|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 8, 2017 9:11:53 GMT
Yes, he's a real embarrassment to the logical, critically-thinking, peer-reviewed globalist "cause," isn't he, Cine? Ah, fantasy Cinemachinery is also a "globalist"! The legend grows. Feel free to deny it, buddy boy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 9:24:27 GMT
Yes, he's a real embarrassment to the logical, critically-thinking, peer-reviewed globalist "cause," isn't he, Cine? Ah, fantasy Cinemachinery is also a "globalist"! The legend grows. It took him two minutes to respond to the post you made Cine. And as always a response calculated to get him a reply. Watching he and Blade trying to out do each other in garnering negative attention is most amusing.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 8, 2017 9:31:35 GMT
Ah, fantasy Cinemachinery is also a "globalist"! The legend grows. It took him two minutes to respond to the post you made Cine. And as always a response calculated to get him a reply. Watching he and Blade trying to out do each other in garnering negative attention is most amusing. Piss off, Supes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 9:36:29 GMT
It took him two minutes to respond to the post you made Cine. And as always a response calculated to get him a reply. Watching he and Blade trying to out do each other in garnering negative attention is most amusing. Piss off, Supes. There you go again making impotent demands of your betters as if you own this board. I'll post as I see fit and there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 8, 2017 9:57:05 GMT
There you go again making impotent demands of your betters as if you own this board. I'll post as I see fit and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. My betters? Who do you think you are? Some kind of Aryan superman?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 10:06:50 GMT
There you go again making impotent demands of your betters as if you own this board. I'll post as I see fit and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. My betters? Who do you think you are? Some kind of Aryan superman? You've had your morsel of attention from me today Erjen,may it nourish and keep you as you fight for attention scraps on the slim pickings of this board.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 8, 2017 10:12:30 GMT
My betters? Who do you think you are? Some kind of Aryan superman? You've had your morsel of attention from me today Erjen,may it nourish and keep you as you fight for attention scraps on the slim pickings of this board. Wow, that was spoken like a true elitist wannabe.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 8, 2017 12:59:03 GMT
And immediately you go into patronizing ass mode, as if you know more about this than I do. No, it's a logical impossibility. You can't do logical possibilities/impossibilities without semantics--you have to have some idea of what water and H2O even refer to (and didn't we get into a similar discussion re semantics on some other issue? Or was that someone else . . . anyway), and again, the only way that it's a logical possibiilty is if we play dumb with respect to any understanding whatsoever. Well that was completely unnecessary. I'm just saying that, as far as I understand it, the distinction you're making and the way you're describing it is metaphysical rather than logical. To take the water example, we have "an idea" of what water refers to by experiencing water. We could know about hydrogen and oxygen atoms and could conceive of "h20" without knowing it was what water was made of. So saying "'H20 is not water' is logically possible" just means that it's conceivable without any inherent contradiction. We only know it's metaphysically impossible by discovering what water was made of. Just like we could conceive of experiencing water as it is without it being made of H20, we can conceive of P-zombies that act like humans but don't experience consciousness. Frankly, I don't think the "logical possibility" has much significance anyway. It should be obvious there's plenty we can imagine without any inherent contradictions partly due to the limits of our knowledge about what reality is and is made of; the challenge is figuring out what it is/made of, not in just imagining what it could be. Nothing anyone says here is necessary. Anyway, Re this: "To take the water example, we have "an idea" of what water refers to by experiencing water. We could know about hydrogen and oxygen atoms and could conceive of "h20" without knowing it was what water was made of." In other words, whether or not something is logically possible hinges on having some understanding of what we're even talking about, some idea about the properties of the things in question, etc. Which is exactly what I said about the p-zombie example. It's only logically possible if we pretend to be completely ignorant about what brains are like and what consciousness is.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 8, 2017 13:08:39 GMT
Nothing anyone says here is necessary. You are very pedantic about everything.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 8, 2017 13:10:26 GMT
Nothing anyone says here is necessary. You are very pedantic about everything. If I respond with "Yeah, whatever" does that count?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 8, 2017 16:15:33 GMT
P-zombies begs the question: what is consciousness? If a possible answer is given then it begs another question: why posit p-zombies if a possible answer for consciousness? If you say that H 2O is not water is possible, then you say that H 2O not implying water is possible. If you say that brain states and not mental states is possible, then you say that brain states not implying mental states is possible. You're basically saying it's possible that A is not dependent on B, A is an independent entity. I think you guys think I'm defending P-Zombies more than I am. In actuality I think the entire idea is an exemplar for everything that's wrong with contemporary philosophy. Literally the only thing in dispute about them is whether they're logically possible or not. I said that, the way I understand it, they are logically possible since that only entails that there's not some inherent contradiction, and for there to be such a contradiction it would require some universally agreed-upon definition. Defining what something is is different than discovering what it is: the latter relies on a posteriori evidence, not logical definitions. Something like an "unmarried bachelor" is logically impossible purely due to how the terms are defined, but in the case of water and consciousness we have different definitions and different experiences with them beyond what they physically are and beyond what physically causes them. This is all really a moot point because it seems we all agree that P-Zombies are almost certainly metaphysically impossible, which to me is the most important thing.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 8, 2017 16:22:42 GMT
Well that was completely unnecessary. I'm just saying that, as far as I understand it, the distinction you're making and the way you're describing it is metaphysical rather than logical. To take the water example, we have "an idea" of what water refers to by experiencing water. We could know about hydrogen and oxygen atoms and could conceive of "h20" without knowing it was what water was made of. So saying "'H20 is not water' is logically possible" just means that it's conceivable without any inherent contradiction. We only know it's metaphysically impossible by discovering what water was made of. Just like we could conceive of experiencing water as it is without it being made of H20, we can conceive of P-zombies that act like humans but don't experience consciousness. Frankly, I don't think the "logical possibility" has much significance anyway. It should be obvious there's plenty we can imagine without any inherent contradictions partly due to the limits of our knowledge about what reality is and is made of; the challenge is figuring out what it is/made of, not in just imagining what it could be. Nothing anyone says here is necessary. Anyway, Re this: "To take the water example, we have "an idea" of what water refers to by experiencing water. We could know about hydrogen and oxygen atoms and could conceive of "h20" without knowing it was what water was made of." In other words, whether or not something is logically possible hinges on having some understanding of what we're even talking about, some idea about the properties of the things in question, etc. Which is exactly what I said about the p-zombie example. It's only logically possible if we pretend to be completely ignorant about what brains are like and what consciousness is. Let me amend that to: it was rather assholish. But we do have "some understandings" of things like water and consciousness beyond what they're physically made of or what causes them. Are you really going to assert we had NO understanding of water before knowing its atomic composition? Similarly, our experience of consciousness is more than knowing that it seems to be associated with physical brain states. I don't think one has to be "completely ignorant" about the brain-consciousness connection in order to assert P-Zombies are logically possible; that very much comes down to what philosophy of mind you adopt, and there are many of them out there. Personally, yes, I think the consciousness = the experience of being brain states is the most likely, which means P-Zombies are almost certainly impossible. I say "almost certainly" because I do think it's possible there could be zombie-like entities if the mechanics of brains were transferred to a different substrate (say a computer rather than an organic brain).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 8, 2017 18:24:27 GMT
Nothing anyone says here is necessary. Anyway, Re this: "To take the water example, we have "an idea" of what water refers to by experiencing water. We could know about hydrogen and oxygen atoms and could conceive of "h20" without knowing it was what water was made of." In other words, whether or not something is logically possible hinges on having some understanding of what we're even talking about, some idea about the properties of the things in question, etc. Which is exactly what I said about the p-zombie example. It's only logically possible if we pretend to be completely ignorant about what brains are like and what consciousness is. Let me amend that to: it was rather assholish. But we do have "some understandings" of things like water and consciousness beyond what they're physically made of or what causes them. Are you really going to assert we had NO understanding of water before knowing its atomic composition? Similarly, our experience of consciousness is more than knowing that it seems to be associated with physical brain states. I don't think one has to be "completely ignorant" about the brain-consciousness connection in order to assert P-Zombies are logically possible; that very much comes down to what philosophy of mind you adopt, and there are many of them out there. Personally, yes, I think the consciousness = the experience of being brain states is the most likely, which means P-Zombies are almost certainly impossible. I say "almost certainly" because I do think it's possible there could be zombie-like entities if the mechanics of brains were transferred to a different substrate (say a computer rather than an organic brain). "Let me amend that to: it was rather assholish" Being patronizing isn't assholish?
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Apr 9, 2017 9:21:07 GMT
I think you guys think I'm defending P-Zombies more than I am. In actuality I think the entire idea is an exemplar for everything that's wrong with contemporary philosophy. Given your view that this thought experiment is problematic, I take it you are in the materialism camp so I don't think you're defending p-zombies for pluralism so I don't quite understand why you'd think p-zombies logically possible, you have yet to give an example, and it's only a thought experiment so I think monist philosophy still holds. The onus is on the p-zombie claim of a non-contradictory separate mind from body for negation. I think the argument fails on this imagining of a p-zombie, it's far from being a decisive thought experiment.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 9, 2017 12:14:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 10, 2017 16:32:16 GMT
Ah, fantasy Cinemachinery is also a "globalist"! The legend grows. Feel free to deny it, buddy boy. Why would I need to deny something Iv'e never stated, supported, or given the slightest nod to? Fantasy Cinemachinery grows richer in detail by the week, though!
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 10, 2017 16:33:34 GMT
Ah, fantasy Cinemachinery is also a "globalist"! The legend grows. It took him two minutes to respond to the post you made Cine. And as always a response calculated to get him a reply. Watching he and Blade trying to out do each other in garnering negative attention is most amusing. Ada's left a huge gap. Neither was able to maintain the non-stop bickering she did at all times - she's left quite the load to carry.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 10, 2017 16:39:45 GMT
Let me amend that to: it was rather assholish. But we do have "some understandings" of things like water and consciousness beyond what they're physically made of or what causes them. Are you really going to assert we had NO understanding of water before knowing its atomic composition? Similarly, our experience of consciousness is more than knowing that it seems to be associated with physical brain states. I don't think one has to be "completely ignorant" about the brain-consciousness connection in order to assert P-Zombies are logically possible; that very much comes down to what philosophy of mind you adopt, and there are many of them out there. Personally, yes, I think the consciousness = the experience of being brain states is the most likely, which means P-Zombies are almost certainly impossible. I say "almost certainly" because I do think it's possible there could be zombie-like entities if the mechanics of brains were transferred to a different substrate (say a computer rather than an organic brain). "Let me amend that to: it was rather assholish" Being patronizing isn't assholish? I wasn't being patronizing. I have no idea what you know or don't know on the subject. When I state what I know it's an attempt to establish a common ground and make sure we're on the same page regarding priors. It's not an attempt to be patronizing. Your accusation of it being patronizing is what's assholish.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 10, 2017 16:43:30 GMT
I think you guys think I'm defending P-Zombies more than I am. In actuality I think the entire idea is an exemplar for everything that's wrong with contemporary philosophy. I don't quite understand why you'd think p-zombies logically possible... My saying p-zombies are logically possible is solely due to my understanding of what logical possibility entails: namely, inherent contradictions because of terms that are wholly definitional in nature: a married bachelor being the famous example. When it comes to things that can only be known empirically, like what water is made of, or whether or not consciousness is physical, it's not a matter of logical impossibilities but metaphysical impossibilities. Like I said, I think the only thing p-zombies do is establish logical possibility but nothing else, and it's really the metaphysical possibility that's of real concern. On that front it does nothing.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 10, 2017 18:47:13 GMT
It took him two minutes to respond to the post you made Cine. And as always a response calculated to get him a reply. Watching he and Blade trying to out do each other in garnering negative attention is most amusing. Ada's left a huge gap. Neither was able to maintain the non-stop bickering she did at all times - she's left quite the load to carry. Cinemachinery, you can say whatever you want, and you can even believe what you say if you like, but the truth is that you posted only moments before I switched on my computer and logged on to this site. You're not so important that I have to keep a constant watch on you. Right now I've got my eye on Syria and this idiotic missile strike that Trump ordered. Remember what you told me on the phone about Steve Bannon? Well, from what I'm seeing Bannon is out, so I guess we won't have to worry about him anymore, huh?
|
|