On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:24 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are 2 fundamental questions and we already know the answers to >> both. >> 1) Question: Is Mechanism as defined by you true? >> Answer: Yes. > > > *> ?* > *Hmm… we cannot know that,* > Incorrect. We CAN know that, we know it through direct experience, we just can't derive it from existing axioms which means we need to add it as a new axiom. *> but it is almost trivial. * > It isn't almost "*trivial*" it *IS* trivial, if I experience consciousness then I have experienced consciousness; however for some odd reason the ultimate simplicity of a tautology seems to confuse some people when something more complex would not. > > It is really like self-consistency: for all self-consistent machine it > is true, > That is of course true and if I thought you really meant what you said and were prepared to follow the conclusions that follow from that regardless of where they went we could bring this conversation to a close. But I know you don't really mean it. > *but none can prove it* > And none need to prove it to know it's true > *We can logically conceive that it is wrong,* > Only if you accept the conclusion that you yourself are not conscious. And as there has never been a definition of consciousness that is worth a damn and we only have examples and if now we don't even have examples then you are in no position to say anything about consciousness at all because not being conscious yourself you would quite literally not know what you're talking about. > * > And we cannot derive Mechanism* > And there would be no point in doing so even if we could when we have something much better, direct experience, >> 2) Question: Can there ever be a proof of Mechanism? > > Answer: No. > > > *> ?* > Which word of the answer didn't you understand? *> Again that depends. “Provable” is always relative to some theory * > No, it's dependent on the axioms that are available. > >>>>The only thing assumed is that if you have observed X then you have >>> observed X. >> >> *>>> How would that tautology imply or justify Mechanism?* >> > > >>Bruno, stop playing dumb. > > *>You are the one assuming a tautology.* > Tautologies are ALWAYS true and that is the only "assumption" needed to figure out that Mechanism as defined by you not me is true, not provable, but true. > *I agree we exêrmeint consciousness, and that we very plausibly share a > large part of the physical observable reality, but that does not make > Mechanism entirely rationally justifiable.* > It is entirely rational to believe in Mechanism because I have an absolutely superb reason for doing so, direct experience. And who needs this "justification" thing you keep talking about? Certainly not me! I don't need a proof to know I'm conscious, and if you are not a zombie you don't need one either. And if you are a zombie you STILL don't need a proof that you're conscious because such a proof would be incorrect. > >> so by your own definition of the word Mechanism is certainly true even >> if we can't produce it from the set of axioms that we happen to be >> currently using. > > > >*So we agree.* > On Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays you agree with me. On Tuesday Thursday and Saturday you disagree with me. And on Sunday you're a bit confused. >> An astronomically large number times an infinite number is infinite, and the >> non-mechanist >> believes atoms contain some sort of mystical analog process involving >> infinite digits; and yet the non-mechanist also knows for a fact that all >> that swapping in and out those infinite strings of digits has had precisely >> ZERO effect on his consciousness. > > > *> That is what we can tested.* > Like everything else It hasn't been tested an infinite number of times but it has been tested a astronomical number of times, and it has passed every test with flying colors. >> How on earth is that irrelevant? If a complicated thing has no effect on >> the phenomena you're researching then forget about it and spend your time >> working on things that might have an effect on it. > > > *> It has no relevance because you make the digital truncation. But a non > mechanist might tell you that whatever truncation you do, even at a very > fine grained level, you become a zombie if a decimal is not correct. He > will argue that consciousness needs all the decimals. *if a decimal is > not correct. He will argue that consciousness needs all the decimals. > If atoms have some mysterious analog process going on inside of them involving the continuum then either all hydrogen atoms have the exact same infinite sequence of digits inside of then or they don't. If they're identical then when 2 atoms exchange their position in the brain one infinite sequence has been replaced by a identical infinite series so we can just forget about it. If the zombie theory is correct and every digit of the infinite needs to be perfect, and if the atoms are not perfectly identical then you're a zombie and always have been. If you're not a zombie then a infinite sequence of digits is not required for consciousness. So here is an important question that only you can answer, are you a zombie? > >> I can see no reason why the truth of Mechanism should not be added as >> a axiom and if you know of such a reason you have yet to state it. > > > *> You can added as a sort of meta-axiom once you decide to practice it.* > I don't know what you mean by "meta-axiom", I say just treat it like all the other axioms. *> It is just that the digital doctor cannot claim that it has been > scientifically proved* > No axium can be proven, if it could be there would be no point in making it an axiom. > It is needed to understand that Mechanism is refutable. > And the price that must be paid for doing so is to conclude that direct experience is wrong and you are not conscious. Are you willing to pay that price? > * >>> No theories at all are provable. A theory is always the set of >>> proposition that we assume. All theories are hypothetical.* >> >> >> >> That's nice, but Mechanism is not a theory it is a observation of a >> direct experience. > > *> Hmm, I don’t think so. It is a theory inferred from the current > knowledge of molecular biology, and quantum mechanics,* > People knew from direct experience that they were conscious long long before they knew anything about molecular biology or quantum mechanics, and they also knew that matter, such as wine or a arrowhead, could effect that consciousness. > >>I don't need a proof and I don't need a theory and I don't even need >> science if I have direct experience, and in this case I do. > > > > *> You don’t need a proof. That’s OK. What remain is called faith,* > No, faith is believing in the virgin birth even though direct experience does not reveal it. The religious knows correctly that faith exists because he directly experienced faith, in this case about virgin birth, but he did not directly experience the virgin birth itself, but he believes it anyway. It gets worse, he does not have a proof of it but believes it anyway. He doesn't even have a plausible argument or one bit of evidence in favor of it but he believes it anyway with every fibre of his being. And that's why faith is a vice not a virtue. > > >> If you had a proof that I felt no pain I would know immediately that >>> you either made a logical error when you formed the proof or you started >>> from a bad set of axioms. >> >> >> *> Absolutely. But this is not relevant for the simple fact that >> Mechanism is possibly false,* >> > If Mechanism is false then I am no longer conscious. I am still conscious. Therefore Mechanism is not false. >> It's very relevant because both pain and consciousness are direct >> experiences.There is no proof of Mechanism and there never will be but >> there is no way it could be false, I know this from direct experience and >> if you're conscious you know it too. > > > *> How could I know that? * > How do I know I'm conscious, are you really asking that, have we really sunk to that point? > *> I know only my consciousness here and now. I don’t know I will stay > alive in the next seconds.* > What the hell does that have to do with it? > > *I am the one that insist that mechanism is not provable*, > I have insisted it is not provable just as much as you have, although the existence or nonexistence of such a proof is something of no importance whatsoever. > *> Once you get the step 3* [...] > You're never going to fix it so that's never going to happen. John K Clark -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1%3Df0rxRef213iAjP4fA6Md3%2BxZLeG8A_cvHVyAHa8ABA%40mail.gmail.com.
