This is more towards philosophical zombies. — SophistiCat

OK. The PZs are supposed to be indistinguishable from normal humans, so that case is not relevant. — Ludwig V

It depends. If they have sensory input, they are conscious, so I don't accept that we have robots like that. But I agree that we can strap a camera to a computer (or input an image) and program it to respond in certain circumstances. I understand also that we often call that seeing or calculating or speaking. But it's by extension from human beings, not in their own right. Getting it to do everything that we do is a different matter. I don't rule out the possibility that one day there might be a machine that is conscious, but I have very little idea of what it would be like. — Ludwig V

But I also don't think that consciousness is on/off, like a light and sometimes there may be no definitive answer. — Ludwig V

Now we think about things, and kind of things, nothing else thinks about.
— Patterner
.. and yet we are still animals. — Ludwig V

I do notice the frequent assertions on this forum that, although neuroscience can't yet 'explain consciousness', they will do at some point 'in the future'. I would include that tendency under the same general heading. — Wayfarer

But that doesn't mean that we have to now sort of put our heads in the sand and say, "Well let's just wait and see." We can start thinking about why is the problem as hard as it is. And what is giving rise to this systematic difficulty. — Chalmers

The brain's activity could do these things without any subjective experience/consciousness anywhere.
— Patterner
The problem is that your thought-experiment only works if I pretend that I accept this. It begs the question. (This is about the P-zombies, isn't it?) — Ludwig V

The difficulty is setting out the ways we're similar, and the ways we're unique. Our own thinking is bolstered by our own complex language use and all that that facilitates. Naming and descriptive practices are key. They pervade our thinking. They allow us to reflect upon our own experiences in a manner that is much more than just remembering.

Other animals cannot do that. — creativesoul

According to the definitions I quoted earlier, epiphenomenalism says mental states do not have any effect on physical events. Walking is a physical event, not a mental event. And walking certainly has an effect on physical events. So I don't know how you are thinking walking is epiphenomenal.
— Patterner
Well, the fact that mental states make me walk to the shops demonstrates that epiphenomenalism is false. — Ludwig V

It seems to me a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation to say that the screen display is an epiphenomenon. The screen display is the point of the whole exercise. — Ludwig V

Wanting to have some milk is the point of the causal sequence, not an epiphenomenon. — Ludwig V

("neutral" is a typo for "neural", I assume.) — Ludwig V

My reductio aims to demonstrate that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of causality. — SophistiCat

My starting-point is that human beings are animals. We have bodies in the same way that they do. We have instincts which dominate our lives just as they do. Pretending we are not animals is something that are very much tempted to do, because we spend much time and effort trying to distinguish ourselves from them. But most animals do that in one way or another. For the most part, species prefer not to share their homes, roosts or whatever with other species. So that desire is shared with other animals as well.

When someone tries to find some respect in which humans differ from animals, what I hear is a desire to pretend that they are not an animal. But they eat and sleep and do all those animal things. How are they not animals - admittedly an animal with over-developed capacities? But that doesn't change the foundation. — Ludwig V

Nicholas? Who's that? — creativesoul

Well, I would concur that no one has been picklefree. :wink: — creativesoul

Since there is no God, there is no one to conceive humanity before it exists, thus the human being has no nature before he (I write as sexistly as Sartre) exists. Therefore, he is free to do has he chooses. — Jedothek

You will probably both disagree with me, — Ludwig V

A square circle is not either/ or and nor is it a paradox, It is just an incoherent conjoining of words. — Janus

↪Wayfarer Of course they do, but we also act for reasons. As I keep trying to get you to see they are just different kinds of explanation. You might get it if you ditch your either/or thinking. — Janus

According to the definitions I quoted earlier, epiphenomenalism says mental states do not have any effect on physical events. Walking is a physical event, not a mental event. And walking certainly has an effect on physical events. So I don't know how you are thinking walking is epiphenomenal.
— Patterner

I already addressed this. The causal exclusion argument that motivates epiphenomenalism applies equally to physical events in a similar supervenient relationship. — SophistiCat

So, if abortion is declared illegal in a very broad way, you end up with unintended consequences like what happened in Alabama. In vitro fertilization became illegal because the fertilized eggs in test-tubes were considered people because human life began at conception, which means their disposal was murder. — Hanover

I think we should be consistent. If it's murder then so is abortion. If abortion is not murder, then neither is this.
— Patterner
H'm. You didn't cover "If it's not murder, ..." Given what you've said, if it's not murder. abortion is not murder. It's vicious nasty crime, but who was killed? No-one. So it's not murder. — Ludwig V

If someone was to slip an abortion pill in a pregnant woman's body without her knowing and it results in the death of the foetus. Whether or not the person would be arrested for murder depends on your standpoint on abortion? — Samlw

So this is part of the argument that "becoming human" isn't a single moment, a single event, but a process. Is that what you were getting at? — Ludwig V

So, if moving your feet does all the causal work, then walking is reduced to an epiphenomenon. — SophistiCat

I don't understand. It doesn't harm her if she want the abortion, so sneaking would not be necessary. But it sneaking is necessary, then it's likely that she does not want the abortion and in that case, it definitely does harm her. — Ludwig V

Many believe a fetus should have the same consideration as a child.
— Patterner
.... and many do not. Should not the parents have the right to their own conscience? — Ludwig V

Some think a fetus is a stage in the life of a human being, so nobody should have the right to choose what to do with the fetus' body.
— Patterner
That's absurd. Parents (biological or other) not only have the right, but the duty to make decisions about their children's lives. Why should there not be a similar right and duty to make decisions about a foetus? After all, we allow people to make decisions for their relatives when they are ill and unable to make the decisions themselves. — Ludwig V

Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events. — SEP

Epiphenomenalism is the view that phenomenal properties – the what it’s like of conscious states – have no physical effects. — Emerson Green

relating to an epiphenomenon (= something that exists and can be seen, felt, etc. at the same time as another thing but is not related to it) — Cambridge Dictionary

of or relating to an epiphenomenon (a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it /
specifically : a secondary mental phenomenon that is caused by and accompanies a physical phenomenon but has no causal influence itself) — Merriam Webster

If walking consists in putting one foot in front of the other, is walking epiphenomenal? — SophistiCat

Around 60% of the world’s population has the right to an abortion. And in the interest of freedom and not allowing a government to have control on what life choices you want to make with your personal body, — Samlw

Why would we not experience wanting? Why compare us to robots? We are not robots we are evolved organisms. — Janus

Even if we could observe in living detail the neural processes we cannot observe conscious experience, so establishing the link between the two would still seem to be impossible, as far as I can imagine. Of course I might be mistaken, I won't deny that. — Janus

Say I go to the shops for milk. If someone asks why I went to the shops I'll say it was to buy milk. That's one explanation. On the other hand, I could say I went to the shops because the neural activity which is experienced as realizing I was out of milk and neural activity which is experienced as wanting to have milk led to neural activity which led me to go to the shop. — Janus