(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.

I think i saw zero films from 2023.

That is why no single change constitutes time — Metaphysician Undercover

Surely, even a single change represents the same as many.. It still has to 'traverse' from state A to state B - which is, as i take it, what constitutes time here..

Rewatching BBC Sherlock - about to hit His Last Vow - potential the best television episode of all time ;)

That's a whole 'nother level. I've never seen anything like it. — Leontiskos

This version is also utterly incredible.

:smirk:

I’m afraid I can’t. As stupid and belligerent as the affair might have been, the political class has been largely insulated from the pathologies they have unleashed on the country. For a few hours on January 6th they weren’t. — NOS4A2

Fair enough. I guess i'll take you describing Jan 6 as pathological as a win though lol. To note: that's exactly how BLM proponents feel.

Right. Richard Dawkins became popular, atheism became fashionable, atheists started debating with theists all over the place, and then atheists found that it was easier to argue when they don't have any burden of proof, and thus there was a popular attempt to redefine the word 'atheism' to connote a mere lack of belief. It is a superficial but also an uninteresting position. — Leontiskos

This is painfully bad commentary but as you are Catholic, it is unsurprising.

Bleeding Sun - Samuel Sagan

Process and Reality - Alfred North-Whitehead.

I do think that's fair.

But can you not see that a direct attack on the Whitehouse (literally storming it, occupying political offices and stealing government intel - lets leave aside whether Trump wanted that) is absolutely a serious, serious problem that raises it to a similar level of undesirability?

@Wayfarer Oh come on, the sandbox is fun!! LOL. No. I agree with you. The insults aren't good.

Yeah. But the absolute best case you can possibly make, given the facts (and let's assume Wayfarer is being naive here.. I know you do, but I don't) is that the entire system is fucked, no one likes it, and we're bound to have these events under such a divisive and intense social milieu. I fail to see how there's any appreciable difference here.

Which I'd agree with. I see "BLM riots X Jan 6" as a coin with heads on both sides. They relevant demos hate each other, and act accordingly. It only makes sense they would be comparable and equally illegitimate, undesirable and clearly dangerous.

There is no article at your link. No idea why, as it's there under the same title

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Washington,_D.C.#:~:text=Washington%2C%20D.C.%2C%20the%20capital%20of,Floyd%20riots%20in%20Washington%2C%20D.C.

The riot I was speaking about in particular was the assault on the whitehouse — NOS4A2

Which one? Super-unclear if you're cryptically referring to something other htan Jan 6.

They were civil disobedience. And I don't accept that there is a 'moral equivalence' between those protests, and the Trump insurrection — Wayfarer

No, not at all, they aren't equivalent. The BLM protests are morally worse on your account by way of resulting in more damage, more death and more net-negative for society.

That is part of the spin that MAGA has put on it to try and whitewash the insurrection. — Wayfarer

This hits me as viscerally ironic... You're defending death and destruction because its on the side you agree with? Both are civil disobedience, so im not sure what empirical difference you intend to use to make the moral difference obvious.

Who is saying that riots and civil disorder is a good thing? Comparing the BLM protests to the attack on the US Capital aimed at over-turning the election result is classic Trump 'whataboutism'. It's not going to go unchallenged. — Wayfarer

Hmm.. As noted, they are not analogous, but they both intended to upend institutional power systems, they both resulted from essentially conspiratorial thinking fanned by politicians (who actually took part, for BLM), to take power FOR those politicians.. including burning courthouses and they both resulted in net-negatives for the USA in huge ways. There is a good argument that the BLM protests were far worse.

I think the other thing to note is that anyone speaking this way is partaking in the culture war. In that case, I think the comparison IS apt. They represent polar opposite demographics, and the mechanisms were very similar.

It's no attempt to ignore Jan 6 and its implications and resulting effects on society. But the comparison is not as ill-apt as you seem to posit.

The attack bears no comparision to the 'Black Lives Matter' protests you're referring to, as none of them amounted to an assault on the Capitol. — Wayfarer

This is difficult. No, they are not analogous, but the BLM protests caused MORE damage and 19 people died.

(the links are the same page, but address the two issues separately on it)

*slinks away*

Yeah, it's not great :( I want to learn!!

Not at all. It irks me a lot - But its not his circus if i say something stupid.

I've stated and clarified my position. My apologies if it's still not clear enough. You antinatalists seem to worry yourselves about what you can't change or control and thereby make yourselves more miserable than you need to be, then spread that self-inflicted, pointless misery in order to have company. You wish were never born, or 'that is a better to never have been born', and yet, like other antinatalists, you're very much still here – apparently, surprise surprise, you'd rather suffer than 'not to be' – oh, but that's self-refuting, ain't it? Well anyway, good luck with all that, Amadeus – tediously spoon-feeding ain't my jam, so I'm off to find a more substantive topic to chew on. — 180 Proof

You did not. And no surprise. "you anti-natalists" LOL.
You do not understand anti-natalism.

And while I respect your position (above) your incredible need to condescend is suspicious in the highest, given you haven't accurate portrayed the anti-natalist position.

Ive had his position explained to me, and respect it. If i've said something dumb, it must be super-challenging to address it after several years of doing it for other people.
It's unhelpful for me, but he has his reasons :)

Ok, so I got back quicker than I thought - for a specific reason.

I suffered DiD for several years. Kastrup's analogy is absolutely incredible to relate to.