The Profound difference between the Religious World View and the Scientific One:

[wavelength]

We fundamentally disagree.  Consciousness as you have defined it represents self awareness or recursive thought.  That's something many non human species including computer programs can do.

We certainly disagree here. No computer ever had a 'recursive thought'. The precondition for thought as in human thought (the only one we know) is consciousness. Same goes for awareness or self-awareness. A computer doesn't have a thought, you always pre-asume a conscious entity when talking about a thought, since there must be 'someone' having the thought. There are processes going on in a computer, setup by humans, that's it.

You're ascribing magical properties to consciousness that simply aren't there.  Like many gnostics, you're using it as a wedge to separate the physical world from the spiritual one.  As far as I am concerned, this requires the same leap of faith that believing in the divinity of Jesus. You can go down the platonic route and argue that the existence of an idea implies it's actual existence.  In that case, I've got a large pink dragon in my living in my garage.

I think it's the other way round. AI advocates e.g. try to assign properties to machines that should be magically added to them ones a certain structural level is reached. The fact remains that a machine is a machine and there is nothing in there that could somehow magically gain awareness or consciousness.

My very subjective and somewhat unsubstantiated opinion is that most philosophy is shit.  Starting with Aristotle and into the present day, philosophy has been at odds with science and has been used to justify horrendous things such as slavery, racism and genocide.  Philosophy is an approximation to science, just as science is an approximation to reality.

Philosophy is in no way an approximation to science. The only difference is that it doesn't restrict itself to certain methods and languages, and therefore is fit to tackle reality in a holistic way.

[Deicide]

We fundamentally disagree.  Consciousness as you have defined it represents self awareness or recursive thought.  That's something many non human species including computer programs can do.  You're ascribing magical properties to consciousness that simply aren't there.  Like many gnostics, you're using it as a wedge to separate the physical world from the spiritual one.  As far as I am concerned, this requires the same leap of faith that believing in the divinity of Jesus.

You can go down the platonic route and argue that the existence of an idea implies it's actual existence.  In that case, I've got a large pink dragon in my living in my garage.

My very subjective and somewhat unsubstantiated opinion is that most philosophy is shit.  Starting with Aristotle and into the present day, philosophy has been at odds with science and has been used to justify horrendous things such as slavery, racism and genocide.  Philosophy is an approximation to science, just as science is an approximation to reality.

Very much agree with you on this....excellent post.

[MMC78]

We certainly disagree here. No computer ever had a 'recursive thought'.

Nonsense.  Any sufficiently sophisticated framework can produce and reason with statements about itself (recursive).  This applies to systems of logic, computers or brains.  This holds for any recursively enumerable language.  Yes many machines absolutely have 'recursive thoughts'. 

The precondition for thought as in human thought (the only one we know) is consciousness. Same goes for awareness or self-awareness. A computer doesn't have a thought, you always pre-asume a conscious entity when talking about a thought, since there must be 'someone' having the thought. There are processes going on in a computer, setup by humans, that's it.

Again, what is a thought?  Reasoning, reacting to stimulis, deduction, something else?  Machines can do all of that, examine their own state and make decisions.  Why aren't machines conscious?  You are presupposing that there is something immaterial about the human mind that can't be physically represented by a machine.  This is superstition, I don't see how this can possibly follow from any observation.

I think it's the other way round. AI advocates e.g. try to assign properties to machines that should be magically added to them ones a certain structural level is reached. The fact remains that a machine is a machine and there is nothing in there that could somehow magically gain awareness or consciousness.

There is no way a machine can obtain consciousness as you have defined because you can't define it in terms of material processes.  For you consciousness is immaterial, you are a dualist and you are subject to the classical dualist paradox namely:

If consciousness is immaterial and the body is material, how can consciousness influence the material world?  Descartes (brilliant and dead wrong on so many things) thought that the interaction happened within the pineal gland.  It was a load of horse shit.  I stand by my assertion that stating that consciousness is immaterial requires the same leap of faith as belief in the resurrection.

Philosophy is in no way an approximation to science. The only difference is that it doesn't restrict itself to certain methods and languages, and therefore is fit to tackle reality in a holistic way.

Natural Philosophy is an attempt to understand the natural world.  Philosophy does so via human reasoning alone.  Science combines human reasoning with observation and experimentation therefore Natural Philosophy is at best an approximation to science.

[Decker]

...
The same can be said of evolution, which by admission by many evolutionists (i.e. George Wald), was developed with the "preconceived" conclusion that there is no God.

In the words of John McGlaughlin, "Wrong!"


God cannot be conceptualized by the human mind.  It is a rational impossibility.  Any universal rational set by its nature is self referential resulting in an endless stream of 'absolute (God) sets'...turtles stacked on turtles.

Evolution does not suffer the same fatality.

God as an explanation for today's mulitiplicitous life forms is itself no good.  Forget about where we came from, it is not helpful to say, "God created everything as is."  How do we incorporate that wonderful theory into a scientific methodology?

We don't b/c we cannot.

[Decker]

...Again, what is a thought?  Reasoning, reacting to stimulis, deduction, something else?  Machines can do all of that, examine their own state and make decisions.  Why aren't machines conscious?  You are presupposing that there is something immaterial about the human mind that can't be physically represented by a machine.  This is superstition, I don't see how this can possibly follow from any observation.....

Consciousness is not only an awareness of being aware.  Human Consciousness is telic.  It is directed.  We are telosponding creatures with free will that think dialectically and design goals that we can meet.  The process of mentation is necessarily affected by our body because it is our body (brain) doing the thinking--our irrational likes and dislikes, anxiety etc all change what some try to distill into some pure thought process/activity---like you said--the false mind/body dichotomy.

[Necrosis]

IMO this is not an answer to the question. When you try to answer the question biologically, you will always end up with the next question: Where do animals come from, etc. At some point you will end up with the question of the beginning of the universe or better, with the question of existance itself. How do you want to answer this question scientifically? All theories that are out there can never answer the final question. E.g. where did the big bang come from, etc.

However, I think we do not have to go as far as that, since for me it is evident that human beings are more than their biological (resp. scientific) aspects. Yes, biologically we are animals, and the scientific model for an animal is a biomechanical machine with a biochemical computer. But this model can never answer the question of human consciousness.

it came from no where, it always was.

your question assumes that everything needs a cause which in itself is impossible due to a infinite chain of causality.

there was nothing before the big bang it has no answer because its a bad question.

its like asking what created time. creation is temporal by definition

[wavelength]

Nonsense.  Any sufficiently sophisticated framework can produce and reason with statements about itself (recursive).  This applies to systems of logic, computers or brains.  This holds for any recursively enumerable language.  Yes many machines absolutely have 'recursive thoughts'.
Again, what is a thought?  Reasoning, reacting to stimulis, deduction, something else?  Machines can do all of that, examine their own state and make decisions.  Why aren't machines conscious?  You are presupposing that there is something immaterial about the human mind that can't be physically represented by a machine.  This is superstition, I don't see how this can possibly follow from any observation.

Computers basically are just time-savers. Everything that is processed in a computer could as well be calculated by hand with a pencil and a lot of paper. Every process in a computer is predetermined by a set of rules made by man. A machine does not 'examine', 'react', or 'make decisions'. These are the real superstitions, the imagination of some sort of being behind simple, passive processes running in a machine. What observation exactly leads you to the conclusion that a human mind could be physically represented by a machine?

Just as a side note: The fact is that there are no real advances in the field of artificial intelligence, AI has almost become a curse word in the scientific community. Which BTW I think is sad because alot of interesting results might come out of it, just not a conscious being.

There is no way a machine can obtain consciousness as you have defined because you can't define it in terms of material processes.

Well that is simple logic. Since for me it's clear that the human mind cannot be explained via it's scientific aspects, I will not be able to do so.

For you consciousness is immaterial, you are a dualist and you are subject to the classical dualist paradox namely: If consciousness is immaterial and the body is material, how can consciousness influence the material world?  Descartes (brilliant and dead wrong on so many things) thought that the interaction happened within the pineal gland.  It was a load of horse shit.  I stand by my assertion that stating that consciousness is immaterial requires the same leap of faith as belief in the resurrection.

I didn't make the distinction between material and immaterial. I was talking about scientific aspects and non-scientific aspects of the same reality, so there is no dualism. Science is only concerned with the material world, but does not fully explain it either. It is only concerned with aspects of the material world it is able to tackle using the method and language it is restricted to. But as I wrote in my first post, one can take the position that there is nothing more to the world than its scientific aspects. Since IMO, this concept is logically incompatible with the human mind, I would actually need faith to believe that.

As far as material vs. immaterial is concerned: Clearly there is both. Even if you attempt to reduce a thought to neurons firing in the brain (which you could measure), you would still experience the thought and this conscious experience of the thought you will not be able to measure.

Concerning the pineal gland theory, I fully agree, this is nonsense of course.

Natural Philosophy is an attempt to understand the natural world.  Philosophy does so via human reasoning alone.  Science combines human reasoning with observation and experimentation therefore Natural Philosophy is at best an approximation to science.

How did you come up with this definition of Philosophy vs. Science? Any references?

[wavelength]

it came from no where, it always was.

Even if it always was (which is just a theory, of course), manifestation of forms still pre-assumes something by which means the manifestation can take place. This is dictated by our language, namely by the word 'existance'.

your question assumes that everything needs a cause which in itself is impossible due to a infinite chain of causality.

The infinite chain of causality only applies to phenomena within known reality, not to existance itself. The concept of existance automatically implies something 'non-existing' as its precondition. The chain ends there since we can say nothing about 'non-existance'.

there was nothing before the big bang it has no answer because its a bad question.
its like asking what created time. creation is temporal by definition

Creation is causal by definition, not temporal. A bad question would be 'what was temporally before the big bang' (if we assume that the big bang theory is vaild, of course). But the question 'what is causally before / beyond / behind the big bang' is valid.

[Deicide]

Nonsense.  Any sufficiently sophisticated framework can produce and reason with statements about itself (recursive).  This applies to systems of logic, computers or brains.  This holds for any recursively enumerable language.  Yes many machines absolutely have 'recursive thoughts'. 

Again, what is a thought?  Reasoning, reacting to stimulis, deduction, something else?  Machines can do all of that, examine their own state and make decisions.  Why aren't machines conscious?  You are presupposing that there is something immaterial about the human mind that can't be physically represented by a machine.  This is superstition, I don't see how this can possibly follow from any observation.

There is no way a machine can obtain consciousness as you have defined because you can't define it in terms of material processes.  For you consciousness is immaterial, you are a dualist and you are subject to the classical dualist paradox namely:

If consciousness is immaterial and the body is material, how can consciousness influence the material world?  Descartes (brilliant and dead wrong on so many things) thought that the interaction happened within the pineal gland.  It was a load of horse shit.  I stand by my assertion that stating that consciousness is immaterial requires the same leap of faith as belief in the resurrection.

Natural Philosophy is an attempt to understand the natural world.  Philosophy does so via human reasoning alone.  Science combines human reasoning with observation and experimentation therefore Natural Philosophy is at best an approximation to science.

That was an awesome post. I just blew my load on the screen....

 

Seriously...

[MMC78]

I'll go in reverse order:

How did you come up with this definition of Philosophy vs. Science? Any references?

This is a reflection of the dichotomy between two ancient greek schools of thought: Aristotle and Democritus.  Democritus was a natural philosopher and a scientist.  He is known for being the first person to posit the atomic theory, the first person to remark that stars in the milky way were other suns, etc.  The Ionians like Democritus were recognized experiment and observation as being a doorway to understanding the world whereas Aristotle was convinced that the world could be understood by pure reason.

As far as material vs. immaterial is concerned: Clearly there is both. Even if you attempt to reduce a thought to neurons firing in the brain (which you could measure), you would still experience the thought and this conscious experience of the thought you will not be able to measure.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I do not see a need for the immaterial.  The thought in my mind is just a biochemical reaction.  In much the same way a machine may monitor itself, my ability to reflect upon a thought is also a biochemical reaction.

Computers basically are just time-savers. Everything that is processed in a computer could as well be calculated by hand with a pencil and a lot of paper. Every process in a computer is predetermined by a set of rules made by man. A machine does not 'examine', 'react', or 'make decisions'. These are the real superstitions, the imagination of some sort of being behind simple, passive processes running in a machine. What observation exactly leads you to the conclusion that a human mind could be physically represented by a machine?

I think you're slightly out of your realm of knowledge here.  A computer is a machine that can perform computations like we could via paper and pencil.  However that does not imply that it can't do everything a human being can.  What's more, computers are not just calculators or time savers, they are UNIVERSAL machines that can perform computation equivalent to any machine we could ever construct (see Church/Turing thesis).  This is irrespective of the material they are built of, so I could make a computer out of quantum bits, or out of pigeon droppings, it is still able to compute the same things (although their speeds are markedly different).

Machines do react, examine and make decisions.  They can do so deterministically according to pre-programmed rules, or they can do so according to learning, or they can be completely non-deterministic and make choices seemingly at random.  I don't see how this differs from a human being.

I didn't make the distinction between material and immaterial. I was talking about scientific aspects and non-scientific aspects of the same reality, so there is no dualism. Science is only concerned with the material world, but does not fully explain it either. It is only concerned with aspects of the material world it is able to tackle using the method and language it is restricted to. But as I wrote in my first post, one can take the position that there is nothing more to the world than its scientific aspects. Since IMO, this concept is logically incompatible with the human mind, I would actually need faith to believe that.

Science does not fully explain the material world, but by it's nature it asymptotically closer with each new finding or discovery.  You're saying that there are things out there which definitely cannot be explained by science right now, nor can they ever be.  I don't see any evidence that suggests that I could believe that.  Some of the pre-Ionian ancient Greeks believed in animism -- that is everyday natural processes like rising of the sun and the blooming of the flowers were directly controlled by God.  We eventually came to understand these happenings as the result of natural processes.  Aren't you making the same mistake with human thought?

Here's a thought experiment and a question for you.  Let's say I could make a complete replica of your brain and body, down o the last molecule.  This being is identical to you down to the position of every atom and electrical potential across each synapse.  You are positing that there's something inherently missing from that being.  Why?

[MMC78]

That was an awesome post. I just blew my load on the screen....

 

Seriously...

Lol thanks!

[wavelength]

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I do not see a need for the immaterial.  The thought in my mind is just a biochemical reaction.  In much the same way a machine may monitor itself, my ability to reflect upon a thought is also a biochemical reaction.

You are talking about a thought and a 'me' ('my mind'). So it is 'you' who is experiencing the thought, right? If the thought is just a biochemical reaction, what exactly is the 'you' which is experiencing the thought? If the thought is just a biochemical reaction, there is no 'you', which could consciously experience it.

I think you're slightly out of your realm of knowledge here.  A computer is a machine that can perform computations like we could via paper and pencil.  However that does not imply that it can't do everything a human being can.  What's more, computers are not just calculators or time savers, they are UNIVERSAL machines that can perform computation equivalent to any machine we could ever construct (see Church/Turing thesis).  This is irrespective of the material they are built of, so I could make a computer out of quantum bits, or out of pigeon droppings, it is still able to compute the same things (although their speeds are markedly different).

Side note: I can assure you that I am not at all out of my realm of knowledge (I have studied computer science). Not that I think much education is necessary to understand the very easy principle of computers as you have described:

Everthing you have said here is exactly what I have said: All computers are basically the same (turing machines) and everything they 'do' can also be calculated with a pencil and paper. I agree that this alone does not prove that they would not be a sufficent model for the human mind. But you will agree that there is not much consciousness or intelligence in a pencil and a paper. The only 'intelligence' that is added to the pencil and the paper is a program made by man. Of course only the man is intelligent not the program itself.

Machines do react, examine and make decisions.  They can do so deterministically according to pre-programmed rules, or they can do so according to learning, or they can be completely non-deterministic and make choices seemingly at random.  I don't see how this differs from a human being.

The problem is that the terms you use imply human abilities. E.g. you say 'They make decisions'. 'They' implies a 'me' which is not there in a machine, since all that happens in a machine is the passive processing of programs. Secondly, something that is deterministic resp. pre-programmed cannot make a decision, simply because - it is pre-programmed. Non-determinism in computers can only be introduced using a random generator in which case you can add a dice to the pencil and the paper. The 'learning' of computers is nothing more than a paraphrase for certain programing techniques, all of which may again be deducted from a simple turing machine. The same goes for all AI-related technologies like fuzzy logic, neuronal networks, self-modifying programs, etc.

Science does not fully explain the material world, but by it's nature it asymptotically closer with each new finding or discovery.  You're saying that there are things out there which definitely cannot be explained by science right now, nor can they ever be.  I don't see any evidence that suggests that I could believe that.  Some of the pre-Ionian ancient Greeks believed in animism -- that is everyday natural processes like rising of the sun and the blooming of the flowers were directly controlled by God.  We eventually came to understand these happenings as the result of natural processes.  Aren't you making the same mistake with human thought?

Very good point and question. Again the question is are we talking about scientific aspects. The scientific explanation e.g. of sunrise does not compete with a theologic explanation of a divine creation. I agree that this competition was and still is a misunderstanding on both sides. We can get more into this if you want, but the size of this post is getting out of hand already 

Here's a thought experiment and a question for you.  Let's say I could make a complete replica of your brain and body, down to the last molecule.  This being is identical to you down to the position of every atom and electrical potential across each synapse.  You are positing that there's something inherently missing from that being.  Why?

If consciousness somehow finds a way to inhabit this Frankenstein Monster, it would probably be like an identical twin. If not, it would probably be dead immediately. But just like you, I honestly don't know.

The problem with this thought experiment is that what you have in mind is not really a comlpete replica but an already reduced replica consisting only of the scientific aspects of the body according to the current scientific model (atoms, synapses, electrical potentials, etc.). Thus, the correct experiment would be to simulate the body according to the currrent scientific models in a computer (which should be sufficient according to your believes). In this case, I am sure that this 'program' would not be conscious or intelligent, for all the reasons I have already presented.

BTW, very interesting discussion so far!

[Necrosis]

You are talking about a thought and a 'me' ('my mind'). So it is 'you' who is experiencing the thought, right? If the thought is just a biochemical reaction, what exactly is the 'you' which is experiencing the thought? If the thought is just a biochemical reaction, there is no 'you', which could consciously experience it.

Side note: I can assure you that I am not at all out of my realm of knowledge (I have studied computer science). Not that I think much education is necessary to understand the very easy principle of computers as you have described:

Everthing you have said here is exactly what I have said: All computers are basically the same (turing machines) and everything they 'do' can also be calculated with a pencil and paper. I agree that this alone does not prove that they would not be a sufficent model for the human mind. But you will agree that there is not much consciousness or intelligence in a pencil and a paper. The only 'intelligence' that is added to the pencil and the paper is a program made by man. Of course only the man is intelligent not the program itself.

The problem is that the terms you use imply human abilities. E.g. you say 'They make decisions'. 'They' implies a 'me' which is not there in a machine, since all that happens in a machine is the passive processing of programs. Secondly, something that is deterministic resp. pre-programmed cannot make a decision, simply because - it is pre-programmed. Non-determinism in computers can only be introduced using a random generator in which case you can add a dice to the pencil and the paper. The 'learning' of computers is nothing more than a paraphrase for certain programing techniques, all of which may again be deducted from a simple turing machine. The same goes for all AI-related technologies like fuzzy logic, neuronal networks, self-modifying programs, etc.

Very good point and question. Again the question is are we talking about scientific aspects. The scientific explanation e.g. of sunrise does not compete with a theologic explanation of a divine creation. I agree that this competition was and still is a misunderstanding on both sides. We can get more into this if you want, but the size of this post is getting out of hand already 

If consciousness somehow finds a way to inhabit this Frankenstein Monster, it would probably be like an identical twin. If not, it would probably be dead immediately. But just like you, I honestly don't know.

The problem with this thought experiment is that what you have in mind is not really a comlpete replica but an already reduced replica consisting only of the scientific aspects of the body according to the current scientific model (atoms, synapses, electrical potentials, etc.). Thus, the correct experiment would be to simulate the body according to the currrent scientific models in a computer (which should be sufficient according to your believes). In this case, I am sure that this 'program' would not be conscious or intelligent, for all the reasons I have already presented.

BTW, very interesting discussion so far!

id like to point out that your missing the point that there is no you apart from the biochemical reactions, this is why perception, thoughts, emotions can be altered with psychotrophic drugs. Your contention that there has to be a subjective you to witness your thoughts is a fallacy, this is how the brain is wired.

also, you seem to think that in order for intelligence to exist it must come from intelligence, your example of a computer needing intelligent input to be created, sounds like your saying intelligence or consciousness( you havent really defined it so the debate is all over the place) requires some pre-existing intelligent input which is incorrect. if this was the case then then the pre dated intelligence would also need intelligent input in order to exist, thus defeating your argument.

machines are capable of most of the faculties humans are, take jaberwockky for example, it mimics human conversation.

your making some very obvious fallacies with regards to human consciousness. i will admit it is an emergent property of the brain which may never be understood perhaps due to our lack of intelligence as a whole but to suggest there is something outside the brain, immaterial etc.. is easily dismissed.

[MMC78]

If the thought is just a biochemical reaction, there is no 'you', which could consciously experience it.

I am a biochemical reaction without a fundamental identity apart from location and time.

Side note: I can assure you that I am not at all out of my realm of knowledge (I have studied computer science). Not that I think much education is necessary to understand the very easy principle of computers as you have described:

Calling the church turing thesis a basic and simple principle is ignorant.  It was one of Hilbert's 10 problems and was unsolved by mathemeticians for quite awhile.

The problem is that the terms you use imply human abilities. E.g. you say 'They make decisions'. 'They' implies a 'me' which is not there in a machine,

This is unfounded and unsubstantiated.  Who says that calling something 'me' or 'they' ascribes consciousness to a machine or a person.  Both are a collection of atoms, nothing more.

since all that happens in a machine is the passive processing of programs. Secondly, something that is deterministic resp. pre-programmed cannot make a decision, simply because - it is pre-programmed.

Here you are showing your lack of understanding, a deterministic program can make decisions based on its input.  What's more, in general we can't predict the eventual behavior or properties of a given program even if we can look at the parts and components (see Rice's theorem).

If you are going to get anyone to believe that there's something immaterial to reality then you had better present some conclusive evidence.  If consciousness (which is an ill defined term to begin with) is all you have then you'll never have a convincing argument in my mind.

[MMC78]

Let's see what Carl Sagan says about this issue.  Ask yourself, if consciousness cannot be measured scientifically, then does it make a difference whether it is there at all?

by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you.  Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself.  There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say.  I lead you to my garage.  You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely.  "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on.  I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?  If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?  Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.  Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.  What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me.  The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind.  But then, why am I taking it so seriously?  Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded.  So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage.  You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you.  Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise.  The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch.  Your infrared detector reads off-scale.  The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you.  No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me.  Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive.  All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence.  None of us is a lunatic.  We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on.  I'd rather it not be true, I tell you.  But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking.  An alternative explanation presents itself.  On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked.  Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath.  But again, other possibilities exist.  We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons.  Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling.  Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

[wavelength]

I am a biochemical reaction without a fundamental identity apart from location and time.

Well the problem is that the statement 'I think' implies such a fundamental identity. This is a question of definition of the term thought, it always requires a thinker. When you talked about 'I' or 'your mind' quite obviously you had something in mind that is structurally different from the thought this mind has or reflects upon. If you are just a biochemical reaction, what exactly are you, the neuron, the atoms the neuron consists of, the electrical impulses, the process, the algorithm implemented by the processes?

Calling the church turing thesis a basic and simple principle is ignorant.  It was one of Hilbert's 10 problems and was unsolved by mathemeticians for quite awhile.

I was talking about the outcome, which beautifully shows that basically all possible computers are the same. The actual deductive proof of it required a great mind, no doubt about it.

This is unfounded and unsubstantiated.  Who says that calling something 'me' or 'they' ascribes consciousness to a machine or a person.  Both are a collection of atoms, nothing more.

So if you are talking about 'you' it is of the same quality as when you talk about e.g. a coffee machine? You could say 'the coffee machine makes coffee'. Is there also an aware entitiy that makes the coffee and reflects upon doing so? Of course you can take the position that there is no awareness. As I said, the problem with this statement is that I know that I am aware. My question to you is, how can you be so sure that all you are is just a collection of atoms. Where is the scientific proof of that?

Here you are showing your lack of understanding, a deterministic program can make decisions based on its input.  What's more, in general we can't predict the eventual behavior or properties of a given program even if we can look at the parts and components (see Rice's theorem).

Inputs external to the computer can be used in programs of course. However, you can still calculate the outcome of a deterministic program when a certain input is given. The algorithm will always produce the same results when given the same inputs (random generators aside). Rice's theorem does not invalidate that, If you think it does, please show me how. The point is that I cannot talk of a 'decision', if for every input (or series of inputs for that matter) given to the computer, the calculated output is already pre-determined.

If you are going to get anyone to believe that there's something immaterial to reality then you had better present some conclusive evidence.  If consciousness (which is an ill defined term to begin with) is all you have then you'll never have a convincing argument in my mind.

I didn't come up with the material vs. the immaterial world, you did. What you are really talking about is what can be measured and what not. If we look at the scientific models for the material world, in the end there isn't really much there you could call 'material'. It's all a bunch of mysterious energy fields and particles that mostly consist of empty space and the parts that don't, you can't say what they really are. So even if we look at the 'material' world in a scientific way, there's not much tangible substance to it.

But as I said, maybe you can come up with some conclusive (scientific) evidence that all we are is just atoms? And then maybe you can tell me exactly what an atom really is?

[wavelength]

Let's see what Carl Sagan says about this issue.  Ask yourself, if consciousness cannot be measured scientifically, then does it make a difference whether it is there at all?

You can always take the position that it doesn't matter or that it doesn't exist. Scientifically, it makes no difference. You will never be able to prove or disprove its existance using scientific methods. But why should I discard an idea just because science by principle is not able to prove it's existance? The fact remains, I know that I am aware. What the article does is say: No, can't be true as long as we can't prove it scientifically, which unfortunally is not possible. This is trying to prove that a restriction is absolute by applying it in the first place. Doesn't make too much sense to me.

[wavelength]

id like to point out that your missing the point that there is no you apart from the biochemical reactions, this is why perception, thoughts, emotions can be altered with psychotrophic drugs. Your contention that there has to be a subjective you to witness your thoughts is a fallacy, this is how the brain is wired.

There is a scientific aspect of what drugs do to you. However this does not prove that there is nothing more to the brain than it's scientific aspects and also not that there is nothing more to the human mind than the brain.

also, you seem to think that in order for intelligence to exist it must come from intelligence, your example of a computer needing intelligent input to be created, sounds like your saying intelligence or consciousness( you havent really defined it so the debate is all over the place) requires some pre-existing intelligent input which is incorrect. if this was the case then then the pre dated intelligence would also need intelligent input in order to exist, thus defeating your argument.

My argument was not that in order for computers to be intelligent you need intelligent input, my argument was that computers are not intelligent at all. 

machines are capable of most of the faculties humans are, take jaberwockky for example, it mimics human conversation.

I'm not familiar with it but I assume it's a piece of software? In this case 'mimic' is all it can do. Computers can mimic alot of things but there is no consciousness behind it, just passive processing.

your making some very obvious fallacies with regards to human consciousness. i will admit it is an emergent property of the brain which may never be understood perhaps due to our lack of intelligence as a whole but to suggest there is something outside the brain, immaterial etc.. is easily dismissed.

You mean fallacies apart from what you wrote here, what are they?
I was not really talking about the immaterial, but let's go with that term, how is it easily dismissed?
I'm really interested in your input.

[MMC78]

Inputs external to the computer can be used in programs of course. However, you can still calculate the outcome of a deterministic program when a certain input is given. The algorithm will always produce the same results when given the same inputs (random generators aside). Rice's theorem does not invalidate that, If you think it does, please show me how. The point is that I cannot talk of a 'decision', if for every input (or series of inputs for that matter) given to the computer, the calculated output is already pre-determined.

You can predict the next step or state of a deterministic machine.  You can predict the nth state of a deterministic machine, but you cannot, in general, predict the final outcome of a deterministic machine or process.  I don't have to prove this to you do I?  You cannot pre-determine the output without simulating or running the machine in the first place, but that leads back to the original problem.  Determinism is not the same as predictable.  We can predict the next state of a machine, but we can't in general decide it's final outcome.  I'm tired of debating this point with you when it's obvious you only have a cursory understanding of this topic.

I didn't come up with the material vs. the immaterial world, you did. What you are really talking about is what can be measured and what not. If we look at the scientific models for the material world, in the end there isn't really much there you could call 'material'. It's all a bunch of mysterious energy fields and particles that mostly consist of empty space and the parts that don't, you can't say what they really are. So even if we look at the 'material' world in a scientific way, there's not much tangible substance to it.

Material vs immaterial in my mind is equivalent to scientific vs superstitious.  You are positing that there are things there that are material but aren't observable or understandable by science.  Why wouldn't they be observable by science?  If they can affect the material world (like consciousness) then they can be observed, tested, and are subject to the scientific method.

But as I said, maybe you can come up with some conclusive (scientific) evidence that all we are is just atoms? And then maybe you can tell me exactly what an atom really is?

Doing so is beyond the scope of a post on the internet, wouldn't you agree?  We can agree that the atomic theory of matter is supported by mountains of evidence.  I'd rather not go down an existential rat hole defining what an atom is.

[MMC78]

You can always take the position that it doesn't matter or that it doesn't exist. Scientifically, it makes no difference. You will never be able to prove or disprove its existance using scientific methods. But why should I discard an idea....?

For the same reason you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster.  It's unlikely to exist and it's existence makes no difference to reality.

[Deicide]

You can predict the next step or state of a deterministic machine.  You can predict the nth state of a deterministic machine, but you cannot, in general, predict the final outcome of a deterministic machine or process.  I don't have to prove this to you do I?  You cannot pre-determine the output without simulating or running the machine in the first place, but that leads back to the original problem.  Determinism is not the same as predictable.  We can predict the next state of a machine, but we can't in general decide it's final outcome.  I'm tired of debating this point with you when it's obvious you only have a cursory understanding of this topic.

Material vs immaterial in my mind is equivalent to scientific vs superstitious.  You are positing that there are things there that are material but aren't observable or understandable by science.  Why wouldn't they be observable by science?  If they can affect the material world (like consciousness) then they can be observed, tested, and are subject to the scientific method.

Doing so is beyond the scope of a post on the internet, wouldn't you agree?  We can agree that the atomic theory of matter is supported by mountains of evidence.  I'd rather not go down an existential rat hole defining what an atom is.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh....jizzed again.............

[Necrosis]

There is a scientific aspect of what drugs do to you. However this does not prove that there is nothing more to the brain than it's scientific aspects and also not that there is nothing more to the human mind than the brain.

My argument was not that in order for computers to be intelligent you need intelligent input, my argument was that computers are not intelligent at all. 

I'm not familiar with it but I assume it's a piece of software? In this case 'mimic' is all it can do. Computers can mimic alot of things but there is no consciousness behind it, just passive processing.

You mean fallacies apart from what you wrote here, what are they?
I was not really talking about the immaterial, but let's go with that term, how is it easily dismissed?
I'm really interested in your input.

no one can prove the negative but if your a logical person you would obviously admit that nothing immaterial has ever been observed, the universe is composed of matter/anti-matter etc... and all forms of matter such as energy. There has never been a shred of evidence for something immaterial, and by definition we could never have any, so your belief that there is something other then the material of universe is based on nothing, since the universe is material, and faith(an irrational belief). As if this is not enough take brain injuries via hypoxia, mechanical damage or pathology to particular brain structure(s) and observe its affects on consciousness, there are vast differences.

lets say there is a soul or something immaterial in the brain. First off your making the classical cartesian category mistake. On top of that say there is a soul which creates your consciousness, your YOU, the emotive being that experiences everything. Explain multiple personality disorder? these people show vastly different personalities, changes in immune assays (cd4+, cd8+), pathology(some retain or lose allergies) and accent, as well as temperments. These peole when interviewed believe they are different people and from all objective criteria they really are. Are there multiple souls in this being? how does this immaterial soul or souls interact within the being?. The idea of multiple soulds inhabiting a brain seems dubious and stretches creduality to its breaking point. However, its much easier to accept that the multiple YOUS is really just a brain malfunction, specifically a upset in neuropeptides, and generally a pathology of the brain as a whole.


i would ask whats your evidence for the immaterial also?

[Deicide]

There is a scientific aspect of what drugs do to you. However this does not prove that there is nothing more to the brain than it's scientific aspects and also not that there is nothing more to the human mind than the brain.

My argument was not that in order for computers to be intelligent you need intelligent input, my argument was that computers are not intelligent at all. 

I'm not familiar with it but I assume it's a piece of software? In this case 'mimic' is all it can do. Computers can mimic alot of things but there is no consciousness behind it, just passive processing.

You mean fallacies apart from what you wrote here, what are they?
I was not really talking about the immaterial, but let's go with that term, how is it easily dismissed?
I'm really interested in your input.

Alles nur Wunschdenken.

Ich selber glaube an das unsichtbare, fliegende, vierkoepfige Wienerschnitzel, das sich durch wissenschaftliche Mittel nicht beweisen laesst.

[MMC78]

Ohhhhhhhhhhh....jizzed again.............

Don't make Debussey jealous.   

[Deicide]

Don't make Debussey jealous.   

Trapezkerl= not seen Lord of Madness in a while

MMC78= The Mechanistic Lord

Trapezkerl= maybe convert