I read the OP and the next two responses, so I am not sure if what I am going to say has been said.

It is true that most people these days think that mind is a function of a series of stimulus-response chains, and mind is basically not more. It is a complex control / sensing unit, they say, and it dies with the body.

They have no proof, but contrary evidence does not exist. A stone won't display lifelike qualities, so we can say it's not alive. Those who say it could still be alive, are asked, what evidence can you provide to support the claim, other than its possibilitiy?

Now you have shown us a stone, @Roy Davies, and told us, that this is no more mere stone, it's a stone that senses and reacts. It seems to have a motivation. It feeds energy for its operation.

I am going to approach it from the other end. Human. We also regulare our body temperatures. We have a mind. What if we subtract the mind? And keep the system regulate its temperature? Is that possible?

Yes, it is. People in coma have no mind; they don't feel it, and it is not functioning in the sense of providign an identity, a feeling of "I" (EYE). Yet does the body keep on regulating temperature, contrplled by the brain? Yes.

Ergo, Q. E. D., a heating / cooling system with sensations and reactions does not necessarily have a mind.

Ergo, those who say the mind is a function of stimulus/ response, have also got counter-evidence to their claim.

time can still be measured it's just not measured by physical change, it's measured by numbers. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, I give you a number. You tell me how long a time it denotes.

5.

How long time is 5?

If that's too difficult, here's an easier one:

44.

How long time is 44?

What about funding agencies wanting detailed reports on how their money is being used? There's no way you can sneak in experiments in the paranormal in there without raising a few eyebrows. — TheMadFool

This is true. And those who do research in the paranormal are just as equally liable to show income statments and statement of assets and liabilities to banks, lending institutes, and the revenue service of the country they operate in as every other business or individual.

So it really does make sense to ask how long would a time when nothing happens last, because there clearly is a short period of time when nothing happens, and it would be helpful to know exactly how long that period of time is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let's say you are right. So how do YOU know it's a short period of time? If the time does not exist, you wouldn't know that would you. Yet you, yourself stated it's a SHORT period of time, so you measured it, or have knowledge of its duration. So effectively you have proved that when nothing happens, time still can be measured.

I agree with Mww. However, if you want to put into perspective how T.I. relates to solipsism (S), then you may want to consider that:
S denies the existence of anything outside the mind.
T.I. makes no claim what's outside of the mind.
T.I. includes the belief of a possibility (without providing a probability) that our perception is actually that of the outside world.
T.I. includes the idea that some of our observations may be right on top of reality, while other of our observations are dead off target.

perhaps God sent angels to dampen the flames and instill values and hope to all who will listen, to the incalculable fury of those who were chosen to oversee the punishment of the damned. Even the stoic patience of an eternal being could grow thin one might imagine. — Outlander

Even if this is true... what you imagine... it does not refute the truth in the Bible that indicates that God and Jesus Christ are two fucking horribly sadistic evil bastards. Well, bastard, that's only Jesus.

bcccampello — bcccampello

I suspect you are the guy who has been long trolling philosophy sites. You make interesting yet absurd claims all over the place. I normally shun you, because you are mostly obstinate (if you are really the person I think of), and this similarity I don't claim as fact, but as a suspicion, therefore it is only my opinion.

But how long are they repeated? — bcccampello

It has not been unrepeated yet. Are you claiming something with that question, or are you simply making a journalistic inroad to discredit your opponent? I think more like the latter.

Newton also had to invent absolute space, space without things inside; that is, space as pure measure. But if there is nothing within the space, there is also no measure. — bcccampello

Newton invented absolute space to illustrate his theory. His other theory, the gravitational theory, does not need infinite empty space. It is only used as an illustration.

IN my opinion you are mixing up too many concepts to make a comprehensive, cohesive analitycal criticism. You can't say "Newton said this" or "Newton said that" when yu take the utterances out of context and you lay them down in YOUR context of them. Your context and Newton's in this case are always different. So you are not proving anything that disproves Newton's theory, because the things you disprove are contextually not applicable to what Newton claimed. This is called the Strawman fallacy what you are committing here, and it is a classic case of it. You claim that your opponent said "A", whereas your opponent said "B", then you prove that "A" is false, and you claim (falsely) that your opponent was wrong. Whereas you did not even touch his claim, since you proved "A" wrong, not "B", which is his or her point.

The idea of ​​absolute time contradicts itself. — bcccampello

In light of the abovve, you have to prove that yet. You can't say your claim is necessarily true.

But how long a time where nothing happened would last? — bcccampello

Interesting question. But only applicable to a world where nothing happens. Is our world that, or is our world in constant change and motion? You decide whether your objection is valid or not in OUR world.

When Newton says that it is not the stone that moves towards the earth, but the earth that attracts that small piece of matter in the direct ratio of the masses and in the indirect ratio of the square of the distance, you ask yourself: "But what precisely is Earth attracting?" — bcccampello

No, you don't ask yourself that question. You are mixing up the gravitational effect by Newton, and the Newtonean theory of spacial kinetic geometry, which states that it does not matter whether you consider the Earth stagnant and the stone moving, or if you consider the stone stagnant and the Earth moving.You are mixing two completely different concepts Newton established and which are irrelevant to each other.

Newton says that it is not the stone that moves: it is moved from outside by a force he calls gravitation. In saying that matter attracts matter in the direct ratio of the masses and in the inverse ratio of the square of the distances, he is saying that the larger matter attracts the smaller matter. S — bcccampello

They attract each other. It is not true according to the gravity theory, that only the larger mass attracts the smaller mass.

Yes... you gotta love a religion that sends untold millions to burn in hell fire for ever and ever experiencing the most excruciating pain without a let-up even for a minute, and to last for all eternity. You can't get any more loving than that. Hitler, with his krematoria and experimentation on living humans and starving and torturing millions was not a true Christian... precisely because Hitler could not even come close to the effective horror Jesus will hand out on Judgment Day to billions of people.

Yeah, Hippyhead, talk about love of the Christian religion... Jesus is and will be his own Anti-Christ.

(Slam dunk! Gotcha!!)

You don't just jump from "a single neuron" to "full human consciousness" like that.
— Outlander

Yes, I agree. I am trying to draw an analogy in which a neuron is the man in the chinese room and our whole brain is the room itself. Both the man and the neuron have no understanding of chinese yet the brain will understand chinese, hence the room should too. — debd

So you are saying that the Chinese room is a brain with one neuron... as the man is analogous to the neuron. Yet you proved it that one neuron does not a brain or consciousness make.

And there is one man (1 man) in the Chinese room.

How do you explain a room / brain with one neuron to be conscious?

You need a brush-up course in probability theory. — TheMadFool

I deflect that back to you, TMF. My description was flawless. Point out the mistake(s) in it if you please. Just making a general statement about my abilities is not an argument -- it's a judgment. You may have your reasons, so state them, please. I don't mind being judged, but I like to see the reason(s) behind it.

Or don't do it. I don't really care. You can go on your marry way, and spew (judgment withheld).

I'm sorry for being reticent, MSC. I can get easily bored. It is not your fault, but somehow -- and please don't let this bother you -- your questions were not entertaining for me to answer them. Call me callous, call me selfish, but I aim also for one of the things as you: not to be bored. It would take me effort, emotional cost, to answer your questions. I am awfully sorry to say all this, because I do value intent. But right now I am too uninterested in answering those questions. Please don't take this personally, and I hope very much you will approach me in the future again.

Okay, I finally read the second last paragraph. In the human mind, according to my belief anyway, there is a conceptualization what "wheather" is, and what "nice" and "awfu" are. There may be not one single neuron responsible for the conceptualization, but there is differentiation of concepts, and they can't all involve all the neurons, and they can't all involve the same, albeit limited number of, neurons.

Hence, I reject the concept that the Chinese room purports to prove according to the example you brought up.

I don't know if this makes a difference, but the guy following instructions could be a machine. He does not need a mind.

A person who has a mind, and speaks Chinese and reads and writes in Chinese too, has an AI program. It processes not only simple input-output instructions, but makes decisions on avaliable other data.

For instance: You pass in the Chinese question "How is the weather today?" the instruction set may direct the dumb actor to say "nice" or "awful", but it will never say "12 Kilograms." When it's a choice of "nice" and "a\wful", the program alone can't decide. It needs a third input into the instruction set, "check the weather and answer accordingly."

If it's a simple translation set of instructions, the machine will be stuck with not knowing whehter to say "nce" or "awful". A human who has access to the third piece of information can pick the proper symbol.

I don't know what this proves or unproves, because, frankly, I don't follow the logic that brings you to the conclusion that the consciousness is the whole thing, not one of its part. That conclusion absolutely escapes my understanding.

As it stands, X, Y and Z will each have a belief: O was real, or O was unreal. They can't beleive both that it was real and unreal.

So the probability that all three think it's real is 12.5%. The probability that all three think O is unreal, is 12.5 percent. The probability that one will think it's real and two will thing it's unrea is 37.5 percent The probability that one will think O is unreal and two will think it's real is 37.5 percent.

2. If all 3, X, Y, and Z observe O then the probability of O being real (call this R) = 50% * 50% * 50% = 12.5% — TheMadFool

1. If all 3, X, Y, and Z observe O then the probability of O not being real (call this NR) = 50% * 50 * 50% = 12.5% — TheMadFool

This is peculiar. Because the probability of reality of O is a subjective probability, therefore the mathematician has to consider the reality probability independent probability from each other.

Let me illustrate. Given a coin of heads and tails on the sides. Given that the coin is tossed, the probability of heads or tails in one toss are equal, at 50% each.

Now. X, Y, and Z each toss the coin once. You say that the probabily of tail is 12.5%, and the probability of heads is also 12.5% of any given ONE toss. That is simply absurd. The probability that the coin will land on heads (or else tails) in each one of the three times of the tosses, is 50% times three tosses, and averaged over three tosses.

If the observation decided to be true is 50-50 by each of X, Y, and Z, then the observation's probability is (50%+50%+50%)/3, just like in the coin toss.

I see. Thanks a ton — TheMadFool

No sweat. My pleasure.

I still think they should be banned when they present in a mass invasion force. They have an agenda, I presume, which is to christianize the world. They go head-butt about it, and they don't listen to reason. Amen3017 is a prime example, among many. You can't convince them of anything. Reason rolls off them like water off duck's back.

xxxx is a variable predicate.

What are you trying to achieve by asking me to keep on explaining myself?

do you feel I have answered your question? — MSC

It's not a matter of feeling. I don't know if you answered my question.

Oh, what's the point? Thanks — TheMadFool

You asked what common sense was. I explained it. That's the point. "Common sense" in the quote by Wittgenstein is nothing but a bad translation that alters the effective meaning of his point.

Sorry, post by mistake. Please disregard.

At this point I feel the need to ask, what is common sense? Also, most importantly, is Wittgenstein's observation on philosophy something someone just using common sense would say? I'd say if everything is simply a matter of common sense it takes a person with an uncommon sense to notice it - someone like Wittgenstein for example - and that amounts to self-refutation. — TheMadFool

Obviously I can't speak for Wittgenstein, but substitute intuitive sense for common sense and the whole paragraph makes intuitive sense.

Common sense does not mean in German what it means in English. In English, it means the sense that is common to all. Which is in itself an impossible proposition in most cases. In German (and in Hungarian, coincidentally, as in most other European languages) common sense is expressed as "reine Vernunft", or tiszta esz, in Hungarian, or Nyezhdravanskoye Nyiho in Russian: pure reason, pure brain, pure thinking. A sober mind. That sorta thing, nothing to do with consensus. Thus, Wittgenstein's uncommon sense is dictated by his personal intuitive thought, which is different from mine or yours; but the slavish stupid fucking asshole translators are incapable of bridging some differences in lingual constructs.

a set of rules of the form "x is right to us" or "y is wrong to us" that can be used to judge concrete behavior and represent what behavior, as theorized via reasoning using axioms extracted from human nature, is considered by the majority of humans to be good or bad for any person under specific circumstances, and from which any more specific rules, if needed, are deduced — Aleph Numbers

Your sloppiness is excused, but that does not help me understand the above.

The sentence in this quote is too ambitious. Try to make this a string of three or four sentences that mean the same, but are easier to digest.

What would convince you that we have found a moral truth? — MSC

The classic case of "I don't know anything about xxxx, but I sure know one when I see one."

If there is no such thing as moral truth — MSC

Actually, I kept saying that there may exist a moral truth, but we haven't found it yet.

A moral act is an act you are compelled to take. Essentially it is what you ought to do. — Aleph Numbers

This involves neither decision, nor a goal of good. This is what you said no? In your entire paragraph or post that contained this, you mentioned nothing of good, or making a decision.

I go by your first definition as per above. If you want to improve on it, fine, but please don't tell me but only when you got to the final result. I don't want to be bogged down with every last minute detail in the making, please gimme that much peace.

Please present me with a final decision what is moral, and I'll show you it is indistinguishable from other acts. Thanks.

No I feel their emotions. It's human — Gregory

What emotion do I have right now? You claim you feel it. What emotion does a person feel who is not you? You can extrapolate, but I vehemently deny you feel their emotions. Empathy is not feeling their emotions... it is synchronizing their emotions and you know how they feel. But you don't actually feel their emotions.

What emotion does Mary Jakubinski feel right now? Or Greg Walker? Or Ngambani Ungemba? Please answer precisely.

I ought to have cleaned the chicken coop before the inspectors came.

Have I committed a moral act? I ought to. Is this different from other ought to-s?

I ought to have married Bob instead of Mary. Is this a moral ought to?

Should I give to the poor? I ought to. So I do. -- is this a moral act, or a compulsion to do good?

I hear what you say, Aleph, but I am not convinced that a sheer "ought" is the kernel of what morality is.

And you deny that moral acts involve a decision. Others say that a decision is ESSENTIAL to human morality. (You wrote: A moral act is an act you are compelled to take.) You are also compelled to roll the dice at a crap shoot game when you are losing. If you separate out the factor of "compel", then it is indistinguishable from other forms of acting but moral.

I experience people are certainly as I experience myself. — Gregory

You don't feel their feelings. You interpret their actions that they have feelings. You interpret your experience of others that the others exist.

Your experience is the only evidence to YOU that others exist. What does this tell you?
- that others exist, since you experience them? Yes.
- that you exist only, since your experience requires nothing but yourself to be existing? Yes.
- both are equally likely? Yes.
- is there a proof to prove either one? No.
- is it your own sole decision to doubt one, the other, or both, saying that you don't know for sure? Yes.

You can doubt that others exist, but you would be wrong. — Gregory

Prove this. Please.

material world makes just as much sense as solipsim, and so does a mix of matter and spirit world. We are not in a position to get proof about which is true and which is not.

What about solipsism. Completely possible, and there are even variations on that theme. No matter involved in it whatsoever.

MSC, I washed my hands in this thread, and I don't want to engage any more, but I must answer your plea for the reason of sheer personal respect.

I have one question so far, and that is, what is it in a moral act that distinguishes it from other acts, as being moral (or immoral).

My point is that the criteria for morality has not been found yet.

You ask me to read your posts and answer them directly. I might do it after you reply to this to do it still.

I will present a few ideas what people think morals are, and I show you that they are indistinguishable from other acts.

-- that makes the actor feel good and truly happy. Indistinguishable from other things that make us happy, such as child birth, wedding, falling in love. Is falling in love a moral act, in and by itself? It's not even in your power when you do.
-- that which most people approve of. Most people approve of holding the fork and knife properly, of driving on the proper side of the road, of not kicking dogs. Is not kicking dogs actually a moral act, in and by itself? Is not raping children a moral act? No, raping children is immoral by consensus, but not raping them is not moral per se.
-- heroic acts: sacrificing one's own health, wealth, family, even life, for the good of the community or for loved ones. Is working overtime to make a boss's or capitalist life better, at the cost of destroying your own health a moral act?
-- acts that make most or all people feel better, or their lives better, easier, happier. This is indistinguishable from being "good" or "bad", in case of the opposite.
-- a decision has to be involved; a moral decision. You see your child drowning in a lake; you jump in, without thinking. This is a moral act; yet no decision took place. So it is indistinguishable from a good Samaritan act.
-- serving god. Well, it is not moral to kill, according to the ten commandments, but refrain from murder is indistinguishable from harm avoidance: you burn in hell if you do cross god.
-- etc.

In any of the foregoing, the act which we call moral, and its essential qualifier, can be found in acts that are not moral. Not immoral, but just not moral. And therefore I claim that humans have not found the magic formula for calling any act truly moral, whether the act is actually moral or not.