On Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:23:52 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >> 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.
It's a hypothesis.
> >> 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.
It's a hypothesis that is consistent with my model and with observation.
> >> 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.
I'm saying that a computer is not physically real. We are using a
collection of physical objects of various sizes as a machine to serve our
motives to do our computations for us. It is not a structure which reflects
an interior motive. What makes computers useful is that they have no
capacity to object to drudgery. That is the capacity which is inseparable
> >> 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
> > 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.
I don't think that a conscious being arises at a moment of fertilization, I
say that fertilization is just one milestone within biological stories. The
stories are what is physically real, the private presentation. The cellular
fusion is a public representation.
I see nothing wrong with observing the singular nature of consciousness and
its role in providing a private perspective in creating time as an
explanation. I don't see that anything that physics has produced is more
explanatory than that. What is energy? What is space? What is quantum?
> > 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
> > all of which are 100% sensory-motor. Consciousness can only be explained
> > consciousness, in the terms of consciousness, to satisfy consciousness.
> > 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".
Not at all. I have eliminated all other possibilities through rational
consideration. It's very simple. A universe which contains only matter or
only information has not possible use for participating perceivers. If you
can provide a reason why or how this would occur, then I would be very
interested and happy to consider your position.
It's like saying "consciousness is the light, light is not black, so
> black people are not conscious".
Nope. It's like saying that both light and dark are aspects of visual
sense, and that visual sense cannot arise from either light or dark.
> >> 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
> > 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
> > 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
I don't even believe in the possibility of the word zombie. It is a
misconception based on a misplaced expectation of consciousness in
something which deserves no such expectation - like a puppet or a cartoon.
Do I accept the possibility of puppets or cartoons who could be mistaken by
everyone into thinking they were conscious? In a limited context, sure.
There could be a politician who is an idiot but has very good
speechwriters that make him seem intelligent. So what? That says absolutely
zero about the quality of the sensory-motor capacities, i.e. consciousness
of a puppet.
> 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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.