I'm having a hard time accepting the possibility of a conscious being not being aware (or having a fake awareness) of their own consciousness. The justification for their true belief "I am conscious" would be the immediacy and undeniability of their own consciousness.

Knowledge is justified true belief, but it also requires a knower and what is known. I agree with you that accidental/bot-built collections of matter aren't the sorts of things that can be "knowers", but conscious beings are the sorts of things that are knowers. If a bot-built collection of matter somehow gives rise to a conscious mind, then I think you're going to have something that is capable of awareness and belief, at least of its own consciousness.

It has everything to do with you not reading carefully or not understanding what you read. It said 'if', matey. If. And you ignored that. Willfully ignored it, or didn't understand its significance. If the latter then i cannot rephrase my argument in a way you'd understand. I don't know what grunts and howls would do the trick

A conscious mind is not necessarily aware of it's own consciousness. That is, the idea of a conscious mind that is not aware of it's own consciousness makes sense. The idea of fake states of awareness also makes sense. So if those make sense, then surely we can make sense of there being conscious minds who are subject to fake states of awareness, including a fake state of consciousness awareness. After all, to be self conscious requires having a faculty of introspection and a faculty of reason capable of generating representations. But they won't be doing that if they haven't been designed to or are not being used by an agent for that purpose.

It has everything to do with you not reading carefully or not understanding what you read — Bartricks

Nope. It has something to do with your allergy to conceding even that which would benefit you, for who knows why.

It said 'if', matey. If. — Bartricks

Yes, it did. Exactly as I said last post:

What I am arguing is that if all of our faculties are bot-built, then they won't create any beliefs, just 'beliefs' (where a 'belief' is introspectively indiscernible from a belief, but nevertheless isn't one). — Bartricks

There's the if, right before the underlined antecedent, the italicized consequent, and the bolded parenthetical.

And you ignored that. Willfully ignored it, or didn't understand its significance. — Bartricks

Oh what narratives!

If the latter then i cannot rephrase my argument in a way you'd understand. I don't know what grunts and howls would do the trick — Bartricks

...oh what poetic drama!

But apparently the greatest thinker since Plantinga cannot tell a consequent from a parenthetical phrase. I don't believe you're that incompetent.

Greatest thinker since Plantinga?!? Now that's an insult! Plantinga isn't remotely close to being a great thinker. Jeez. I'm in a different league. Gaslighter.

To recap: I have never, ever, ever said that we are not introspectively aware of things or not aware of things generally. Read the OP! I think we ARE aware of things.

↪InPitzotl
Greatest thinker since Plantinga?!? Now that's an insult! — Bartricks

Yeah yeah... Plantinga is a total amateur.

To recap: I have never, ever, ever said that we are not introspectively aware of things or not aware of things generally. — Bartricks

Ahem...

(where a 'belief' is introspectively indiscernible from a belief, but nevertheless isn't one). — Bartricks

...and that means, well, what it says it means.

Read the OP! I think we ARE aware of things. — Bartricks

So you just said something you didn't mean. Maybe you should rephrase it.

Or maybe try something else, but how is that something else working out for you?

What are you on about?? You clearly don't understand English. Again, no rephrasing necessary. You don't understand words. Learn English. Read the OP. Recognize that I think we are aware of things. Understand that saying two states are introspectively indiscernible does not mean they both give one awareness. Jesus. That's the whole bloody point.

What are you on about?? — Bartricks

LOL! And round and round and round we go!

You clearly don't understand English — Bartricks

Sure I do. Indiscernible means not able to discern. Introspectively is an adjective, meaning by means of introspection.

You clearly don't understand English. — Bartricks

Denial, contradiction and disinformation are key ingredients to gaslighting.

Again, no rephrasing necessary. You don't understand words.

That's not what the problem is. The problem is:

I don't know what grunts and howls would do the trick — Bartricks

...you absolutely refuse to clarify. It is not your intent to be clear. You'd rather be dramatic than do a simple reasonable thing. I won't speculate as to why, but you're making at least these things crystal clear.

Why are you telling me what introspectively indiscernible means? I know what it means. Why do you think it means I think we are not aware of things? I don't know what it's like to think like you do - so take me through the steps that led you to that conclusion.

Why are you telling me what introspectively indiscernible means? — Bartricks

Because:

What I am arguing is that if all of our faculties are bot-built, then they won't create any beliefs, just 'beliefs' (where a 'belief' is introspectively indiscernible from a belief, but nevertheless isn't one). — Bartricks

...your claim ipso facto introspectively discerns two things (belief and 'belief') you claim are introspectively indiscernible. Because:

Where did I say that I am not introspectively aware of things? — Bartricks

...you pretend not to realize that claiming something is introspectively indiscernible means you cannot introspectively be aware of it.

And because, you know this. You're not as moronic as you're pretending to be. You just refuse to do a very simple reasonable thing.

Well that was gibberish. Again, why do you think I am committed to the view that we are not aware of things? I think we are aware of things. But you seem to think, for goodness knows what dumb reasons (if any), that this is inconsistent with my claim that states of awareness are introspectively indiscernible from otherwise identical states that lack representative contents. Explain that, if you can.

Shall I help you to see how dumb you are being? (Or willfully ignorant)
Sunflowers no. 4. It's a famous painting by Vincent van Gogh. It is in the National gallery in London.

Is it possible for there to be a visually indiscernible painting that's not by Van Gogh? So, a painting that 'looks' the same, but isn't by Van Gogh.

Yes, obviously that's possible.

Now, does what I have just said amount to me saying that I haven't seen Sunflowers no. 4?

No, of course it bloody doesn't!! Saying that it is possible for there to be a visually indiscernible fake van gogh does not amount to saying that what is hanging in the National is fake. When I look at the sunflower painting in the National, I am looking at a painting created by Van Gogh in late August 1888. The fact it is possible for there to be a visually indiscernible painting that was not created by Van Gogh does not mean that what I am looking at in the National is not by Van Gogh as anyone who is allowed to use metal cutlery realizes immediately.

Me: This is Sunflowers no. 4 by Vincent Van Gogh. It's the most popular painting in here.

InPenetrablyS: You don't know anything. It is by Rolf Harris. And everyone hates it. Idiot.

Me: er, no. It is a sunflower painting by Van Gogh.

Imagine if what's in front of us was actually produced by a machine. That is, imagine a visually indiscernible image, but machine-made rather than painted by Van Gogh. Well, then we wouldn't be looking at a genuine Van Gogh, but a fake one. Right?

InPenetrablyS: What, you are saying this isn't by Van Gogh? Good, you dumb twerp, coz it is by Rolf Harris.

Me: er, no. I am saying this painting is by Van Gogh. We are looking at a van Gogh. But it is possible for there to be a visually indiscernible image that is not by Van Gogh.

InPenetrablyS: So this isn't by Van Gogh. That's what you are saying. You are unjust an ignorant internet hound farting nonsense out of your face which is also your bum.

Me: no, how are you this stupid? I am not saying that what we are looking at is not by Van Gogh. It is by him. It has impeccable provenance. There is no question this is a real Van Gogh. How on earth does saying that it is possible for there to be a visually indiscernible fake amount to me saying that this here is a fake?

InPenetrablyS: stop gaslighting me. It won't work. You won't convince me I am dumb. You are the dumb one. I know what indiscernible means. And it means you are saying this isn't a Van gogh. And anyway you were previously talking about introspective indiscernibility, but in this stupid example you are talking about visual indiscernibility. That's quite different. I win. I win in the way that I win every game of chess I play too: by moving any piece however I want. Gaslighting meany.

Again, why do you think I am committed to the view that we are not aware of things? — Bartricks

No, which is why I didn't say you were committed to that view. I said you claimed something you didn't mean.

my claim that states of awareness are introspectively indiscernible from otherwise identical states that lack representative contents. — Bartricks

And yet, you are distinguishing them. That leads to my response to this:

Thus if we are bot built we will not know anything.
We do know we exist and a whole lot else, of course. — Bartricks

...which was this:

Of course not. By your own admission you cannot even introspectively tell if you know things. So how could it possibly be obvious enough to say "of course"? — InPitzotl

...in the case of Van Gogh, maybe we can pull out a magnifying glass. Maybe we can carbon date. Maybe we can check certificates of authenticity. But here you claim that "of course" we know versus 'know', which suggests we just naturally, introspectively know it. That leads to the first challenge.

But it's here where you squared the circle:

Where did I say that I am not introspectively aware of things? — Bartricks

...and in the case of Van Gogh, if you cannot introspectively distinguish the genuine from the fake you ipso facto are not introspectively aware.

Honestly, this shouldn't require this much drama. You chose the drama route.

1. If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything
2. Our faculties of awareness do provide us with some awareness of something
3. Therefore our faculties of awareness are not wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces — Bartricks

1. The environment we develop in and our education effect awareness.
2. Hence the word awareness.
3. I see what you did there.

This is an either/or false choice fallacy. Interesting strategy.
Edit: The first premise suggest there is a choice between unguided evolution and nothing else that would steer an individuals awareness. I believe this over looks the agency of people that influence an individual during development.

Could a conscious mind not be introspective...I wouldn't be able to articulate this well, but I have a feeling consciousness entails a certain amount of introspection.

My wife thinks she has a similar argument:
1. Materialism means there is no free will
2. If there's no free will, we have no choice in what we believe nor can we decide whether evidence is good or not
3. If we have no choice in what we believe and/or no way to decide whether evidence is good or bad, knowledge is impossible.
4. Knowledge is possible, therefore materialism is false.

You don't seem to understand the argument. — Bartricks

That makes 2 of us then. One that does not understand it and one that does not understand just how bloody stupid it is.

Visual sensations cannot tell us about the world unless they have representative contents.
That is, unless they are telling us something. — Bartricks

There seems to be enough consensus to let this go.

And they will only have those, if the faculty that created them in us was designed by an agent for that purpose. — Bartricks

This still sounds like bullshit even after you have repeated it so many times.

It's pointless arguing with you, but anyway, in the hope that someone somewhere will get the point - imagine a portrait artist paints a picture of you. That's a pictorial representation. Now imagine a monkey in a room randomly flinging paint at a canvas. And imagine that by some pure fluke the image the monkey's mad antics create exactly resembles the portrait painter's painting.

Is it a portrait of you? — Bartricks

If it is as good as the painters image of me and is indistinguishable from the other one then of course it is a portrait of me. Even if the monkey does not recognize the fact. Can you provide a definition of
"portrait" that specifies that only humans are allowed to create them or that they have to be intentional?

I think you have this wrong again. :gasp: All you have done were is try to prove that only agent created messages are capable of creating representative contents.

But even if I were to admit that it was true, which it is certainly not. It in no way whatsoever proves that the perception of those messages has to be through agent create faculties.

Our visual sensations are random monkey-flung paintings if our visual faculties are bot built. And thus lookingin the oven is not something one can do with bot built faculties. All one can do is 'look' in the oven. — Bartricks

Boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, BORING.

Shall I help you to see how dumb you are being? (Or willfully ignorant) — Bartricks

It is about time you got a dictionary so that you can stop using the dickionary you use. Maybe it will help to stop you fucking up so much.
Your lack of knowledge about the use of words, ignorance, is only surpassed by the flagrantly abusive use of them to suite your own ideas, dumbness.

No, you said my view was that we are not aware of anything. That is not my view. And it is not in any way implied by my claim that there can be introspectively indiscernible states from those that give us awareness, yet that do not give us any awareness due to lacking representative contents. You think it is, indeed you seem to think the claims are synonymous. Which is every bit as confused as thinking that if there can be a visually indiscernible image of sunflowers from that painted by van Gogh, then I am claiming that the actual Van Gogh is a fake. It's extremely poor reasoning.

I'm sure that passes for wit in a Burger King or a Kentucky Fried Chicken, but you are talking to a champagne drinking truffle muncher, so you really need to up your game. Thicky.

And the monkey-flung painting is clearly not a portrait of you. However, if your reason says otherwise, then i think it is too badly corrupted to be of any use.

One could say that to be conscious is always to be conscious 'of' something. But I think the same point applies and once we accept - as surely we should - that there can be fake states of awareness that are introspectively indiscernible from the real thing, then all consciousness essentially involves being in states that would involve being consciousness of 'something'. That is, they are states of consciousness that are introspectively indiscernible from states of consciousness that are genuinely 'of' things.

Re your wife's argument - well I certainly think free will provides compelling evidence that materialism about the mind is false. I wouldn't go via 'choice' though, as i think we can distinguish between free and unfree choices (though these too would be introspectively indiscernible).

No, you said my view was that we are not aware of anything. — Bartricks

Nope. You made that up.

My claim that there can be introspectively indiscernible states from those that give us awareness, yet that do not give us any awareness due to lacking representative contents. — Bartricks

That's incoherent. Introspection employs self observation and implies self awareness.

You think it is, indeed you seem to think the claims are synonymous. — Bartricks

This is so muddled I can't interpret it. What is "it", what claims (plural) are you talking about, and why are you telling me what I think?

Which is everybody(?) as confused as thinking that if there can be a visually indiscernible image of sunflowers from that painted by van Gogh, then I am claiming that the actual Van Gogh is a fake. — Bartricks

The problem would be if you claim both that they are visually indiscernible and to have visually confirmed which is the real one.

I don't follow you. You haven't addressed anything I have argued.

I thought I addressed your first premise verbatim. And noted that it was false. I edited it for added clarity.

I'm sure that passes for wit in a Burger King or a Kentucky Fried Chicken, but you are talking to a champagne drinking truffle muncher, so you really need to up your game. Thicky. — Bartricks

If I was abusive as you, I would correct your opinion of yourself to read piss drinking shit eating type of person. But I am not at all abusive. :halo:

And the monkey-flung painting is clearly not a portrait of you. However, if your reason says otherwise, then i think it is too badly corrupted to be of any use. — Bartricks

Please explain how you dickionary contradicts my point of view. IF YOU CAN. :rofl:

The first premise is not false. I defended it in the OP. You need to address the argument I gave in support of it.

I don't understand your edit. My premise assumes no such thing.

Whatever. Paint flinger.

Paint flinger. — Bartricks

Oh dear, thank you so much. I never imagined that a dipshit like you was capable of paying such a compliment,

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jackson-Pollock

There are a lot more famous paint flinger like him.

Thank you so much.

I don't understand your edit. My premise assumes no such thing. — Bartricks

After I reviewed the two I came to the same conclusion. It isn't entirely clear.

I defended it in the OP. You need to address the argument I gave in support of it. — Bartricks

The rant about clouds and pie? Yeah, lets say I'm missing the correct tools to really give that it's proper treatment. I'm going to address the words in the premise only, because that's how a premise works.

If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything.

Now, at first glance this appears like a contradiction. If we have awareness by way of X we do not have awareness. The reason is because of the contradiction. We can not both have awareness and not have awareness.

No, that's not how a premise 'works'. I boiled the argument down to a syllogism for the sake of clarity. I then provided independent support for the first premise. And it wasn't a 'rant' about a pie and sky-writing, it was a carefully crafted case.

But anyway, you say this:

If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything.

Now, at first glance this appears like a contradiction. If we have awareness by way of X we do not have awareness. The reason is because of the contradiction. We can not both have awareness and not have awareness. — Cheshire

There is no contradiction because a faculty and what it gives one an awareness of are distinct. For example, if my eyelids are sealed shut then I still have a faculty of sight, but it is now impotent to make me aware of anything. I have sight, but I am unable to see.

So there is no contradiction, then. Admittedly someone could object that if our faculties are unable to generate any states with representative contents, then they are not really faculties of awareness at all any longer. And they'd have a point. But this would be to quibble over words and it would have no impact on the argument itself. I am trapped by our language for to date the idea that our faculties could be identical to what they actually are, yet be incapable of generating any states with representative contents, is not one users of the language have ever entertained, and thus there is no term for a faculty of awareness that has been rendered impotent in this fundamental way. I suppose I could put inverted commas around 'faculty of awareness', but that too would be misleading, for the first premise does not assert that our faculties are the products of unguided evolution and thus whether they are 'faculties' or faculties is left open. But like I say, this is pointless quibbling.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jackson-Pollock

There are a lot more famous paint flinger like him.

Thank you so much. — Sir2u

Indeed. I think everything you've said is a load of Pollocks.