Why things evolve?

[OuterLimits]

Not seeing anything here which answers my "other minds" objection

?????

I mentioned that not all physicalists are eliminative materialists.

You grumbled about not giving references.

So I said, "You want a reference to philosophers who are physicalists but who are not eliminative materliaists?"

You said yes, you wanted that.

So I gave you an article about a type of physicalism that's not at all eliminative materialism, an article that mentions many philosophers who hold non-eliminative materialist physicalist positions.

And now you're saying something about it answering objections to "other minds"?????

Well, you win. Proof by question marks.

[OuterLimits]

The fact that other people have experiences is from the fact that other people describe experiences,

So does a simple AI program. Not proof of subjectivity. And if behaviors are the result of physics, then we have an contradictory overabundance of cause if we say that a conscious person is choosing the actions and statements.

If you experience things, and you are human with a normal functioning human body and you read and learn from people who describe their experiences to you when you cannot read and learn from them, you understand that other people have experiences too.

All presumption on your part. If I told you I was not conscious, how would you go about contradicting that?

When you go "hmmmmm" when you eat a delicious chocolate cake and the person next to you also goes "hmmmm" you understand that the other person experienced something similar to yours.

True, I make the same presumptions you are describing. I go with my gut. Do you suppose a person could be fooled by a sophisticated zombie which behaves conscious but isn't ?

The data that you yourself have that other people have experiences is so vast that you don't need to go with your gut for it.

You might look up the problem of other minds. Nothing you are describing rises to the level of "data".

[sthitapragya]

If you experience things, and you are human with a normal functioning human body and you read and learn from people who describe their experiences to you when you cannot read and learn from them, you understand that other people have experiences too.

All presumption on your part. If I told you I was not conscious, how would you go about contradicting that?

These are not presumptions just because you call them presumptions. These are facts.

Why would I contradict such a patently false statement? If you don't understand that you cannot tell me anything unless you are conscious, no amount of explaining would help you understand that. It would simply mean that you lack in basic understanding of everything. I would simply walk away.

When you go "hmmmmm" when you eat a delicious chocolate cake and the person next to you also goes "hmmmm" you understand that the other person experienced something similar to yours.

True, I make the same presumptions you are describing. I go with my gut. Do you suppose a person could be fooled by a sophisticated zombie which behaves conscious but isn't ?

No. Because then he wouldn't be a zombie.

The data that you yourself have that other people have experiences is so vast that you don't need to go with your gut for it.

You might look up the problem of other minds. Nothing you are describing rises to the level of "data".

Well, call it data, call it evidence. The fact is there is sufficient reason to believe that other people have experiences and none whatsoever to believe otherwise.

As far as the problem of other minds go, you would have to assume you are an automata made out of flesh too. And even if it were true, what difference does it make? It is a pointless question to pursue and a complete waste of time.

[OuterLimits]

"Do you suppose a person could be fooled by a sophisticated zombie which behaves conscious but isn't ?

No. Because then he wouldn't be a zombie."

So you are saying that to act conscious is to be conscious. So a robot which is programmed to have a conversation with you in the general way that a human would - to you there is no doubt that such a machine is automatically conscious in the sense of having experiences?

[sthitapragya]

So you are saying that to act conscious is to be conscious. So a robot which is programmed to have a conversation with you in the general way that a human would - to you there is no doubt that such a machine is automatically conscious in the sense of having experiences?

Your question is invalid because such a robot cannot be programmed. At least not yet. And it would not be about a conversation alone. It would have to act like a human too and have the same mental and emotional faculties. Could a robot be programmed to lie when it felt it's self interest was at stake and could it be programmed such that the decision would not be in the hands of the programmer? What you are suggesting is impossible to do.

[Terrapin Station]

Well, you win. Proof by question marks.

How about not worrying who "wins," and not worrying about "proofs" or anything like that--again, empirical claims are not provable in the first place, and telling me why you're expecting the link I gave you to address your "'other minds' objection" when I was telling you that not all physicalists are eliminative materialists and you asked for a reference for that claim?

[OuterLimits]

So you are saying that to act conscious is to be conscious. So a robot which is programmed to have a conversation with you in the general way that a human would - to you there is no doubt that such a machine is automatically conscious in the sense of having experiences?

Your question is invalid because such a robot cannot be programmed. At least not yet. And it would not be about a conversation alone. It would have to act like a human too and have the same mental and emotional faculties. Could a robot be programmed to lie when it felt it's self interest was at stake and could it be programmed such that the decision would not be in the hands of the programmer? What you are suggesting is impossible to do.

You might look into the "Turing test". You'll see a lot of interesting "invalid questions" being discussed.

[OuterLimits]

Well, you win. Proof by question marks.

How about not worrying who "wins," and not worrying about "proofs" or anything like that--again, empirical claims are not provable in the first place, and telling me why you're expecting the link I gave you to address your "'other minds' objection" when I was telling you that not all physicalists are eliminative materialists and you asked for a reference for that claim?

I was wondering about *why* physicalists are somehow not eliminative materialists. I certainly know that these people are out there. Do you personally see any merit to this POV and if so why?

"Empirical claims are not provable in the first place" - therefore I will simply claim that I never wrote the words you are replying to. Convinced?

[Terrapin Station]

I certainly know that these people are out there.

You didn't seem to. You seemed to be making statements under the belief that all physicalists/materialists are eliminative materialists. Hence the start of this tangent re my comments in response to that.

I was wondering about *why* physicalists are somehow not eliminative materialists. Do you personally see any merit to this POV and if so why?

I'm a physicalist who is not an eliminative materialist, by the way. The reason why is that we think that it's ridiculous both (a) to deny consciousness in any significant sense, and (b) to assume that consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon.

"Empirical claims are not provable in the first place" - therefore I will simply claim that I never wrote the words you are replying to. Convinced?

I'd certainly not believe that anyone or I could prove that you wrote any particular words if I believe the Science Methodology/Philosophy of Science 101 tenet that empirical claims are not provable.

[sthitapragya]

So you are saying that to act conscious is to be conscious. So a robot which is programmed to have a conversation with you in the general way that a human would - to you there is no doubt that such a machine is automatically conscious in the sense of having experiences?

Your question is invalid because such a robot cannot be programmed. At least not yet. And it would not be about a conversation alone. It would have to act like a human too and have the same mental and emotional faculties. Could a robot be programmed to lie when it felt it's self interest was at stake and could it be programmed such that the decision would not be in the hands of the programmer? What you are suggesting is impossible to do.

You might look into the "Turing test". You'll see a lot of interesting "invalid questions" being discussed.

Oh, please. The turing test limits conversations. And I was not talking about other questions. I simply pointed out that your question today, right now, is invalid. If and when such a robot is programmed which can have an actual human conversation without limitations, we can re-open your question.

[OuterLimits]

Oh, please. The turing test limits conversations. And I was not talking about other questions. I simply pointed out that your question today, right now, is invalid. If and when such a robot is programmed which can have an actual human conversation without limitations, we can re-open your question.

I think you'll appreciate this quote of Abraham Einstein: "There are no invalid questions, only invalid facts." You're welcome.

[sthitapragya]

Oh, please. The turing test limits conversations. And I was not talking about other questions. I simply pointed out that your question today, right now, is invalid. If and when such a robot is programmed which can have an actual human conversation without limitations, we can re-open your question.

I think you'll appreciate this quote of Abraham Einstein: "There are no invalid questions, only invalid facts." You're welcome.

Actually yours was not really an invalid question either. I should have said invalid challenge. And a robot that can answer human questions still does not invalidate the fact that all humans have experiences because it is using those experiences that we learn and change.

[Greta]

I think everyone was talking about philosophical zombies.

All AI entities are effectively philosophical zombies - performing functions without significantly experiencing anything, like a microbe, eg. automatic checkouts. It raises questions as to whether a threshold of complexity will lead to qualia (emergence), or whether the sensing devices themselves are experiencing in some rudimentary way (panpsychism).

Or could it be that feeling, sensing and experiencing are overrated? These tend to be ego-related states while most observers seem to agree that the most admirable mental states are flow states where the sense of self is largely dormant, subservient to deep immersion and involvement. Basically, when we operate like rational, intelligent machines.

So even immersive altruistic activities generally driven by emotion - something that one would think only intelligent and civilised humans can do - could theoretically be performed by emotionless beings that understanding the nuances and needs of those who experience ego-based emotional states, despite never experiencing those states themselves.

It would be akin to humans looking after tropical fish. We don't have a clue what it's like to be a fish but we can compare their appearance, vigour and other behaviours with expected norms and make adjustments if there are problems. We can have a prime directive to breed them and understand the various needs of males, females and juveniles of various species.

Maybe when enough information is capable of being processed sustainably there will be no need for emotional range, which could even become a hindrance to effective living?

[Terrapin Station]

Oh, please. The turing test limits conversations. And I was not talking about other questions. I simply pointed out that your question today, right now, is invalid. If and when such a robot is programmed which can have an actual human conversation without limitations, we can re-open your question.

I think you'll appreciate this quote of Abraham Einstein: "There are no invalid questions, only invalid facts." You're welcome.

What the heck would be the definition employed of "valid/invalid" if facts (or questions) can be invalid?

[OuterLimits]

The ancients would have taken it for granted that practically everything in nature has experiences and an inner life. Where else would lighting come from except that Zeus is angry. As reductionist science marched on, the idea that autonomous agency needed to underlie behaviors of nature gave way to modeling of the interactions of the underlying parts, giving us "laws of physics". When I apply this same logic to my neighbor, I find much success in reducing him to interacting particles. If his behaviors (including reports of sentience) all reduce to outcomes of cause-effect chains of interacting particles, then it no longer makes sense to interpret his behaviors as autonomous actions which result from subjective experiences. Volcanoes and storms turned out to be "zombies" - why not (other) people? I say other people because I have undeniable subjective knowledge of my own experiences.