least a fuzzy version of it). That IS the hard problem. You can wave your hands and call it phenomenal consciousness all you want, but at the end of the day it's just so much bullshit.
Can we finally put the hard problem to rest once and for all?
Cool Hand
Since this doesn't address it, I think not.
I think we can conclude from your many posts and non sequiturs on the subject that you don't understand what the hard problem is.

Once again, as Stimpy has stated repeatedly, there will never be enough evidence for the anti-materialists to accept that the "mind" is simply the brain itself (and perhaps its neurological pathways in and out of it). Each time neuroscientists come up with more evidence to explain away ancient philosophical conundrums, the philosophers back peddle and try to invent a new "problem" for materialism. Face it, it's bullshit armchair nonsense. Meanwhile, actual scientists are in the laboratories learning about the brain and its functioning, instead of making ridiculous assertions that philosophers can never explore beyond mere speculation and conjecture.

Cool Hand
Dear me, what a load of unadulterated crap you talk :D I've presented my proof against materialism. Where has my reasoning gone askew?
User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain

Post by Cool Hand »

Interesting Ian wrote: Dear me, what a load of unadulterated crap you talk :D I've presented my proof against materialism. Where has my reasoning gone askew?
You want a list? I don't think the character limit of this software would allow it.

Cool Hand
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Cool Hand wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote: Dear me, what a load of unadulterated crap you talk :D I've presented my proof against materialism. Where has my reasoning gone askew?
You want a list? I don't think the character limit of this software would allow it.

Cool Hand
I am genuinely interested if my argument has any flaws. I'm not definitely saying it is right, I'm saying I'm unable to see any errors in my reasoning. If you can, then I would more than welcome your insights.
User avatar
thaiboxerken
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:51 pm
Location: Oregon, and it rocks!

Post by thaiboxerken »

No, Ian.. you are not interested. You have been refuted 80% of the time on the JREF forum, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Logic and reasoning have no part in your "debates". You're simply a simple-minded, over-educated, drunken troll.

You have admitted that your beliefs lie in faith, therefore you have already admitted defeat.
Carlos is on my ignore list.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

thaiboxerken wrote:No, Ian.. you are not interested. You have been refuted 80% of the time on the JREF forum, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
I cannot recall ever being refuted. What happens is that people fail to understand my arguments and simply do not address the issues I raise.


Logic and reasoning have no part in your "debates". You're simply a simple-minded, over-educated, drunken troll.
No, I'm a complex-minded, under-educated, dru . . er . . sober troll.

You have admitted that your beliefs lie in faith, therefore you have already admitted defeat.
All of our beliefs have their origin in how we feel. intellectualization tends to be a rationalisation of ones feelings.
User avatar
thaiboxerken
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:51 pm
Location: Oregon, and it rocks!

Post by thaiboxerken »

"I cannot recall ever being refuted. What happens is that people fail to understand my arguments and simply do not address the issues I raise. "

No, what happens is you are refuted.. and you ignore the fact that you are refuted. Hence.. your inability to recall ever being refuted.

I would not call you complex at all, you merely think you are complex and you merely think you are intelligent. Your reality is based on your own megalomania.

"All of our beliefs have their origin in how we feel."

I doubt it. Have any evidence to support this?

" intellectualization tends to be a rationalisation of ones feelings."

I doubt this as well. Evidence please.
Carlos is on my ignore list.