Originally Posted by really
Kromoh one of my main points that you missed was to do with causality. You were saying it is microscopic. Please respond to my argument.
Point me to it. However, if I don't have an answer to your question of "what is the sex of the angels", forgive me, but the answer you might be looking for is "angels don't exist".
Great, you spelled "f***ing" correctly. As for being a machine though, according to you we are much like computers then. What does a computer experience? What does my Gameboy experience?
Hmm, it depends a lot on your definition of experience. I myself would classify experience as the memorization of information dealt with by the machine/brain. In this case, your computer and Gameboy do have experience, but colossally less experience than a human being that is programmed to experience things. In fact, they probably have less experience than several insects.
Ultimately, to be aware of, and/or comprehend with certainty. In this case, I don't mean through the "brain", but through simply existing.
Man, there is no awareness that doesn't involve the brain. You're practically saying that your existence is independent from the brain, but when I accuse you of so, you deny it. You are your brain. Rocks also simply exist, but experience nothing, because they have no brains.
That's called knowing about something. I'm not interested in the physics or mechanics of knowing about things; that's obvious. I'm talking about the root of all knowledge. How far back can you go? You don't stop at the brain.
I don't friggin know what it is called. Nor do I care. Once again, don't drag everyday definitions into a philosophical argument about experience. Explain what the words you are using mean, before using them -- it's called a definition.
Also, once again, you are your brain. And this was NEVER remotely related to quantum physics. At all.
Only according to your definition of the external requirements for knowledge. How can you be sure the robot is conscious, and actually knows that he knows?
By indicators. How can you know about the existence of electrons? By indicators. The same old watch analogy. Duh.
Consciousness and experience are extremely hard to define, and do not actually require definition because of their nature. You know what being conscious is. Consciousness includes all reality in this sense. Perhaps a more suitable term is awareness. Do you need to define awareness? You can't. But it is here. You're stuck with it, and machines do not have it for the reason they do not live.
FUGGING LEARN WHAT A DEFINITION IS. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT A CONSCIOUS BEING IS, JUST LIKE I DO NOT KNOW THE SEX OF THE ANGELS, BECAUSE ANGELS DON'T EXIST. EXPLAIN WHAT THE WORDS YOU WILL USE MEAN, PRIOR TO USING THEM. THAT IS WHAT A DEFINITION IS. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING OF YOU. IT'S NOT HARD AT ALL. I DON'T SHARE YOUR DOGMAS AND SUPERSTITIONS ABOUT EXISTENCE. THAT'S WHY YOU MUST DEFINE THEM TO ME. EITHER DO THAT OR YOU'RE ADMITTING SCIENCE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT YOUR MUCH-LOVED CONSCIOUSNESS.
Also, if something is impossible to define, it doesn't exist. Logic 101.
Also, you don't even know what life is. It's not something magical. Living beings are machines.
If you don't understand that this last time I won't keep discussing with you.
Person watching DVD movie on television.
You just gave me a tautology. What is an observer? The person watching. What is a person watching? The observer. You stupid. You can't define "observer" in science. That's what I'm trying to show you. The observer is a machine, reacting just as he was programmed to. The observer is part of the same medium the observed is in.
That you already deny the importance of experience, is fundamentally not much different that aiming to deny consciousness.
I don't need to deny consciousness, you genius. Logic 101. You're the one making the positive claim, saying consciousness (whatever you think that is) exists. The onus of proof is up to you.
Jeebs I'm getting repetitive. If only you didn't think my every argument ignored your points. Do you even read what I write?
I didn't ignore all your explanations, but what I asked was for more elaboration. So far it sounds like observing something in existence has a start and stop time. Why doesn't the interaction, or the observing, always last?
Nah, it doesn't have a start and stop. Things in the physical reality are always interacting with one another. The matter is, there is not always a computer there to read the outcomes of the interaction, analyse them, and give you information. The definition of "observation" is: any physical phenomenon that humans use to acquire information.
The blind person: He exists within time and space, so he is always interacting with it, touching it, sleeping in it, standing in it, whatever. Really doesn't matter that he is blind. Literal observation all plays a part in this as well, for that reason. Looking at things acquires information about them, which influences what you do with them and think of them.
Nah. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't even observe something without changing what/how it was before the observation. And don't start an argument over my analogy -- as two smart H. sapiens, we should both know analogies are limited.
The watch analogy: On the other hand, is a much better analogy for what you're saying. Also, it goes against what you're saying because to define consciousness or awareness is to misunderstand it. You've already pulled it apart in saying it has relationships to the brain (when you were talking about experience), did you not? I'm talking about consciousness as a whole, where you keep falling short. Go ahead and analyze it and you will find its seeming parts, and you will think that we are machines.
Man. Learn what a definition is.
I don't keep falling short. You do. You think "you" are something other than your brain. You are wrong. "You" are your ego, one of the cognitive functions of your brain.
Saying we should not define consciousness nor study it, and just accept it for what someone tells us is the very definition of a dogma. You sound like a religious zealot saying we shouldn't define God. Without a definition, everyone has a personal interpretation about the word, and it becomes impossible to falsify them all. Saying we shouldn't define something is but to promote misinformation, just so that you don't lose your point.
We are machines. I've explained you how and why. Either you counter-argue it, or you stop saying we are not.
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I don't really get the problem. If the brain is like a computer modeling reality, what does it output to?
I don't really understand the last part of your question +.+
|
|
Bookmarks