No. I don't know how you inferred that. — Jackson

You said "there is no ether" and since you were drawing an analogy between the ether and consciousness, it seemed reasonable to think you were suggesting that there is no consciousness.

Hey my man! Hope all is good is peach country. Get rid of that effin lunatic Taylor Greene... Phew! — creativesoul

Couldn't wait – made my covid-delayed move to Washington State (across the Columbia River from Portland, OR) a couple of months ago. No more assbackwards, sunstoke belt, Red State hate for me in this life! The scuttlebutt is it's better than even odds MTG will lose the primary next week (like that other trump-stain Madison Cawthorn did this week in NC). I didn't live in her district anyway ... :smirk:

From the passage:
I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. — Janus

Yes. As a general rule, what is the name of the philosophical outllook which has the tendency to take "experience", as distinct from, say, "matter", as fundamental?

//oh, wait. I suppose the answer is 'empiricism' but that is not what I had in mind. :sad: //

You said "there is no ether" and since you were drawing an analogy between the ether and consciousness, it seemed reasonable to think you were suggesting that there is no consciousness. — Janus

Electromagnatic waves do not move through either, that is the analogy. I am saying that consciousness is no more mysterious than the fact we think, walk, and talk.

In reference to AI: A machine can think without what we call consciousness. That is, you do not need consciousness to think or have intelligence.

The scuttlebutt is it's better than even odds MTG will lose the primary next week — 180 Proof

:pray:

Taking experience as fundamental, though, I take to mean taking it as what fundamentally needs to be explained in such a putative theory of consciousness. So, what Chalmers has in mind would not seem to be a first person science in the sense that phenomenology is, so not an account that aims to describe how experience seems, which obviously could not be a third person account, and which makes no attempt to explain in causal terms how experience is possible.

Electromagnatic waves do not move through either, that is the analogy. I am saying that consciousness is no more mysterious than the fact we think, walk, and talk. — Jackson

Just like thought does not move through consciousness, eh? Consciousness is still mysterious, though, since there are no satisfying theories as to how it is possible that we should be conscious.

In reference to AI: A machine can think without what we call consciousness. That is, you do not need consciousness to think or have intelligence. — Jackson

It depends on how you conceive of thinking and intelligence.

Consciousness is still mysterious, though, since there are no satisfying theories as to how it is possible that we should be conscious. — Janus

No more mysterious than that the universe exists.

It depends on how you conceive of thinking and intelligence. — Janus

One property of Intelligence is the ability to respond to the environment and make new things. I would also call the evolution of the universe from the BigBang to now an intelligent process.

I would also call the evolution of the universe from the BigBang to now an intelligent process. — Jackson

What makes this "an intelligent process"?

What makes this "an intelligent process"? — 180 Proof

Purposeful in constructing more complex objects. Diversifying itself and being different from itself. Producing objects which are new.

You/we attribute "purpose" to the process (i.e. anthropomorphism) but it does not exhibit exercising or establishing "purpose" of its own.

The purpose of an electron is to meet other charges to fall in love with or to push away.

You/we attribute "purpose" to the process (i.e. anthropomorphism) — 180 Proof

No. Anthropomorphism is the idea that humans are the only reality and thus purpose can only be a function of human agency.

Leibniz criticized mechanism because it excluded purpose (Aristotle's telos) from explanations. Nature is purposeful. Not always, not always in a good way, but it exhibits purpose--accomplishing an end.

"Teleology" has been debunked, or dispensed with, by modern natural sciences for centuries. This is why Descartes believe it was necessary to argue for two substances of res extensia (i.e. mechanism) and res mensa (i.e. purpose) because he, like other scientists (i.e. natural philosophers) observe that only "minds" – mental beings – exhibit a "telos" (contra Aristotle).

Anthropomorphism is the idea that humans are the only reality ...

:roll: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

"Teleology" has been debunked — 180 Proof

No. Mechanistic science did not use it to explain motion. That's all.

like other scientists (i.e. natural philosophers) observe that only "minds" – mental beings – exhibit a "telos" (contra Aristotle). — 180 Proof

And I am not a scientist so I do not care what they do.

And you're not a thinker either and just make shit up to suit your own idiosynchratic anachronisms. Link provided if you wish to do something about that.

And you're not a philosopher either — 180 Proof

Insults end discussion.

Inferior minds think nothing is true but what they already believe.

From a Wittgensteinian POV it seems that all we're capable of is syntactic manipulation (language + logic), semantics "drops out of consideration". That's why I believe he was hell bent on proving private languages are nonsensical or can't exist.

Suppose we discuss god, the two of us. I say blah, blah, blah, god exists and you claim yada, yada, yada, god doesn't exist. We can save ourselves a whole lot of trouble by, philosophers will kill me for this, not trying to understand what "god" means but by looking at the validity of the argument put forth by both sides. Forget meaning, focus on the syntax (linguistic & logical). This is, in my humble opinion, exactly what computers do: for a computer, there's no difference between a variable and a constant (the form is more important than the content). I dunno, just sayin'

The discussion ended with your incorrigibility even before it had started.

Leibniz criticized mechanism because it excluded purpose (Aristotle's telos) from explanations. Nature is purposeful. Not always, not always in a good way, but it exhibits purpose--accomplishing an end. — Jackson

for wiw I agree with you.

I don’t see that at all. Do you mean that only humans can have the kind of intelligence you’re talking about? I remember a time when people thought that computers would be unable to do many things that we now know they can.

relatively brief no.

we seem to be agreeing here, but disagreeing in others. So to clarify, are you a materialist in terms of consciousness- or at least open to it, since it hasn’t been solved.

If there is mystery as to the existence of the Universe, then there is an extra layer of mystery in regard to the existence of consciousness, I would say.

One property of Intelligence is the ability to respond to the environment and make new things. I would also call the evolution of the universe from the BigBang to now an intelligent process. — Jackson

Well then AI is not intelligent according to that definition, so it seems you are contradicting yourself. Even if AI can create new things it is only on account of the fact that we have programmed them to do so, which means it is really us creating the new things utilizing the AI to augment our creativity. If the development of the universe is an intelligent (as opposed to merely intelligible) process then everything is intelligent; are you a panpsychist?

Leibniz criticized mechanism because it excluded purpose (Aristotle's telos) from explanations. Nature is purposeful. Not always, not always in a good way, but it exhibits purpose--accomplishing an end. — Jackson

Leibniz was a theist. Nature itself is not purposeful by any normal definition unless it has intentions, Either you believe nature has intentions (panpsychism) or you think it is driven by transcendent intentions (theism).

if not a materialist, how do you see consciousness?

you realize that Dennett is saying that science contains the explanation for consciousness right?

no offence but I find you’re constantly misinterpreting what I’m saying then Straw Manning me.

Of course AI intelligence is different from human intelligence. What we’re debating is whether AI will eventually develop consciousness and I say why not? It could take hundreds or thousands of years of course. I just believe history is littered with the bodies of men who said “your ‘science’ will never explain ….”

you realize that Dennett is saying that science contains the explanation for consciousness right? — GLEN willows

That’s what i’ve said that he says, with a quote from him showing him saying that exact thing.

I’m not ‘straw-manning’, I think it’s more the case that you don’t understand anything I’ve said.