On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why would being generated in a single moment through cell >> fertilization have any bearing on consciousness? > > > Because consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time, or > rather through which time is created. That's not an explanation. >> Why would something >> created by someone else not have consciousness? > > > Because it is assembled rather than created. It's like asking why wood > doesn't catch on fire by itself just by stacking it in a pile. That's not an explanation. >> Why would something >> lacking internally generated motives (which does not apply to >> computers any more than to people) lack consciousness? > > > Why would computers have an internally generated motive? It doesn't care > whether it functions or not. We know that people have personal motives > because it isn't possible for us to doubt it without doubting our ability to > doubt. You're saying a computer can't be conscious because it would need to be conscious in order to be conscious. >> To make these >> claims you would have to show either that they are necessarily true or >> present empirical evidence in their support, and you have done >> neither. > > > You would have to show that these criteria are relevant for consciousness, > which you have not, and you cannot. You make claims such as that a conscious being has to arise at a moment of fertilization, which is completely without basis. You need to present some explanation for such claims. "Consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time" is not an explanation. > As long as you fail to recognize > consciousness as the ground of being, you will continue to justify it > against one of its own products - rationality, logic, empirical examples, > all of which are 100% sensory-motor. Consciousness can only be explained to > consciousness, in the terms of consciousness, to satisfy consciousness. All > other possibilities are subordinate. How could it be otherwise without > ending up with a sterile ontology which prohibits our own participation? Again, you've just made up "consciousness is the ground of being". It's like saying "consciousness is the light, light is not black, so black people are not conscious". >> You don't think it would happen, but would you be prepared to say that >> if a robot did pass the test, as tough as you want to make it, it >> would be conscious? > > > It's like asking me if there were a test for dehydrated water, would I be > prepared to say that it would be wet if it passed the test. No robot can > ever be conscious. Nothing conscious can ever be a robot. Heads cannot be > Tails, even if we move our heads to where the tails side used to be and > blink a lot. So you accept the possibility of zombies, beings which could live among us and consistently fool everyone into thinking they were conscious? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.