Banno

I take your general point about a distinction between some things being invented and discovered. Nice. Curious how modality seems to be the big backgr...

The evidence is there in the history of your posts, available for anyone who cares to look. Here it is: https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comment...

But that's not your point. That's the place you back down to when called out. What you pretend to is that we cannot trust any experts, and so all we h...

What are patterns if not repetitions?

Have you stopped beating your wife? It's a yes or no question. It's really not that hard to evaluate an expert opinion. You rely on rhetorical fumblin...

SO put your argument together. You have a conclusion: 'Something that can be described as "the creator of consciousness"' You perhaps have as a premis...

There is no answer, because you don't do facts.

More rhetorical splurging. Here's my point for you, again: Cheers.

You've spotted the problem of induction. There's a lot of background here.

The point is that you seek to undermine expertise and end up putting your trust in Synthesis' beliefs.

What? As in, put your argument together, because as it stands it doesn't work. You seems to have: There is no good reason to believe in god; Strong AI...

Sure.

You are assuming your conclusion in these paragraphs.

You reject expert opinion, but agree with Synthesis, who's entire argument is

So the argument is that, if it is possible for us to create machine consciousness, then it is possible that a deity created human consciousness. Sure....

But there is no point in arguing with you. You don't recognise facts. Hence there can be no common ground.

Couldn't you be wrong here? Couldn't it be that da Vinci didn't have a plan for which he could not find the words? What was that thought? Is there som...

Classic anti-intellectualism. This is why no one trusts NOS4A2.

What? You are claiming it was a thought because it was painted? I'm not following that.

Was it? It's a painting, not a thought. What part of the Mona Lisa is or was thought? Are you claiming that it was a thought before it was painted - a...

But, if it can't be put into worlds, then it's not a thought? Why not?

A world is a possible state of affairs. This world is the only actual state of affairs.

You guys do understand that possible worlds are just made-up, don't you? It's all a word game.

But the funny thing is, when I decide to raise my hand, the damn thing goes up. If mind is utterly different from matter, how can this be?

Must be that... what was it? The Freddy Kruger effect?

It pleases me that you can exist apart from being sensible - seems to me that you have shown how being silly is very important. SO... let me see if I ...

AH, I see; so if you are not sensible, you are indivisible? But silly people tend to fall about, so that does not seem quite right. We exist at the sa...

I think that sometimes one can be quite valuable while being silly. Monty Python, for example, or Spike Milligan. If they were being sensible they wou...

If instead you are morally irresponsible, would that imply that everything you do traces to external causes? And if not everything you do traces to ex...

That Des Cartes fellow - he said something about not doubting one's mind. Did he argue that no one was sensible? And I've seen objects that are really...

This set me to wondering if it made sense to wonder what an insensible object thinks. Or perhaps, what a downright silly object might think. I do like...

Self-evident to our reason. SO much better than it being self-evident to anything else. And it makes sense to wonder about the colour, smell, and text...

Well, no - obviously a bat can cause a ball to move; and they are, obviously, different kinds of objects. ...but as you pointed out, brains are soggy,...

Goodness, who set out such a ridiculous argument? How silly of them.

Doubtless you are quite right, since brains are quite a different things to minds. Arguing that minds are brains would be like arguing that flight was...

I was wondering if you ever got around to addressing the mind-body issue 180 raised - back on page 1? About how an "immaterial mind" interacts with (i...

Mmmm.

Indeed. I'm asking - couldn't you be wrong here? Couldn't it be that you don't have a thought, for which you cannot find the words?

Possible worlds are just "what if..."'s. What if gravity repealed instead of attracted? That's just supposing a possible world in which gravity is rep...

Hmmm let's not go on such an adventure; nasty, uncomfortable things.

I'm not qualified, but from what I understand i don't think that's right. But leave it as moot. I understand possible worlds as constructed by fiat of...

Cheers. Enjoy.

Reductionism would have it that psychology could be replaced by physics. The discussion of causation cited elsewhere shows that at no level of sophist...

If you like. For my money actualists take existence too seriously. I don't have much of a problem with quantifying over fictional characters, for exam...

Yeah, thanks - fixed. As for the rest - sure. The difference between identity theory and anomalous monism is the rejection of a one-to-one corresponde...

~~ (Not a bump - accidental post instead of copying to another thread.)

...digestion is not a side effect of one's guts. And isn't "mind' just a name for what the brain does? But I don't see a reduction here. I don't see t...

Yep. Mind is to brain as digestion is to guts. Digestion is not a single state of the gut, but what the gut does from teeth to arse hole. Digestion is...

Seems to me you are confusing there being no world with there being an empty world. Yep.

This is going to escalate quickly to the point where writing post becomes more trouble than it is worth, but I will have another go at cleaning up the...