According to our deductions, Other-wise, if the brain is confused or overwhelmed in the process of synthesizing what to make you aware of, then that is precisely what it will make you aware of — confusion, and a sense of being overwhelmed. There is no particular natural need for awareness to exist. Such an assertion consistently eluded every inference.
I could no more resist an invitation from you to discuss these things than I could resist the heart of a Pageland watermelon. I’ll have a look at the referenced post. But I suppose that, in the future, before I engage a man in debate, I might ask him whether he believes that science proves 1 + 1 = 2, and as well as whether I mean “let’s discuss metaphysical things first” when I say “let’s not discuss metaphysical things just yet”.
I think I found the post…
The answer is in your question. Show me the insufficiency particles or waves. How is “insufficient” physical? (Wait! Don’t stop reading!) Shoot insufficiency through an accelerator, and show me the splats. Isn’t everything physical made of quantum particles? If not, why not? Why is the onus on me to show that the concept of insufficiency is not something physical, when the notion that it must be has arisen only lately? (No, that’s not a novitatum argument; I’m not saying it’s false because it’s new, but only that it’s new.) If insufficiency is physical, then it ought to be scientifically testable, ought it not? What is the falsifiable theory that we may test to determine that insufficiency is true? What is the empirical description of it? Again, if physical means everything conceivable plus everything that isn’t, then it doesn’t mean anything at all.
I do read them and respond to their content, at least to the extent that I understand that content and its implications. As I stated earlier, I’ve found them to be informative, well-informed, and stimulating. I have also attempted to reply to every question asked of me, even if I can’t make the universal claim that I’ve replied to every single one (I’m not going to go back and confirm that, though I believe it to be the case in this thread). Can you say the same?
Evidently, in this case, you choose to ignore most of what I quoted. I believe I was very specific in quoting you, which preceded the sentence you extracted. I have not objected to anything in your exchanges with other-wise (I believe, though again, I’m not going to check every single post). It is the following statements: “It turns out that awareness serves a metaphysical purpose – moral accountability” and “Awareness serves God’s purpose as a means of allowing you to make moral decisions” to which I referred. These are the conclusions to which I was objecting.
Pot, meet kettle. Damn indeed.
Bleh. Yet again, sloppy wording on my part. But I think you’ve answered my question; since awareness serves no physical purpose, the only way to account for it’s existence is metaphysically.
Whoa! I must take full responsibility, my friend, but you parsed that way off.
Firstly, I would say that “insufficiency” ultimately is a physical state akin to “confusion”, but that’s way, way down the road I’m trying to step along with you here. I will rephrase my question thus:
If physical processes and entities explain all aspects of silicon computers, what in human (or biological) cognition do you feel cannot be explained thereby?
All I ask, Lib, is that you approach this thread just as you do threads about evolution, or cosmology, or abiogenesis. I’m trying to take you from photography to human memory and asking you to stop me whenever you consider some fundamental difference appears (which I would hope we agree that there is not between, say, wet and digital photography).
They are not conclusions. They are asides. They are suggested hypotheses that we may examine with rigorous analysis whenever we feel so inclined. If your “If one starts with a metaphysical conclusion to prove, one can almost always find some set of axioms that will prove it” was not intended to say that I had begun an exercise of begging the question, then what the heck was it intended to say?
And besides, your assertion is false. Here is a counter-example: <>A -> ~A. I challenge you to find an axiom anyone will accept that will support that conclusion.
No no, I wouldn’t say that at all! :eek: It might well exist without purpose. It’s just that its existence does not necessarily imply its physicality.
Halt. I don’t know what you mean when you say that a process is physical. Understand, I’m not saying it’s not physical (at least not yet:)), but I don’t have a grasp of how you understand the term.
That was worded in a way that makes me a little uneasy, but, yes, his environment can be described in physical terms, but I don’t see how that’s relevant.
Granted, it mightn’t be this way. But then again, as you say, it might be. Since that’s the example I used in the scenario we’re arguing about, I’d like to stick with it. The point is, regardless of whether or not there’s a threshold involved, he either remembers or he does not.
Agreed.
We’ll see, but yes, in principle they could run into the same problem.
Yes.
And yet again, pot meet kettle. That is why the word “almost” was included. Do you even read my posts?
What am I to do if I do not accept the premise “physical processes and entities explain all aspects of silicon computers”? I seem to be finding myself in the position of your threads about the political quiz (which, by the way are so great an achievement in SDMB Great Debates that they likely will never be matched), wherein I am bound to piddle along accepting every premise for the sake of argument until the conclusion is reached which, because I’ve accepted all the premises, I must now accept. I mean, I will gladly concede pre-emptively that, given all your premises are true and your inferences valid, your argument is sound. I will concede that before I even know what your conclusion is. If all you need is a sounding board, commenting only on whether you’re applying valid rules of logic, then I’m willing to be that as a favor to you.
Well then, I suppose your assertion almost makes sense.
:smack: Which is why you kept insisting that metaphysical matters are irrelevant.
Keep keeping me honest, Lib, I’m going to need to stay very precise out here in the trenches.
Good - this is how we’ll make progress, I think. A physical process is just a temporal change in a physical object. The ice is physical, and “melting” is just as physical. The body is physical, and “falling” is so too. The photograph is physical, and so is photography.
Because his environment was what caused that neural activity in the first place. Not knowing his environment at all of those times when he was forming those memories is partly why they are unknowable to the third party.
OK, I’m happy to proceed so. Just to check we’re still on track, can we agree that it can also be said about a computer or digital camera that it “either remembers or not”?
Given that you largely agree with the rest, it seems that our focus is drawn to this process of memory access. If you accept that “melting”, “falling” and “photography” are all processes which are as physical as everyday objects, would you accept that memory access (such as retrieving Hoodoo’s module from Challenger Deep) is aphysical process too?
Of course, I understand. I’m afraid the final line of my OP was rather a pre-emptive request for us not to embark on a debate of the premise that there are physical objects, specifically with you in mind - I am overjoyed that you’ve stayed with us so far.
I guess, friend, that in your case, I am asking you to keep that under your hat here, as you do when you debate cosmology with me, or evolution with Finch, or brightness or weather or any number of scientific subjects with others: Then, you debate as though there were physical objects, and very ably and adeptly point out when our inferences based on our observations of the objects I (and practically everyone here) call “physical” are not justified. I can only ask that you enter this mode here also.
Okay. But I have no problem with the premise that physical things exist. I believe they DO exist. They just don’t exist objectively, without regard to subjectivity or conventions of thought and language. In other words, they’re not real. The problem I have is with the premise that physical things comprise the entire set of things that exist. And you don’t have to invoke God for that. Lots of atheists are not physicalists. Lots of people believe that abstractions are, well, abstract. So, as I said, it is the premise that every conceivable thing about computer memory and computer processes is physical — that’s what I have a problem with.
Is change physical? What are its physical properties?
I disagree. The third parties could (in principle) be aware of his environment all of those times, but they still could not be aware of Hoodoo’s awareness of his environment.
Need clarification on this one. Are you asking whether or not a computer or digital camera is consciously aware of its memories?
I’ll wait for your reply to the questions at the beginning of this post.
OK, let’s proceed with this …er… in mind. Let us take it that there is a physical object. Is the image projected by that object onto a wall a physical object too? How about a paper photograph? How about a digital photograph stored in memory? How about that photograph when it is reactivated? How about a sound file which plays whenever that happens? All as physical as each other so far?
I say yes. Do you agree? Change from solid to liquid is a physical change, yes? Note that if we get onto the subject of whether there are physical objects or not, we might as well debate something else entirely as far as I’m concerned. An ice cube is a physical thing. The change from ice cube to puddle is as physical a change as the ice cube is a phsyical object: spatio-temporal location of atoms is all we need to appeal to.
But then they’d have much better access to his memories, just as they would have better access to the silicon memory if they got hold of the protocol, like the Enigma codebooks, yes?
I’m not going so far yet: we’re seeing if there is any fundamental difference which leaps out at you as we carefully build up this proposition.
You didn’t answer my second question: What are the physical properties of change?
No, they’d have better access to their memories of the physical environment that provided part of the input to Hoodoo’s awareness and subsequent memory formation.
Still lost. Fundamental difference between… ?