Trouble is, this is not the argument for physicalism. I've seen something like this before, again in a proof of circularity in physicalism. Did you pe...
There are a number of subcultures and individuals who claim to be able to demonstrate just that. That said, I still maintain that walking barefoot ove...
Again, this is nothing but an infinite regress of childish 'Why?'. That we can learn about things we didn't witness is not in doubt in the scope of th...
You're asking about the possibility of something that, if not possible, would not allow you to ask questions about anything. It seems extremely moot t...
Really? It seems odd to ask a question about it then, seeing as asking questions about something is a perfectly obvious means of learning about things...
I first read about Michael Flynn's martial law petition today. Incredible stuff. He cites alleged restrictions on freedom of speech as a reason to cri...
Technology is older than science. We were using tools long before we were basing them on science or driving science to yield them, including tools spe...
This is backward. Dark matter is matter by definition, I.e. it is defined to have physical properties. We do not infer its material nature. The questi...
I'm not sure what specifically you're asking. We have brains that react to external stimuli and convert that reaction into what we consciously experie...
You can train a neural network to infer, say, the interests of a shopper looking for t-shirts based on similar shoppers who bought t-shirts. The opera...
Good things come to those who wait. ... He's right insofar as the processes themselves don't speak to the truth of a belief they culminate in, as evid...
Sorry for the late reply. I've seen this argument a few times and never got the sense of it. We don't need any knowledge of the workings of the brain ...
Well, what use is it in day-to-day life? Isaac, Banno et al would argue that there isn't a meaningful separate phenomenal experience, i.e. it isn't us...
Yes, I am in the sense that I would insist at least on an ultimate absorber: an electron hole (positron) for an electron, less so on the short-range b...
Variations of the test have been performed for decades now as criticism of this form of yes-buttery is ongoing, all verifying the original result. To ...
I think I see the issue. If you're saying that you meant "Does a computer have consciousness according to *my* understanding of consciousness," then w...
We're talking about human rational inference, right? So we're talking about a human being figuring out that A > C, not some out-there truth that A > C...
Your argument is circular. You're assuming conscious decision-making in precisely the sorts of behaviours (e.g. split-second decisions when driving) t...
What's the problem? That it conflicts with a belief? That's par for the course. Although I wonder what you mean by "completely separate". As in, there...
I never asked you for a formal and rigorous definition. I asked you to describe the thing's properties such that I could understand what you think it ...
The accuracy likely is affected, but for one thing it avoids going down wrong paths when looking for or describing something. The way people often tal...
I was giving you a quote, not a definition. I think a vaguely interested, vaguely intelligent human being can, if not fully understand what I meant, c...
No beef from me. As I just said to Khaled, I'm open to the idea that technological consciousnesses are possible. You might consider these simulations,...
Why do you insist on using 'simple' as a synonym for 'unambiguous'? They are not even close to the same. Can you say anything about consciousness at a...
That's true. Which is one reason why people can be mistaken. But if your argument against the idea that we are not conscious of the causes of our cons...
That is not the issue. A thing cannot be at once hidden from the world and and have an open representation in the world. The latter is an observation ...
No, you might infer it. I do not imply it. By explicitly stating that we don't, there is no implication that we do. "My name begins with J and is not ...
No, because we do not experience a 600nm wave, nor is one entering the eye the brain state. Irrespective, what I think of as consciousness is not rele...
Because in my view, states of consciousness are just brain states, and atoms don't have brains. You seem to be reacting with faux surprise at the idea...
By all means, point out where I suggested that I have direct awareness of, say, stabilising my field of view or whiteshifting the colours I see. My st...
Good point. And this is interesting precisely because this sort of argument pits personal testimony -- the narratives we construct around experience -...
Therefore: must be false, since observing that mechanical representation is a form of external enquiry. Hurry up, quantum computing! Okay, so I wasn't...
But this just defers the categorisation problem. Now we have explain why a human matriarchal tribe somewhere is a culture but a non-human matriarchal ...
It may not be anthropocentric to say that human consciousness is categorically different to bee consciousness. A more telling comparison would be a ch...
You know, the bulk of this paragraph can be summarised as: "Chalmers can use the terms 'subjective aspect of information-processing', 'experience', 'f...
That suffices. The redness of the ball is not ascertained in pitch darkness. About the ascriber, maybe. If I say the red ball has a soul (a rubber sou...
Which assumes that thinking is ethereal, i.e. the mind is a closed system and anything that goes on inside it is completely transparent to outside int...
By your own words, a PC may or may not have a property you call <consciousness>. If something has or doesn't have a property, such as <configured to p...
No, I'm saying that no one is conscious of the causes of our phenomena: we have no knowledge of objects that cause phenomena except indirectly through...
But you are not promoting that by saying that "where is the scientific explanation for...?" You are pointing to gaps in knowledge and claiming them fo...
This is nothing more than the usual -of-the-gaps argument: If science were capable of explaining consciousness, it would have already (impossibility o...
On the contrary, a requirement of a proper definition of consciousness such that explaining consciousness is actually explaining something is that we ...
Comments