The suggestiong to my mind is if one could establish that human beings are a natural kind, and natural kinds of the sort that human beings are can be said to be different under such-and-such circumstances, then we could say when a person is, which in turn should at least hint whether genetics are necessary for the identity of a person as an object... — Moliere

I'm not seeing a need for establishing humans as a natural kind, in order to recognize genetics as playing a necessary causal role in maintaining human identity.

It is enormously scientifically supported, that our genes play an ongoing role in maintaining us in existence as living human beings. What would the notion of a natural kind add?

When one's argument against moral realism involves claiming to not know what it means when some behaviour is forbidden, then I'm not sure what else I could say to help. Knowing that mush seems to be a necessary prerequisite for doing metaethics. — creativesoul

This is coming across to me like "What is wrong with you for questioning whether the emperor is wearing clothes?"

I'd just say Chalmers has bad epistemic hygiene. Inflationism might be handy for making weak arguments appear strong, but I'm not seeing a good reason to take it seriously based on what the SEP says.

Logical and metaphysical possibility amount to the same thing. — frank

Philosophers disagree.

We can conceive of something that is physically identical to us not having consciousness, therefore it is metaphysically possible for something physically identical to us to not have consciousness — Michael

How do you get from being able to imagine something, to that thing being metaphysically possible?

People can certainly imagine things that aren't physically possible. Why would the situation be different for metaphysical possibility.

And yet there are people who pretty much live like zombies, at least some of their time. Not people in a coma, but people who mindlessly peruse Facebook and such. — baker

Those people are not physically identical to us, and so aren't relevant to Michael's argument.

Ah, I was hasty and didn't pay sufficient attention to the "identical" in 1.

With that aspect of the definition in mind, I'll shove p-zombies the short distance from utterly ludicrous to metaphysically impossible.

2. P-zombies are not a metaphysical impossibility
3. Therefore consciousness, if it exists, is non-physical — Michael

I don't see a need to reject 2 in order to reject 3.

Getting to 3 in your argument seems to require a non-sequitur.

Impossible because conscious experience is physical or impossible because non-physical conscious experience is a necessary consequence of brain activity (or other physical processes in the body)? — Michael

I wouldn't say impossible, but it's ludicrous to think there would be a couple of p-zombies carrying on, what to us would appear to be a deeply personal heartfelt conversation, while in fact their conversation is simply meaningless noises they are making for no reason.

I have to think that people considering p-zombies plausible is a result of not having really thought through what is under consideration.

That doesn’t counter my gametes theory, it just elaborates on an interesting variation of it. — schopenhauer1

Right.

My quest here is to find an objective thing that differentiates a person from being all possibilities that that person can hold. Clearly the stopping point for that person to be all counterparts of that person would be at conception. How could it be otherwise? — schopenhauer1

Consider tetragametic chimeras.

Tetragametic chimerism is a form of congenital chimerism. This condition occurs through the fertilization of two separate ova by two sperm, followed by aggregation of the two at the blastocyst or zygote stages. This results in the development of an organism with intermingled cell lines. Put another way, the chimera is formed from the merging of two nonidentical twins (a similar merging presumably occurs with identical twins, but as their genotypes are not significantly distinct, the resulting individual would not be considered a chimera). As such, they can be male, female, or have mixed intersex characteristics.

In such a case there were two separate conceptions resulting in one person.

And it's navigating the world and doing its job effectively, and it's doing all this without knowing anything??? How does that work, exactly? — RogueAI

Why think it does work? I think the most reasonable perspective on p-zombies is that they are an incoherent idea.

Assembly language is the best. — unenlightened

Machine language is 102 97 114 32 98 101 116 116 101 114

As Banno pointed out, your argument does not follow. — Lionino

Right, I was expecting someone to point that out, and I'm hardly surprised that it was Banno.

My point of contention is this... — Lionino

Keep working on it. You are 'finding' problems that aren't there, and you didn't recognize the problem that was there.

(◇p ∧ ◇¬p) → ◇(p∧¬p) is invalid. — Banno

I was wondering how long it would take. :wink:

Let X = "The person who made that post as wonderer1 is the same person as the person who posted previously as wonderer1."
— wonderer1

If you take the conclusion to be a premise, I can prove that God is in my backpack making waffles too. — Lionino

Since I am the person who has made all the posts as wonderer1, I know X. How exactly do I get from there to God and waffles? (It is breakfast time.)

It's logically possible that the person who is posting as wonderer1 right now is not the same person as posted previously as wonderer1. However it isn't metaphysically possible.
— wonderer1

How so? — Lionino

Let X = "The person who made that post as wonderer1 is the same person as the person who posted previously as wonderer1."

It is the case that X.

Therefore X is metaphysically possible.

If ~X is also metaphysically possible, then it would be the case that a logical contradiction (X and ~X) is metaphysically possible.

It is not the case that the logical contradiction (X and ~X) is metaphysically possible.

Therefore it is not the case that ~X is metaphysically possible.

I’m not sure that counts as belief. Belief seems to me to be a conscious activity. Machines can record and analyze information but they don’t believe anything. — Michael

This gets me thinking about 'muscle memory' events, like knocking a cup off a counter and reflexively catching it without time to think. We must have subconscious expectations which direct moving our hand to where it needs to be to catch the cup. Are these subconscious expectations not in some sense beliefs? And if we posit conscious beliefs and subconscious beliefs, is there a clear dividing line?

6. Therefore, our world is the result of information processing in a mind, this mind we call God. — Hallucinogen

Why in God's mind rather than in say, Tod's laptop?

Copied and pasted from another forum:

Let's suppose there is a six dimensional universe (6 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension). In this universe there is a naturalistically evolved intelligent being called Tod.

Now suppose that due to existing in this six dimensional universe, brains and computers can be vastly more powerful than in our universe due to the extra dimensions available for interconnectivity, higher complexity of parts per volume, etc. (Feel free to add dimensions as needed.) In other regards we can consider Tod to be a lot like us for the purposes of this thought experiment.

Now Tod is a researcher at a university, and the prevailing wisdom is that intelligent life can only evolve in a universe with four spatial dimensions or more. Tod sets out to study this matter, and in the course of this study he sets up some comprehensive simulations of a universe with three spatial and one temporal dimension. After some trial and error, Tod succeeds in creating a simulated universe where intelligent life evolves.

Of course Tod's creation is meant to be understood as our universe. So, some questions:

1. Can it be proven by beings inside such a simulation what the nature of their existence is?

2. Is Tod deserving of worship by the intelligent beings that exist inside the simulation?
2a. Does it change things to know that Tod is going to shut the simulation down in ten minutes?
2b. Does it further change things to know that ten minutes in Tod's time is equivalent to 10 million years in our time?

Now, suppose Tod's colleague Ged gets a copy of Tod's program and runs it on his own 6D computer. However, unlike Tod who is hands off other than setting the simulation going, Ged gets really interested in the lives of some intelligent beings in one tiny microcosm of the simulation. Ged develops ways to manifest himself within the simulation he is running and to communicate with the 3D people who are being simulated. GED tells some of the 3D people that he is going to build 6D robots in the actual 6D universe and give the 3D people he approves of bodies in the real 6D world.

3. Is GED more worthy of worship than Tod? Why or why not?

What hath Tod wrought?

However, what would something metaphysically impossible but logically possible be? — Lionino

It's logically possible that the person who is posting as wonderer1 right now is not the same person as posted previously as wonderer1. However it isn't metaphysically possible.

Maybe the whole thing is an elaborate attempt to get rid of Melania?! — Fooloso4

:rofl:

3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles known to underlie the emergence of physical space. — Hallucinogen

Having looked at some of the quotes and links you provided, they seem to be presenting speculation rather than the sort of evidence you suggest.

I think my favourite complexity is the one about the non-coding bases, which are 98% of the molecule. What is all that stuff doing there? I don't believe it is doing nothing. The question is, what is it doing? Talk about terra incognita — Ludwig V

Well, not really terra incognita, because stuff is being learned about non-coding DNA. One such detail (and actually kind of old news) is that broken down genes for the production of egg yolk components occupy some of that DNA.

Embryonic development in nonmammalian vertebrates depends entirely on nutritional reserves that are predominantly derived from vitellogenin proteins and stored in egg yolk. Mammals have evolved new resources, such as lactation and placentation, to nourish their developing and early offspring. However, the evolutionary timing and molecular events associated with this major phenotypic transition are not known. By means of sensitive comparative genomics analyses and evolutionary simulations, we here show that the three ancestral vitellogenin-encoding genes were progressively lost during mammalian evolution (until around 30–70 million years ago, Mya) in all but the egg-laying monotremes, which have retained a functional vitellogenin gene. Our analyses also provide evidence that the major milk resource genes, caseins, which have similar functional properties as vitellogenins, appeared in the common mammalian ancestor ∼200–310 Mya. Together, our data are compatible with the hypothesis that the emergence of lactation in the common mammalian ancestor and the development of placentation in eutherian and marsupial mammals allowed for the gradual loss of yolk-dependent nourishment during mammalian evolution.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267819/

Another stretch of DNA is a broken down version of what once was a gene for producing Vitamin C.

Other details involve stretchs of DNA which can promote or inhibit the transcription of coding DNA.

I'm far from having any expertise on the subject, but my impression is that it would be a rather daunting task for most to come up to speed on what is understood about noncoding DNA these days.

When it comes to the philosophy of mind and language it’s littered with figurative and almost superstitious language, and is largely speaker-centric. — NOS4A2

Given...

1. The complexity of our brains and the physical processes occurring therein.
2. The idiosyncratic differences between each of our brains. (Differences in biological factors and in experiences resulting in learning)
3. Our level of technology being well below what would be needed to get a remotely comprehensive 'picture' of what is going on in our brains.

...I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Still, there is progress. A huge amount has been learned over the decades I've been considering the topic and the pace of that learning has been accelerating as old guesses get replaced with new, better educated, guesses.

Perhaps it’s time we gravitated away from the metaphors, for instance “hear”, and focused on the actual. — NOS4A2

Good luck with that. I can recommend getting some education in electrical engineering, as an aid to trying to wrap one's head around the subject.

I have a strong urge not to post this reply, because I partly think it's all nonsense (but there's still something in it somewhere that I think I want to say). But for once, I think that very confusion is sort-of on topic, so I force myself to click "Post comment". If you've been reading this, I have. — Dawnstorm

I appreciate your effort to verbalize this, and I'm glad you did post because I find this sort of stuff fascinating.

Thanks.

This original post brings a certain mild misery to me, to be stirring up mischief through slave morality is cute, but altogether misguided. — Vaskane

Ya know how autistic people tend to focus narrowly on one thing...

I presume
The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas
is still under copyright, so I won't post a link. However, a quick copy and paste and Google will turn up lots of sites hosting pdf copies.

It is very short, and very well worth reading.

3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles — Hallucinogen

Citation?

If knowledge and memory is also embedded in this momentarily unfolding flux then is there a fact of the matter about being the same as I was 5 minutes ago? After all, to generate the right expressions of memory or knowledge only requires the right momentary states in terms of physical states of my neuronal membranes. Continuity is not necessary and it is questionable whether my brain is ever in the same two states even for similar experiences at different times. — Apustimelogist

Right. Perdurance seems to me a more realistic way of looking at identity.

This whole thread is a case of overreach by the thought police. — unenlightened

Is this meant seriously? If so, it seems like a bizarre reaction to the thread to me.

Take it up with Wittgenstein. — Banno

Why blame him?

Although I am also a visual artist, I cannot see internal images; meaning I cannot invoke a picture of anything like a photograph and examine it like I would a photograph. — Janus

I found this bit of the article I linked particularly interesting:

She explains that deaf people tend to experience the inner voice visually. “They don’t hear the inner voice, but can produce inner language by visualising hand signs, or seeing lip movements,” Loevenbruck says. “It just looks like hand signing really,” agrees Dr Giordon Stark, a 31-year-old researcher from Santa Cruz. Stark is deaf, and communicates using sign language.


His inner voice is a pair of hands signing words, in his brain. “The hands aren’t usually connected to anything,” Stark says. “Once in a while, I see a face.” If Stark needs to remind himself to buy milk, he signs the word “milk” in his brain. Stark didn’t always see his inner voice: he only learned sign language seven years ago (before then, he used oral methods of communication). “I heard my inner voice before then,” he says. “It sounded like a voice that wasn’t mine, or particularly clear to me.”

I don't recall seeing a link in the thread to an article on the experience of an inner voices, so...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/25/the-last-great-mystery-of-the-mind-meet-the-people-who-have-unusual-or-non-existent-inner-voices

I'm towards the nonexistent inner voice side of things myself. Though I can relate to experiencing an inner voice to some extent, it's not an aspect of my normal experience, let alone something that seems necessary for thought in my experience.

Your argument was that contradictions inevitably occur, and therefore they are not bad. Wounds also inevitably occur. Are they bad? Should they be avoided? Should we apply bandage and salve, or leave them to fester? — Leontiskos

I already said that there is practical value to resolving one's contradictory beliefs. However, it is no more an indication of moral badness to find that one holds contradictory beliefs than it is an indication of moral badness to find that one has been wounded.

It is simply a consequence of having an evolved brain, that develops intuitions in response to the limited evidence/training available to each individual to learn from, that results in fallible humans having conflicting intuitions. Sure ongoing learning, like bodily hygiene, is practically valuable. However, morally judging people for not being omniscient seems more than a tad unreasonable to me. Do you agree?

I don't think you managed to address it at all. Do you believe that we ought not hold contradictory positions, or do you disagree? — Leontiskos

I don't think there is any moral fact of the matter, though there is certainly pragmatic value in continually wiping the mirror.

I don't think you have considered what I proposed seriously enough. (Although understandably it's likely to take some time for you to develop some relevant recognitions.) I recommend looking into Zen for some useful tools for breaking down weakly trained intuitions.

One thing I think might be worth considering, is the way that you yourself have just demonstrated the monkey mindedness I was referring to. Another is your propensity for jumping to conclusions.

Fair warning, I spent the prior 15 years as a regular atheist poster on William Lane Craig's (now shuttered) forum. Here's a thread you might find surprisingly educational:

Does being in a blaming state of mind amount to Monkey Mindedness?

I see the atheist trolls have arrived (↪wonderer1, ↪Joshs). — Leontiskos

Ah, the warm glow of Christian love.

Anyway, I gave a serious response to your question. What do you think?

So maybe I considered moving the bishop and decided to do something else. When I did something else, it was no longer possible. But it was possible when I considered it. Surely? — Ludwig V

Epistemically possible? Sure.

Metaphysically possible? I don't know of any good reason to think so.

I thought some might be interested in this:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-energy-consumption

You are a bad man @Wayfarer - using Chat-GPT so profligately. :razz:

What is being made clear is that it is very easy to get confused between the imagination and the real, and this is because imagination is in use all the time to model and predict the world as it unfolds. — unenlightened

:up: