"if I have all power, then the simple answer is that I used the power of omnipotence to get it done."
That will not do as an answer if the task is to draw a triangle with 4 sides. Some of us seriously doubt that it makes sense to speak of a person causing things to exist without a body or brain, outside of space and time. To say "God does it by his power of omnipotence" is not useful here. Even omnipotent beings cannot do things which are conceptually impossible.
VR: But doesn't this just question-beggingly delimit just what can cause what? If there is some logical contradiction in God causing something without a body or a brain, that would be one thing. Of course, omnipotence is typically defined as the power to do anything that doesn't involve a contradiction, so the triangle with four sides case would be ruled out by definition.
255 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255@Frances:
"Any fictional work about x will be evidence that x is at least a logical possibility, provided that x actually appears in the work."
(1) Film X placing 2 apples on a table.
(2) Film X placing two more apples on a table.
(3) Edit the film with frames showing table with 5 apples.
(4) Show film.
(5) Take the film as evidence it is logically possible that 2 + 2 = 5.
"Francis stop being a Gnu"
I have tried in vain to get someone here, to define exactly what constitutes being a gnu. Nobody has been willing to give a straight answer. I think it's because the term is used in a vague way to describe an atheist you don't like for almost any reason. If there is some specific quality merits the label, I cannot discern it.
Francis is making a perfectly reasonable argument. The fact that you don't understand it earns him the label of gnu? You can debate whether his argument is true or not, you might disagree, but at the very least you should make an effort to understand his point.
Just admit you where not being serious when you cited a fictional movie as evidence Robots could do whatever....
Totally serious and utterly right. If it were not logically possible for robots to be sentient and loving it would not be possible for a movie to be produced in which the main character represented on screen was a sentient, loving robot.
Show me how "sentient and loving" contradicts " robot" and I'll shut up"
"As Troy stepped from his spacecraft, he was amazed at the color of the sky. It was both blue and not blue. He would look into it later but it was almost certainly due to pulsating colors of the oceans covering most of the planet combined with the high density of the atmosphere."
And when Speilburg, or anyone else makes a film in which the audience see a sky which is simultaneously blue and not blue, I will withdraw my comment.
grodgigues,
"it is not true that today God knows what I will do tomorrow, because God's knowledge is a-temporal."
I think your statement is self-contradictory. The god of open theism is not a-temporal. It exists in time and doesn't know what will occur in the future (which does not yet exist). The traditional god of classic theism is a-temporal, so it exists outside of time, and (being omniscient) it can see all of time at once, so it knows what will occur. This is incompatible with free will, so some classic theists try to envision the future as a range of possibilities. But that doesn't solve the problem. If god exists outside of time, then no matter how many possibilities there are, this god can still see which path is actually taken.
@Francis
>Totally serious and utterly right.
Dude don't take drugs or at least be a dude & bring enough for everybody.
@Skept
>I think your statement is self-contradictory.
No grod is right you are confused.
>The god of open theism is not a-temporal.
Correct & for what it's worth Bob might have been mistaken.
But we are Classic Theist here. No gay* gods allowed.
*Again by "gay" I don't mean homosexual. By "gay" I mean thinking "Crunchy Conservatism" was a good title for a book(take that Rod Dreher!).
Skept
You have already conceded that there is no causal relationship between God knowing you will choose X and you choosing X.
You have yet to explain how God infallibly knowing you will choose X destroys free will.
How does it overthrow you as the cause of your own choice and replace it with God sans you?
>I have tried in vain to get someone here, to define exactly what constitutes being a gnu.
It's a derogatory word we use to pick on Atheists who are anti-intellectual. The godless version of fundie.
Geez get with the program & stop being a Gnu. You are doing better keep it up.
Abandon your Gnuism and embrace the mountain of awesome that is critical thinking.
Skept
What is your beef? Are you complaining you are "fated" to choose X because God infallibly knows you will?
That doesn't follow & even if it did you are still "Self-fated" (because you already admitted no causal relation between God knowing & you choosing)& thus fate yourself to do X freely.
Thus God's Infallible Knowledge is compatible with Free Will.
@im-skeptical:
"The traditional god of classic theism is a-temporal, so it exists outside of time, and (being omniscient) it can see all of time at once, so it knows what will occur. This is incompatible with free will, so some classic theists try to envision the future as a range of possibilities. But that doesn't solve the problem. If god exists outside of time, then no matter how many possibilities there are, this god can still see which path is actually taken."
translation: plug the ears and repeat the *same* crap all over again.
Whatever.
Are you trying to say that "impossible" and "unimaginable" are synonyms?
I can only say, "Impossible and unimaginable!"
No ozzie, not synonyms.
The set of all impossible things(I) includes all members of the set of set of logically impossible things (LI).
LI does not include all members of I.
I includes at least some members of the set of unimaginable things (U).
All members of LI will also be members of U.
I hope that makes it clear.
I have tried in vain to get someone here, to define exactly what constitutes being a gnu. Nobody has been willing to give a straight answer. I think it's because the term is used in a vague way to describe an atheist you don't like for almost any reason. If there is some specific quality merits the label, I cannot discern it.
Skep, the expression was "gnu" to me too! (Sorry, couldn't resist it!)
Although it doesn't matter much, just as a point of information, I'm Frances with an "e" not Francis with an "i" which makes me a she, not a he.
Frances,
Any fictional work about x will be evidence that x is at least a logical possibility, provided that x actually appears in the work. Unless your fanfic work includes a full description of these square circles or better still, an image, the square circles themselves do not appear in the fiction, they are merely referred to.
Okay, so let's see where we're at here.
1) Merely referring to the existence of a squared circle is inadequate to show the logical possibility of a squared circle. It must be shown onscreen.
2) But if you put a human child on stage, played by a human being, and you say 'The human child shall be playing the role of a robot who falls in love.' and merely refer to his experiences, this is sufficient to demonstrate the logical possibility of a robot being sentient and loving - even though these involve subjective experiences, and we didn't see these on stage at any point.
Sorry man, your reasoning here ain't working well.
Likewise, I haven't seen your reply to my example of Back to the Future. Now, remember: the idea of going back in time and changing the past is commonly held to be logically impossible. Remember, this is what you said earlier:
It was perfectly valid for me to draw attention to a work of fiction which centred on the premise of a sentient, loving robot, because it proved that whether or not such a thing was actually possible, it had at least to be an internally consistent concept or the film would simply be unimaginable.
Are you going to tell me that this movie demonstrated that going back in time and changing the past is logically possible?
Better yet - are you telling me that the *movie* AI proved the logical possibility of robots having subjective experience, but the *book* would not have sufficed? Really?
In AI the robot child, David, is a fully imagined character who we see and understand.
No, he's a character presented to the audience and told 'he's a robot'. The very part you need on display - the subjective awareness and experience - is not available.
By the way: here's a part of the wiki entry for AI:
"In the late 21st century, global warming has flooded coastlines, and a drastic reduction of the human population has occurred. There is a new class of robots called Mecha, advanced humanoids capable of emulating thoughts and emotions."
Emulation. David simulates emotions. But wait, I'm sure you're going to tell me about the point in the movie where it's demonstrated that David has subjective experience, rather than merely emulates such - right?
Crude - some people think time travel is a logical impossibility. I don't.
Prove that "a loving,sentient robot" is an inherently self-contradictory statement. Put up or shut up.
"Emulation. David simulates emotions. But wait, I'm sure you're going to tell me about the point in the movie where it's demonstrated that David has subjective experience, rather than merely emulates such - right?"
Idiot. Only an idiot could ask this question with any imagined semblance of implied logic given the historical evidence that is exploding all around them. Whatever difference is imagined between experiencing and emulating subjective experience is purely a matter of personal bias and incredulity. While one is a natural evolutionary produced meat machine, the other a copy of the naturally produced meat machine, both strictly employ and wholly operate within the exact same physics and mathematics that makes them tick, one carbon-based, the other currently silicon-based. And while there is a very long way still to go, it seems the difference will be indistinguishable. Already, every time we publish a comment on this site we are prompted to prove we are not bots. Every day some part of our body from hearts, lungs, hips joints, arms, hands are either being replaced by different materials, or transplanted from another human body, and pretty soon limbs etc and body parts will be regrown to replace lost pieces of ourself. Even brain inserts, of astounding variety and functions are being implanted in the brain to mitigate instances of epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, cerebral palsy, and other malfunctioning conditions. As we speak, Self-replicating molecules based around the same concept and mechanics of DNA replication demonstrates that the basic building blocks of life do not have or contain a sensus divinitatus component that only a god [and most particularly only a christian god] must necessarily undertake [pardon the pun] the installation of awareness or sense of self, or consciousness.
It is the supernaturalist fool that is unable to see, that the natural meat machine and whatever derivatives that humans develop in the future, in the form of what is conventionally described but by no means limited to, Artificial Intelligence, and machine sentience more generally, they all comport to the exact same physical and natural laws and properties as so illustriously demonstrated through the sciences.
Sheesh!
Paps you are such a gnu.
Even Atheists can be emergent property dualists.
Even Atheists like Searle can & have argued that a so called Hard A.I. is impossible in principle.
"Even Atheists like Searle can & have argued that a so called Hard A.I. is impossible in principle."
Some atheists are wrong. Searle's Chinese Room is a strawman.
OTOH since some weird silly people who won't share their drugs think examples in known fiction count as proof.
The Christian Science Fiction Series LAMB AMONG THE STARS has hard A.I.'s & spoiler alert at the end of the Series at the Last Judgment, the Most High gives one of them a Soul in the ultimate Pinocchio real boy moment.
>Some atheists are wrong. Searle's Chinese Room is a strawman.
Prove it.
Dude don't take drugs or at least be a dude & bring enough for everybody.
Ben,
I don't do drugs but I don't mind getting in a couple of crates of beer, if you like. That's one for you and one for your best buddy, Ad Hominem.
Frances,
Crude - some people think time travel is a logical impossibility. I don't.
Of course not. You saw Back to the Future. That proved it's logically possible. ;)
Prove that "a loving,sentient robot" is an inherently self-contradictory statement. Put up or shut up.
The argument here is whether a work of fiction that involves claim X suffices to show that that claim X is not logically contradictory. You made the claim, I pointed out it was ridiculous. Don't try to shift the topic or the burden - the 'put up or shut up' job is yours, about the topic in question. I could even believe that 'a loving, sentient robot' is NOT inherently self-contradictory - but it doesn't mean an effing movie that moved you demonstrated that.
You may want to consult your heart of hearts on this one, because I think you've now realized that your claim doesn't work quite the way you thought it would. But goddamn, eating crow served by me would be extremely unpleasant. I really doubt it will be - I'm not going to ride this one for very long - but until then you're the person who thinks Michael J Fox demonstrated that time travel and changing the past is logically possible because he jumped into an effing Delorean with lights glued to it.
Ben,
Searle's Chinese Room is a thought experiment that implicitly assumes a simplistic view of cognitive function as merely following a set of instructions, like a function in a computer program, and then declares that such an activity cannot understand what it is doing. But conscious activity involves complex interaction between many different functional processors in the brain. It would indeed be possible to build a system that is conscious and understanding if we could assemble a similar collection of processors and interconnect them the way the brain does.
"you're the person who thinks Michael J Fox demonstrated that time travel and changing the past is logically possible because he jumped into an effing Delorean with lights glued to it."
Frances has said (or implied) that by showing something in a movie, it can be done without creating a contradiction or paradox. So grodrigues' complaint about putting apples on a table misses the mark because if you actually showed it, there would not be 5 apples on the table. The situation with time travel is more difficult to see. But changing the past does create a paradox, so even though it is shown in a movie, they ignore the obvious paradox that is created. On the other hand, showing a sentient robot does not involve any contradiction or paradox. It's only a problem for you because you adhere to a belief that such a thing can't be done. A reasonable person need not share your belief.
Skep,
But changing the past does create a paradox, so even though it is shown in a movie, they ignore the obvious paradox that is created.
Congratulations: by attempting to support Frances, you have undermined her.
Here's Frances earlier, with emphasis added:
It was perfectly valid for me to draw attention to a work of fiction which centred on the premise of a sentient, loving robot, because it proved that whether or not such a thing was actually possible, it had at least to be an internally consistent concept or the film would simply be unimaginable.
But you've come out and said what Frances was trying to avoid admitting: "Back to the Future" didn't have an internally consistent concept. The movie was about that which is logically impossible - going back in time and changing the past. But it didn't matter: it was entertaining, people just ignored or didn't think about the logical problems.
Now, Frances has apparently decided to defend this claim by denying that what went on in Back to the Future is logically impossible. Fantastic - so much for 'reasonable people'.
But, God bless you, you tried to run defense and ended up attacking her position. Thank you for that.
On the other hand, showing a sentient robot does not involve any contradiction or paradox.
No, AI showed a human actor who was playing as a robot. You never 'saw' sentience, or subjective experience, including 'loving'. What you saw was behavior - behavior which the wikipedia entry calls a simulation. The very thing you need to 'see' to disprove the logical impossibility is the one thing you are completely incapable of seeing in the movie.
It's only a problem for you because you adhere to a belief that such a thing can't be done.
Pity for you that I haven't been taking that position here, eh? ;)
I have taken issue with a particular claim made by Frances: that a movie showed that a robot who is sentient, who loves - things that involve subjective experience fundamentally, etc - is not logically impossible. The question isn't 'is it logically possible for a robot to do this?', it's 'does AI show this?' And nope, it doesn't.
Just as BttF doesn't show that it's logically possible to go back in time and change the past. Frances is the one who decided to claim that a work of fiction had to be internally consistent. Apparently she never heard of plot holes.
As for the separate argument about conscious robots? I'm just going to sit back and watch Ben argue with you for a bit. So far your move is 'The chinese room is flawed because it uses a simplistic example, like a computer program.' and 'Adding more processors and making things more complex would make you conscious!' Let's see how that brilliance works out for you. ;)
Ben,
Your reference to Lamb among the Stars (which I have not read) reminded me of a 1954 Science Fiction short story, The Battle, by Robert Sheckley (one of my all-time favorite SF writers). In it, the Battle of Armageddon is fought by humanity using robotic instruments of war (no human present), and Satan is utterly annihilated. God comes to the battlefield after it's over, surveys the wrecked machinery around Him, and returns to Heaven with all the robots in tow - leaving humanity behind.
Makes one think about contemporary drone warfare...
@im-skeptical:
"So grodrigues' complaint about putting apples on a table misses the mark because if you actually showed it, there would not be 5 apples on the table."
That is the point you dumbass. Because showing a human being portraying a robot that we are told has inner subjective experience is really different.
"Searle's Chinese Room is a thought experiment that implicitly assumes a simplistic view of cognitive function as merely following a set of instructions, like a function in a computer program, and then declares that such an activity cannot understand what it is doing."
And another example of ignorant dumbassery. And you might want to read what you write: since a computer program is "merely following a set of instructions" (are you disputing this?), claiming that saying the same for "cognitive function" is "a simplistic view" is conceding Searle's point. It is precisely because
note: and by the way, go read Searle's "Rediscovery of the Mind", especially chapter 9, where he refines his view. He has this to say: "This is a different argument from the Chinese room argument, and I should have said it ten years ago, but I did not. The Chinese argument showed that semantics is not intrinsic to syntax. I am now making the separate and different point that syntax is not intrinsic to physics."
"OTOH since some weird silly people who won't share their drugs think examples in known fiction count as proof."
I couldn't think of a better example than those who proffer CS Lewis, a writer of all manner of fiction, including "Mere Christianity", counting as proof.
grod,
note: and by the way, go read Searle's "Rediscovery of the Mind", especially chapter 9, where he refines his view.
Asking Skep to read a philosopher or scientist he disagrees with directly is funny. He deals almost exclusively with summaries and pseudo-translations delivered via atheist websites.
Safer that way. ;)
grodrigues,
All your ad hominems don't make you right. The point is you can't show it because it isn't logically possible. Just like you can't really show a realistic depiction of someone changing the past.
And it is you who should learn to read better. A computer program can be quite complex if it is composed of many functions, each of which follows a relatively simple set of instructions. Each individual function performs a task that does not constitute the totality of cognition. But the program as a whole, if sufficiently complex (perhaps on some advanced processing system), could indeed mimic the function of a human brain.
As for Searle, I don't care what you quote from him. He's wrong.
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=247
Searle's Chinese Room is a thought experiment that implicitly assumes a simplistic view of cognitive function as merely following a set of instructions, like a function in a computer program
Hey, news flash of the obvious, AI, even strong AI, is by very definition a computer program.
But conscious activity involves complex interaction between many different functional processors in the brain. It would indeed be possible to build a system that is conscious and understanding if we could assemble a similar collection of processors and interconnect them the way the brain does.
So, your response is that of Tim The Tool Man Taylor to any problem? More Power! Well, like Crude said, this should be entertaining.
But the program as a whole, if sufficiently complex (perhaps on some advanced processing system), could indeed mimic the function of a human brain.
Skeppy, connections and interactions between synapses can be simulated with water pipes but that wouldn't produce cognition, now would it?
@im-skeptical:
"All your ad hominems don't make you right."
Ad hominem is the name for a family of fallacies; fallacies that I did *not* commit anywhere in my comments.
"The point is you can't show it because it isn't logically possible. Just like you can't really show a realistic depiction of someone changing the past."
More dumbassery. The only thing I pointed was the idiocy of Frances argument.
"And it is you who should learn to read better. A computer program can be quite complex if it is composed of many functions, each of which follows a relatively simple set of instructions. Each individual function performs a task that does not constitute the totality of cognition."
Now, this is rich: read again what I wrote.
"But the program as a whole, if sufficiently complex (perhaps on some advanced processing system), could indeed mimic the function of a human brain."
The point is not about "mimic[king] the function of a human brain".
Any more ignorant dumbassery?
grodrigues,
Here we go again.
"Ad hominem is the name for a family of fallacies; fallacies that I did *not* commit anywhere in my comments."
I didn't say fallacy, did I? Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
"1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"
That is your approach. Please learn to read.
"The point is not about "mimic[king] the function of a human brain"."
If a machine can produce conscious function, that would indeed be mimicking the function of the human brain.
"Any more ignorant dumbassery?"
@im-skeptical:
"Here we go again."
No, we are not.
"If a machine can produce conscious function"
But that's the whole point, isn't it? It can't.
(Thanks for including that little "if" in there, by the way.)
"that would indeed be mimicking"
Yes, it would. But that's all it would be - mimicking (i.e., not the Real Thing).
Skep - spot on (at 1.03 pm). Thank you!
Crude - reading your posts is like being transported to some alternative universe peopled entirely by straw men. I never said that a fictional work which made a claim about x was proof that x was logically possible. I said that if an idea could be imagined, actually imagined, not just referred to, then it must be a logical possibility. AI proves that it is possible to imagine a sentient, loving robot otherwise the film could not have been made. David is an imagined being. A four sided-triangle is just a meaningless combination of words.
Time travel is not only possible but unavoidable (think about it). But ok, not in the sense you're talking about. I would have to hear someone argue why time travel is logically impossible before I could decide whether or not reference to a film about time travel was a suitable refutation of the argument.
I never said that any work of fiction had to be internally consistent as a whole in order not to fall foul of rules about logical possibility. Plot holes have no bearing on what I said whatsoever.
However, you seem finally to have grasped my substantive point about BP's error, so I think my work here is done.
I said that if an idea could be imagined, actually imagined, not just referred to, then it must be a logical possibility.
So werewolves and vampires are logical possibilities?
@B. Prokop:
"Yes, it would. But that's all it would be - mimicking (i.e., not the Real Thing)."
It is actually worse than that. The point is not whether human-being mimicking robots can be made; and to see why it is not, one just has to think about the family of Zombie arguments.
(1) Zombies are conceivable.
(2) Whatever is conceivable is possible.
(3) Therefore zombies are possible.
The argument is valid, so either one accepts the conclusion or denies (1) or (2). Two of the resident idiots concede (2). Furthermore, they argue that it is logically possible that sentient robots exist; evidence: a freaking movie. Stifle the laughter; in order to block (1) they have to argue that having qualia *necessarily* follows, not just possibly or contingently, once the physical facts are fixed. Needless to say, this is a virtual impossibility. I will grant it is a delightful ironical task for an ignorant science-fetishists. So they are left with accepting (3); but this is inconsistent with claiming that conscious states are either identical with or constituted by physical or functional states, as they need if robots are to have qualia.
Of course a little bit of knowledge, a little bit of thinking and a modest regard for the Truth would prevent such obvious fumblings, but that is precisely what cannot be counted on the part of the resident idiots.
@Karl Grant:
"So werewolves and vampires are logical possibilities?"
Ah good point. Methinks, Frances and im-skeptical have just conceded the soundness of the modal ontological argument for the existence of God.
This is just hilarious.
"Frances and im-skeptical have just conceded the soundness of the modal ontological argument for the existence of God."
Of course they have. Funny how they do not realize this. But then again, God lurks behind every rock and bush, and in the end there is no escaping Him. As the Psalmist says:
"quo ibo ab spiritu tuo et quo a facie tua fugiam
si ascendero in caelum ibi es tu si iacuero in inferno ades"
Frances and im-skeptical have just conceded the soundness of the modal ontological argument for the existence of God.
What did you expect? Skeppy's idea of research is Google followed by cut and paste. He can get a rebuttal to anything he wants just by Googling and cutting and pasting to suit his viewpoints. Of course, by doing so he isn't doing the hard work of understanding the origin and context of the arguments and information both for and against his viewpoints.
Which leads to little gems like this conversation.
Bob,
"But that's the whole point, isn't it? It can't." [a machine can't produce conscious function]
So say the purveyors of theistic woo. I say it can. Prove me wrong.
grodrigues,
"they have to argue that having qualia *necessarily* follows"
No, they don't. The concept of qualia is like the soul - some immaterial entity postulated by people who reject a materialist view. It is the kind of thing that philosophers invent to try to explain what they don't understand. Real cognitive science doesn't depend on any such woo.
Frances,
Crude - reading your posts is like being transported to some alternative universe peopled entirely by straw men.
Funny how so many strawmen have as their biggest enemy 'actual quotes of what they said, in proper context'. ;)
I never said that a fictional work which made a claim about x was proof that x was logically possible.
Here is what you did say: "It was perfectly valid for me to draw attention to a work of fiction which centred on the premise of a sentient, loving robot, because it proved that whether or not such a thing was actually possible, it had at least to be an internally consistent concept or the film would simply be unimaginable."
Your claim was that a fictional work which involved/presented X was proof that X was logically possible. I pointed out this was ridiculous. You panicked, blustered, tried to shift the burden of proof, and now you're looking for an exit. You will not find one.
You were simply wrong.
Your mistake was pretty obvious: fiction is entirely capable of acting as if internally inconsistent concepts are reality. It's capable of presenting contradictory claims as reality, it's capable of presenting claims and leaving any treatment of how they perform logically quite void. Now, the result may be a story with logic flaws, or a story with radically unexplained features. Surprise! Many people won't care. Double surprise! Fiction can be flawed.
I said that if an idea could be imagined, actually imagined, not just referred to, then it must be a logical possibility.
No, Frances: you pinned your hopes here on the existence of movies, not the operations of imagination, which present its own problems. Now you're fleeing that sinking ship and would like to locate your claim elsewhere. Fine, do so. You simply won't be able to do it without the retreat being noticed.
I would have to hear someone argue why time travel is logically impossible before I could decide whether or not reference to a film about time travel was a suitable refutation of the argument.
If you need someone to explain to you why traveling back in time and changing the past is logically incoherent - a point that even Skep was capable of grasping, no doubt under the patient tutelage of his nanny - then your problem exceeds my patience.
Plot holes have no bearing on what I said whatsoever.
They do when one of the plot holes features the very claim under question.
However, you seem finally to have grasped my substantive point about BP's error, so I think my work here is done.
"I am really tired of Crude banging my face off this particular intellectual surface. Maybe if I declare victory in the vaguest way and bolt, my pride won't be as wounded. Let's try that!"
I've conceded nothing to you, because there's nothing to concede. You made an ignorant statement about the intellectual power of movies you find sweet. That flaw was exposed. Instead of simply granting, alright, movies don't show what you said they show, you doubled down and got cocky. It blew up in your face. Lesson learned, I'm sure. My reply is: you're welcome. ;)
@im-skeptical:
"No, they don't. The concept of qualia is like the soul - some immaterial entity postulated by people who reject a materialist view. It is the kind of thing that philosophers invent to try to explain what they don't understand. Real cognitive science doesn't depend on any such woo."
Qualia an "immaterial entity immaterial entity postulated by people who reject a materialist view"? And when I thought you could not sink lower in the level of ignorant stupidity, you do.
frances
Crude's statement""I am really tired of Crude banging my face off this particular intellectual surface. Maybe if I declare victory in the vaguest way and bolt, my pride won't be as wounded. Let's try that!"
I just love the way he puts words into your mouth that you never spoke and then launches into an argument against that statement. A wonderful case of strawmanning which god-botherers are so adept at employing.
Wow! grodrigues is now resorting to double compound adjectives to make his point rather than the usual CAPITALIZING or bolding. " ... level of ignorant stupidity..."
Little does he understand and appreciate that qualia is simply a statement of emotion or feeling, the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena. Whatever qualia is, it's not a supernatural immaterial or 'Divine' state, but an emotive or psychological response when one of our senses are triggered.
Sheesh!
Qualia is a supervening state of naturalism. And naturalism is soooooo .... well, natural.
"So say the purveyors of theistic woo."
You call that an argument? I'm disappointed in you, Skep. You started out in this conversation actually trying to participate in a discussion, but you degenerate to this... Yer gonna have to go back on my "do not respond list".
Bob,
If you want to insist that a machine can't be conscious, then present your argument. Let's have a real discussion. HINT: If your premise is rationality can't come from non-rational sources, you still need to show why. I have heard this claim over and over, but nobody has ever justified it. So here's your chance.
(1) Zombies are conceivable.
(2) Whatever is conceivable is possible.
(3) Therefore zombies are possible.
Grod,
Your syllogism is sound in form. The premise 2 & the conclusion need tightening up. In both cases the word "logically" needs to be inserted before "possible". Subject to that amendment, the syllogism is both sound and true.
Crude
I can agree with you to this extent. There is ample material now on this thread for people to make their own judgment about whether you have refuted ( or even understood) my point. Whether the judgment they make will be right or not will depend on their intelligence and analytical skills.
Frances,
There is ample material now on this thread for people to make their own judgment about whether you have refuted ( or even understood) my point.
They're going to love the part where you respond to Back to the Future by at first rejecting that time traveling to and changing the past is logically coherent, followed up by 'Well I dunno I'm not sure...' ;)
Whether the judgment they make will be right or not will depend on their intelligence and analytical skills.
If it makes you feel any better, Frances - Linton and Skep have absolutely wretched analytical skills, and low intelligence. So you've got two people on your side from the get go!
"Linton and Skep have absolutely wretched analytical skills, and low intelligence."
And my knuckles drag on the ground too. ;o)
Hey, you have to take crude' words for what they're worth.
Post a Comment