This is related to what I pointed out Kastrup showing ignorance about with his claim that the relationship between fluid flowrate and pressure is the same as the relationship between voltage and current expressed by Ohms law. — wonderer1

What's the catch there? I don't really understand the correlation, so I can't pick out the problem.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say memories of the past exist in minds? — RogueAI

Hmm, a good point prima facie. I'm not sure what a memory is, exactly, so I'm unsure how to couch this, but... It seems it's a representation of something (the past state of affairs being recalled) received as empirical data, in the past, so I can't see the 'real' difference between the past, as experienced, and the memory.

If we're saying the past is mind-independent and that 'the present moment' is what constitutes the physical, in totality, it's a serious issue.

Maybe 'time travel' is confined to an approximation around memory though viz. you could have a 'conscious experience' of the past, such that it is the same, phenomenologically, as the present moment, but is in fact, a pale shadow.

Might it be a bit more palatable to say that the past exists in past minds..? Or does the mind endure?

It sounds like your machine doesn't travel at all then. It manufactures a new world in 2024 that looks like how things were in 1990. It's a new thing, a copy. — noAxioms

I would think, yes, but I think there's more to it. On this view, that 'copy' only began in 1990. It could be reversed to 1990, but no earlier. The original time-line could be reversed to Bob's birth. I'm sure this means something, but I can't grasp what. But, it certainly seems, prima facie, that the time machine in fact replicates the chosen moment (but it is 'real' as such) and then that moment runs forward as-if it were an alternate time-line.

Do you, though? ;)

Baptism. I don't know how it is for converts. But for people baptised as a baby, just that is not enough, you must go through catechism to receive the eucharisty and then confirmation — otherwise you are just a non-practicing Catholic which might as well be apostate — Lionino

This is not my experience of the Catholic view. They are Catholics-in-waiting :P But, fair enough, thank you.

Well in that case you become by thinking, not by saying; non sum quia dico, sed quia cogito. :^) — Lionino

But hte claim is still sound :)

Claiming to be Catholic is not enough to be Catholic. — Lionino

What's the criteria?

Speaking of, is there a single thing that is true in virtue of stating it? — Lionino

Cogito, ergo, sum. LOL

But that is exactly what is being done to the OP :lol: or turn it into a straw man/red herring to debate another point. — schopenhauer1

I guess, I just do not see that. It is a poetical outline and as such is open to criticisms in that light. Can you note something you see to be bad-faith in here? Im just plum not seeing how you're interpreting...

See your fellow OP-bashers to and see for yourself.. — schopenhauer1

You might be right, but I do not see it. I wouldn't have interpreted the thread that way, had i started it.

From the OP's own imagery, what do you think that means? — schopenhauer1

I was trying to figure out what you mean. I have no real opinion, because i can only respond to the passage itself - which I have done, in good faith. Seems to make sweeping statements that indicate the above (directly, in one case) - and i can't work out what it means by that.

Efforts are made to select jurors that will impartially judge the facts — Relativist

Absolutely not.

Nice, there we go. I was not aware of what position would actually bite this bullet. Thank you.

Thank you for engaging me consistently. Please be assured that anything that can be remotely interpreted as short, grumpy or incredulous is merely a mistake on my part. I am thoroughly enjoying this and appreciate you very much.

But no, I'm not saying everything is black and white. There's also gray area, but there need to be reasons to be in the gray area. Mere logical possibility is not enough. Do you disagree? — Relativist

If something is logically possible, but we do not have a good reason to think one way or the other (the Moon Rock would fit here) i remain unconvinced either way. As noted, logical impossibility would be good reason to not believe, but logical possibility I agree is no reason to take something on.

This is a key point: what is needed to warrant belief in something's nonexistence?

It's not true that I have no knowledge. For example, I know:
-the speed of light provides a limit to how far aliens could travel
-our physical characteristics are a product of our evolutionary history, and therefore the chances aliens with human intelligence and appearance is vanishingly small. — Relativist

I don't think it is much possible to warrant a belief in non-existence, unless logically impossible. That would give us sufficient reason to believe that even if we explored every mm of every single thing we could ever possibly access, it would not be possible that the object exists. I would accept that. And this may apply to my wife being an alien. But we have no idea whether the aliens have cryo-stasis technology to overcome time constraints - so if we're entertaining that they exist I don't see why we would believe rather than posit, that they haven't visited Earth. Its logically possible, and we have no reason to entirely discount it. Good reason to take it less seriously, though, for sure. Maybe we're only disagreeing abotu degrees.

Did I misunderstand? I thought you actually believe your wife is human, warranted by your knowledge of her. — Relativist

Ah, i see. No, that was either a misunderstanding or a mis-wording. I meant to point out that i could carry out experiments which would preclude my wife being an alien. I haven't, though, so I can't be sure. I do not believe. I just don't care (for whatever that's worth).

Either she's a human or an alien. Your warrant for believing she's human is also warrant for believing she's not an alien. — Relativist

If i had it I would agree. If she is human, she isn't alien. But that doesn't seem to do much for the exchange we're having. As it is, I have merely no good reason to doubt. But i could not justifiably believe it, as i've never done anything by way of investigation on that. Maybe you find me mentally unstable for that - a bullet i'll bite. But doubting that there are other minds seems a wilder bullet to bite to me(not suggesting it's your view - just solipsism in general).

You seem to be saying that one should deny the existence of a Theistic God if one believes there are no observables (=empirical evidence?) and if it's not falsifiable (through other empirical evidence?) — Relativist

S that rejects there are observables should realise that knowledge is then irrelevant to the proposition. We couldn't possibly know, if there's nothing observable to confirm it. They should rightly call themselves agnostic.
If one believes there are observables, they not be able to refer to themselves as agnostic. That's all. If you believe God is discoverable, then you cannot be agnostic. Deism entails the former, and precludes agnosticism. So...

Of course not. I've been discussing this in terms of approximation. The chances of finding one with the exact shape (down to the molecular level) are zero. — Relativist

They are not zero. It is logically possible.

This means I accept that there can be non-evidential warrant. — Relativist

I do not. If you have no reason, you're mistaken to believe the proposition one way or the other. You're free to, though. This, I think, is the only way Theism can happen, other than being mistaken about facts.

...per your preferred semantics. Notice that despite this, I've been able to describe my positions to you, and you are free to attach whatever label you like, consistent with those positions. — Relativist

This seems to assume your position is what's hard to grasp. it isn't. It does not match the terminology you used.

I could describe myself as an African American and then tell you what i mean is light-skinned, not likely to suffer sickle cell etc... contravening the meaning of African American. Anyone with sense would object and tell me why my usage is wrong. Do you not think this can be done with the terms you're using?

So what's the problem, other than my not being interested in using your terms. — Relativist

That you're using a word wrong, making your label incoherent. It's like saying "A glass table made of wood".

I am open to using different terminology to self-define, other than "agnostic deist", as long as it tells just as much about my position as does this one. I'm not open to using a different term merely to fit a semantics you've devised, particular your insistence that I call myself a "deist" despite the fact that I think it pretty unlikely that there is any kind of deity at all. That would mislead far more people than does "agnostic deist". — Relativist

This has entirely misconstrued my position, and i literally no idea how that could have possibly
happened given my final response below...

Why are you claiming I'm maintaining an "incongruent position"? What's incongruent about considering deism a live possibility, but unlikely? I get that you don't like the label I use, but that has no bearing on what my position is. — Relativist

because if you are committed to using the term 'agnostic deist' the position described by it is contradictory - and your actual position is incongruent with the position it describes.
Bolded: This is the crux of my entire problem. Your position is your position, and it is being misrepresented by the words you're using. I know your position (i think), and I refuse to use incorrect words to describe it.

It's not the definitions, it's that the definition precludes...
Did this come out the way you intended? It's contradictory. — Relativist

My point is that the definition is sound, your position just is precluded by it. Perhaps i mis-typed what i was trying to say, but i read it entirely sensibly.

But I agree that one cannot be both a deist and claim gods are unknowable. But that's why it's inappropriate to call me a deist - so you erred in insisting I should have that label. My label more accurately conveys my position: I'm an "agnostic deist" meaning that I'm agnostic as to deism. — Relativist

The bolded contradict each other. If you agree a Deist cannot claim God/s are unknowable, then that precludes the deist-entertaining from being agnostic, as it is incoherent to the deism concept. Not sure what's being missed here? You say you're open to deism being true - which means you believe that God is discoverable. So, by your own admission you cannot be agnostic toward the Deistic God, despite concluding that here. You can be unmoved by current evidence, but that's not agnosticism.

Secondarily, as noted here

Perfect example is that final sentence I noted - I didn't suggest it was an accurate label. I illustrated that the words we currently use do not capture your position - not because it doesn't fit into the definitions, but because the definitions actively preclude a deist from claiming God is not knowable. I suggested a new set of words to illustrate positions relative to deism, and separately, theism. — AmadeusD

I do not claim you must use that term. I claim your term is wrong, and we/you need a new one for the position you hold. I stick to that.

It exists in the past. Physicalism states that only physical things exist. My the past exists in minds. Therefore, it must actually exist, as an actual physical thing (that it has passed, i suppose is no matter to the principle - either could be argued by whomeveer held the view)

I do not hold to this view. I am not a physicalist, I don't think.

I'm sorry, but what you're doing is mischaracterizing objections to paint them in a certain light. A particularly dismissive, and condescending light.

I can't say that flies with me. There's no bad faith whatsoever - but comparing questions and requests for elucidation as

equivalent of the peasants in a Monty Python sketch hearing the wrong things and giving their misinterpretations in an exaggerated cockney accent — schopenhauer1

is is much closer to that category than the questions you've been receiving.

the past physically exists from a physicalist perspective -- noting a difference between existence and presence. — Moliere

:ok:

shuts down dialogue. If you are open to actually creating an interesting dialogue about that which you comment, let me know. — schopenhauer1

You're free to elucidate why you think humans are special, and lend some credibility to the OP passages. Doesn't seem to appear anywhere - and i think dismissing the objections in teh same fashion might be an issue?

To even begin describing "what's actually happening between A and B" would require a description of the specific features of these two states. — Metaphysician Undercover

I dont see that this the case. Using both your exposition, and my prior understand of 'change', its a notation of observation and nothing like an explanation of what actually takes place.
I agree, that a complete answer would require data about hte object/s changing and the change which has/will take place. But what is happening when a change takes place is totally missed in these descriptions. How do properties of objects change? And i do not mean, 'by what cause', i mean by why 'mechanism', metaphysically, could change occur... How can there be difference between two states?

What does this mean? One might deduce the existence of the moon from the tides... — Banno

Well, your claim is that it is equally to absurd to posit that the Moon does not exist, as that it does. Im asking whether this precludes you from noting anything exists.

Though, I am now seeing it's likely I missed that this is meant to illustrate the position when one is not observing the Moon rather than some metaphysical line.

b-protons and b-neutrons, not sure if that answers though. — NotAristotle

It would, to a large degree - but invokes a sort of 'matter/anti-matter' dichotomy that seems to be more trouble than its worth :snicker:

But it is as absurd to claim it is not there when not observed as it is to say that it is there. — Banno

Does this mean you abstain from deducing existence of anything? If this is way off, just explain yourself - It will not help to just tell me I don't understand. I'm trying to.

Idealism adds the unneeded ontological complexity of things winking into and out of existence, and the logical complexity of a trivalent logic. — Banno

I agree.

Perhaps there are just different kinds of matter (a-matter) and (b-matter). b-matter happens to be able to arrange into conscious brains, a-matter cannot. Nothing is necessarily non-physical in this explanation of consciousness. And I don't see why different kinds of matter is controversial or anti-scientific; after all, if you accept physics you would already believe there to be variations in matter such as protons and neutrons and electrons. — NotAristotle

I like this, and agree there's no real obstacle. But i still want to know what differentiates a-matter from b-matter.

Would this also assume we could not mimic b-matter? If the case is that the difference is in the type of matter, why not just construct the artificial brain from b-matter? What property precludes that?

If someone has determined that gods are irrelevant to their experince, then gods can never be incorporated in any account of any state of affairs. That's all I meant. — Tom Storm

In principle, agreed - conditioned by the ignorance that requires :P Ignorance is harsh, but i'm referring to the lack of consideration. As soon as they begin considering the issues, that would change. So i'm ruffled by 'never' here. But, i agree, the majority of people just do not care. They either take God on or don't.

He is

(including things like ↪AmadeusD's childish posts and ad hominem). — Leontiskos

The irony burns.

Suffice to say, this is also painfully bad commentary. But as i noted you are Catholic in that previous comment, this is also, unsurprising.

And there is no adhominem involved. You are Catholic. As a result, i am not surprised.

I wonder if this means that conventional philosophical nomenclature and categorization are not as useful in trying to understand what people believe and why. — Tom Storm

I do not think this is the case. I acknowledge the difference in approach between a lay-person (excuse the pun) and a philosopher (or, sufficiently autodidactic fan thereof..) and realise in practical terms, It really, truly does not matter what labels are used. But we're trying to have discussions - and in the context of 'people who have discussions' i think my take is stands, on my view.

Does this shed a different light on the matter to you or are these folk, as one theist I know says, 'ignorant dogmatists?' — Tom Storm

These people are agnostic atheists. They don't consider the limits of knowledge, but refrain from belief in God/s. I do not think you're being accurate in that their view precludes God. It just doesn't include it, because there is no evidence for it. It's not an ideological position - its a lethargic one.

Why does it matter if someone calls itself "atheist". If by "atheist" they don't mean someone who denies the existence of God, so what? If they explain what they mean by it, why the fixation? So you can go and say "Well so you are not an actual atheist!"? It is childish and unproductive. — Lionino

That would be unproductive. Explaining how their view is askance from what that word means, is not.

:ok: I should think so. Im unsure what the property is that Christoffer is talking about which makes the difference...

Well, it's the best way to put the consciousness issue to rest: there it no matter for consciousness to emerge from! — RogueAI

I would think easiest... But that opens up much more difficult questions, like what is consciousness, if not an emergent property? Not aht this is news, but like with Kastrup we end up with 'there's one mind'. Ok, but why, what for, what's its basis, what even is it, how could it reflect on itself etc... I see idealism the same way I see God. "Oh, well, it's just the way it is.."

In principle, they do. They acknowledge God has all-encompassing power. Why would deluding us or merely providing odd empirical data to our minds be outside that? Although, in this case it wouldn't be Odd. It would be the case, and nothing more.

I would agree. But I'm unsure parsimony is hte best way to answer questions about what already is.

Why would anyone go to Reddit to learn of all places? — Lionino

Or think that thread would trump actual institutional atheist organisations..

@Leontiskos Unfortunately, I was referring to your commentary :smirk:

Im unsure if this is a claim outside of 'Well, this is what adherents claim' but yes, sure. Why not?

God could have invoked a world where if you put 1 thing next to 1 thing you perceive 3 things so our only empirical data show that 1+1=3 in all cases. . Don't see how that is outside of God's power.

But that is epistemology. God would know what is good, but He doesn't decide what is good, just like He doesn't decide that 1 + 1 = 2, or that square circles can't exist. — Walter

Could you not argue that these things were decided by God in the 'actual' design of the world? I.e he designed/invoked a world in which those things are true?

I promise to never reach your level betise-ness.

How do you create a brain without the history forming it? — Christoffer

Im not quite sure i understand this question.

Is this suggesting that previous 'versions' of the brain influence the current 'version'? Cause i'm just not seeing what would be missing from the artificial 'brain'. What is the 'history' you're noting, and where is it located in the 'real' brain?

Consciousness in us develop from our childhood, through life up until death. Neuroplasticity does not stop and the formation is part of developing everything about us. — Christoffer

Yes, I agree, but that's just because the brain keeps existing throughout that time. No reason to think the same wouldn't happen in an almost-identical system allowed to exist over time. Although, perhaps that's the 'magical' bit we can't quite explain yet.

Just turning on a brain that has no history and is just a bunch of neurons that has no developed relations in terms of formed memories etc. will only lead to a hallucinating mess of a person. — Christoffer

Is this your conception of a new-born? At what point in gestation did the brain become 'populated' enough to avoid this problem? How is the development of memory in an artificial (but materially identical) brain-computer system different to that in the brain? I agree, that a brain/mind with no concepts would be an absolutely nightmarish substrate for experience. I just don't see how there's a difference in development between the two - Or, at least, I want to know what you think makes the difference.

That consciousness forms is one thing, but that it forms into a human mind requires the development to be identical to a human brain developing. — Christoffer

Why? What's the special part that makes it a human consciousness? Or a human brain? I just cannot see what property is making a difference. Using the term 'human' doesn't seem to help, and a materially identical brain would be.. human..

If you were to copy a human consciousness, you might need to simulate the entire life. Starting with a newborn perfect copy based on some evolutionary template of a person in real life. Then let that simulation and perfect copy, within a simulated body, grow as a normal child until being grown and only then will you see a simulated human mind in action and fully functioning. That's the only way to go from scratch. — Christoffer

Why are you looking for a fully-developed adult consciousness? Why aren't you looking for a new-born consciousness? It may be that i agree with this assessment, and have no idea why this wasn't the intention to begin with. I suppose this goes to other questions though.

If you could merely simulate the experience of a life for that artificial consciousness, would it have the same effect? And if so, are we accepting that a simulated life is materially equal to a non-simulated one, in terms of brain/conscious development?

But why is it a simulation? If an artificial brain is inserted into an artificial body and let develop in the same temporal way a human develops, why wouldn't it develop the same way?

When someone tells you who they are, believe them. — LuckyR

I tend to think this is a veil for trusting your overwrought assumptions in most cases.

As I described in how we can theorize why humans developed this type of consciousness that we have. An evolutionary path that directed towards a certain goal for us, in my example, an evolutionary trait of adaptability. — Christoffer

Just like my example with the flower forming to a shape and color it cannot see, but still develop, so can our brain and body develop info a form that acts according to the need of adaptability. — Christoffer

HI Christoffer,

Don't think we've interacted before, so Hi :)

Why would these preclude an identical systematical object producing consciousness? Surely an 'artificial' system which is based upon the current iteration of the human brain, in all it's complexity, would include all of the results of that developmental period, thus providing a commensurate system that 'takes into account' the goals which its development 'pushed toward'?

I'm not tied to that, so my question then becomes: How does the 'history' change the actual 'formula' which results in consciousness? Is this a meld of physical and non-physical properties? Unless the conception of 'evolution' is somewhat woo woo I'm not quite understanding what is 'present in' the brain, whcih would not be 'present in' the almost-identical artificial system?

By "prima facie", do you mean - before all other beliefs are considered? If so, that just seems to say that all logical possibilities should be on the table. But they ought not to remain on the table for long. You based your belief on knowing your wife. — Relativist

Yes, 'on the face of it', i.e I cannot see how that is a given. It makes no sense to me on the face of it.

Yes, I agree. But without reason nothing changes about what's on the table. I would need something confirming one way or the other. But, this goes to the obvious and critical difference between the two examples we're using.

I don't know your wife, but I feel pretty strongly that no extraterrestrial aliens that look like humans have ever come to earth, so I feel justified in believing she's not an alien, — Relativist

Fair enough. That's a reason to think it's unlikely, but you have no knowledge, and so a belief is unwarranted. But that doesn't matter much to me - THey would have the same practical effect.

We agree that the rock is something we ought to withhold judgement (or abstain) on.

We also agree that your belief that your wife isn't an alien is reasonable. I hope you agree that MY belief about your wife is also reasonable, in that it follows from my prior belief about aliens. — Relativist

Neat. Then the contradiction remains...
I didn't claim to believe that.

It's logically possible your wife's an alien, but logical possibility is too weak to support a belief or even a suspicion. — Relativist

I don't believe she is. I don't believe she isn't. Again - what's hte problem? There seems to be a black and white fallacy here - you're importing a belief into my wording where there isn't any. Confusing a bit.

Similarly with unicorns and gods. — Relativist

These are not the same (on my view). The hypothetical rock and hte Unicorn could be - they seem equally unlikely (an exact cabbage shaped rock on the moon, corresponding with the one in my fridge? Come on...) Both logically possible though, so I simply give them no serious thought. I don't 'believe' anything about htem. There's nothing to believe or deny. I have no information or reasons to judge.
A deistic God is discoverable, too. So you need a reason to entertain it? Or is the unlikelihood and lack of evidence enough? Because that seems to contradict your position on Unicorns and my wife being an Alien.

I can see how you'd take this as some form of extreme skepticism - and fair enough, if that's what i'm doing - but as far as i can tell, I am not doing that. I am making a distinction between unobservable possibilities and ones which would be confirmed or denied by empirical data (this, to my mind is the difference between Theism and Deism, as will be obvious by now im sure).

Sure, a different epistemological process is fine, as long as it's a methodology that tends to lead to truth. — Relativist

If there is no observability/falsifiability in the concept (Theistic God) there is no truth to be lead to.

I don't preclude using the term think "agnostic", but I think it's useful to describe what one is agnostic about. As I said, I am agnostic to deism - although you disagree with me saying that, I guess. — Relativist

This is because, as far as I'm concerned (and, I don't actually see this as an interpretation) you are misusing the word/s. Deism entails discoverability. Agnosticism entails no discoverability in the subject one is agnostic about. So, is it not clear on that account that you cannot by an agnostic deist?

Unhelpful for what? As I said, I think the terms we use to describe ourselves are nothing more than imperfect introductions to our positions. Adhering to your preferred semantics doesn't seem like it would make the terms any more than that, either. I've described my position in a bit of detail, and I don't think your terms (anti-theist/deist) captures it any better than "atheist agnostic-deist, and possibly even worse. — Relativist

Your final sentence here is an answer to your first. Its entirely incoherent and seems to just absolutely ignore the linguistic inaccuracy and falseness, relative to your expounded position. If you believe in a theistic God, you cannot be an atheist. If you believe in the material, mind-independent world, you cannot be an idealist. If you entertain a deistic God, you cannot also be agnostic because the deistic God is discoverable. They are incompatible positions.

Look, your point is taken, but I see it as an attempt to maintain incongruent positions because you can use language that refers to things you are not entitled to refer yourself to, because you think words are imprecise. Not untrue - but to me, that's a bit of a cop-out, despite recognizing the potential futility of trying to 'standardize' the use of these words. They need to be.

Perfect example is that final sentence I noted - I didn't suggest it was an accurate label. I illustrated that the words we currently use do not capture your position - not because it doesn't fit into the definitions, but because the definitions actively preclude a deist from claiming God is not knowable. I suggested a new set of words to illustrate positions relative to deism, and separately, theism.

This seems an inarguably more fruitful project than just waffling on to each other about positions that don't comport with the terms we're using for them.

Consciousness emerging from anything we currently know of, seems magical to me.
The idea that a system which mimics hte brain can result in conscious experience seems to comport with the fact that the brain does either produce, or receive consciousness. What's special about hte brain?

I realise, that is the question to some degree - I just have no reason to think it is yet.

The statement you quoted said, "or at the very least it is the order, event A is prior to event B". Does that not already answer your question about causal order? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. It described a necessary aspect, by causal law.
It has nothign to do with how those changes occur, or in what medium.

The other features which make up the description of the physical change are the material elements and their spatial description. — Metaphysician Undercover

I find this unhelpful. This would seem an intuitive truism, but it explains nought about what's actually happening between A and B, other than the changes. What is the actually difference between point A and point B? If it's merely the changes in any given object, then we have infinite 'times' to deal with.
It's just observational stringency as best I can tell. The answer may be that we don't know or have the language though.

Therefore something must happen between A and C, and between C and B, to account for these differences. — Metaphysician Undercover

And this is what I'm asking about...

So do I but I can't learn anything from time-wasting questions like yours which a close, or careful, reading of my posts make unnecessary. Lazy (shallow) responses get old quick – especially semantic muddles & word salads. Disagreements are great only when they are substantive and thereby facilitate reciprocal learning. — 180 Proof

Your attitude betrays a lack of self-awareness. I don't have time for that - So it seems were in agreement, regardless

Take care mate :)

They don't want to entertain the possibility that there is no physical brain, that idealism might be the case. They're so opposed to idealism, they will seriously consider they might be zombies or "there is something it's like to be a sewer system". — RogueAI

I don't see any issue with biting this bullet. I already bite the p-zombies one.

New Zealand I recall did pretty well.
5d — TiredThinker

In terms of lives lost? Yep. In terms of everything else whatsoever? Absolutely not.

Time is the rate at which state A changes to state B, or at the very least it is the order, state A is prior to state. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see. If 'time' is the rate, what is the medium of change? As in, what actually represents the change (given the causal order requirement, such as 'cause' can be used here), as opposed to it's ratio compared to ...other changes?

To say something happens 'more quickly' than something else seems to infer that there's a ratio OF something.. 'change' isn't an actual thing, so just wondering what is being referred to there.