Search results

Why Watson, the answer is obvious to the casual observer: physics is not causally closed.

"...any changes [ping] other than the passage [ping] of time" You hit on a very important nerve...consciousness...changes... passage... lead to temporality. Temporality and change allows consciousness... you use the word "exist"...and "seperate"...these terms are rooted in the same...

Constance...here https://www.theparacast.com/forum/account/preferences

to be clear: do not equate modern "physicalism" with the cartesian category of "physical." Some physicalists may take joy in thinking that everything is reduced to an "unthinking" -- an enlightened physicalist will take joy in thinking that it is possible for a physicalistic brain to reduce...

The first thing to do is to check the "released" with what has already been studied and analyzed. "Proof" doesn't exist in science; that is a mathematical notion based on a system of logic based on unquestioned axioms. Science deals with "theory" A scientific theory is a coherent group of...

Perhaps it is impossible for any conscious machine to determine if another is conscious... Fix the definition...a machine is something we think of as "applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task." But a machine of...

Agreed...somewhat: The problem here is that knowledge and information both presuppose consciousness--so they cannot be "equal." Also consciousness cannot exist without a "lack" -- or a background which encapsulates and highlights "things"--or "thinks" A super-conscious being that is...

Well I tried to boil it down to this (1) Physical things are not conscious (2) Conscious beings require physical things (3) A machine exists that mimics consciousness perfectly to another consciousness (implied self-recursive turing test) (4) But as (1) indicates, such a mimic is NOT...

yes :)

yeah ... I agree...cheap shot. I suppose I thought it was clever or funny at the time :)

the p-zombie is nothing more than the imagined (i.e. negative) results of a silly turing test applied to ourselves.

Curious claim is a failed joke..."artifice" --> "artificial" --> "artificer"... why are we so bigoted about the thinking machines we "create" when we are already machines that think? The further you dig down into any "living" being, the closer you get to a machine...what is DNA -- the most...

All sentience is artificial. All intelligence is artficial... ok...so you are looking for a first cause in terms of the "nature" ... but what if what I am about to be wrong....

Human's (really should be all sentients) think in binary, "where do you draw the line between [whatever A] and [whatever B]? A line between two individuals standing in a field (2D) is divided by a 1D object (a line). In 3D such a division is effected by 3-1 = 2 -- on a number line the...

Maybe I should have tried harder on (1). It isn't as if I've not charged into such dangerous waters with reckless abandon. A "full meaning of being" was meant to be an impossible triangle. So, yes, I see a strawman. Back to my original packet of thought: We cannot think in terms of the...

Right to ask the question again -- sometimes I read myself and say "WTF?!" Short answer: No. Long answer: To address the "if not..." portion and followup from Constance: If I think that human philosophy (as a process) and science (again as a process, not just a result) are meaningless then I...

It appears that I am struggling to define "my terms." It is one of those peculiar topics that requires hyperbole to stretch out to a meaning only to have it cut off by reality once the recipient has reached the end of comprehension. So I cannot answer (1)... and no I don't think any history...

And that means I probably don't have anything useful to offer to the discussion...

I messed up ..."we cannot comprehend the source of our own ability to think in terms of the objects we use unconsciously as a source of what we 'think' or firmly 'believe' can is 'thinking and comprehending comprehension'" I took a shortcut and used the word "think" in two different...

yes...I am baaack. I definitely think solipsism is out of the question and leads to more absurdities than it solves. Regarding "subjective idealism"...not sure...I think my problem is that it depends on categories already presumed of what we are trying to grok. What I said that evidently...