Consciousness requires something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine?

[Darkneos]

Produce the algorithm which runs on a Turing Machine and determines that I am "wrong" and consider this settled...

Otherwise that's the 4th time you are wrong about be being wrong.

You’re just wrong dude.

You are just wrong about me being wrong dude.

Well at least you’ve accepted being wrong, that’s progress I guess.

[Skepdick]

You’re just wrong dude.

You are just wrong about me being wrong dude.

Well at least you’ve accepted being wrong, that’s progress I guess.

Does this sort of rhetorical self-congratulatory idiocy work for you in practice?

[Darkneos]

You are just wrong about me being wrong dude.

Well at least you’ve accepted being wrong, that’s progress I guess.

Does this sort of rhetorical self-congratulatory idiocy work for you in practice?

Yep

[Skepdick]

Well at least you’ve accepted being wrong, that’s progress I guess.

Does this sort of rhetorical self-congratulatory idiocy work for you in practice?

Yep

Great! So produce the working algorithm which proves me wrong.

[Darkneos]

Does this sort of rhetorical self-congratulatory idiocy work for you in practice?

Yep

Great! So produce the working algorithm which proves me wrong.

But you’re wrong.

[Skepdick]

Yep

Great! So produce the working algorithm which proves me wrong.

But you’re wrong.

Then why can't you produce the proof/program?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

[Darkneos]

Great! So produce the working algorithm which proves me wrong.

But you’re wrong.

Then why can't you produce the proof/program?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

Because you’re just wrong

[commonsense]

have you ever met anyone with autism?

-Imp

No. Must they not be conscious?

Swing and a miss

Seriously, are people who are mute, not conscious? Am I missing what your comment says? How can that be?

Wait a minute, are you saying that I missed the ball or that you did? Are you rudely mocking me or are you humbly admitting a mistake?

Or are you saying that Imp made a mistake?

[bahman]

Mind is something that has always been assumed but never proven to be a thing. As far as we know everything is brain stuff, so much like a self if there was a mind there wouldn’t be anything for it to do.

No, the mind is needed for the experience. Any experience needs an experiencer. As I said, the experience cannot happen in a vacuum.

You do need a brain for consciousness thought maybe not a mind.

You definitely need a brain for thoughts but without a mind, there could not be any experience so no thought.

Not sure what you mean by experience not having a casual power.

Experience is not a thing with the ability to cause. That is the mind that experiences and causes.

Again you’re really not proving a mind exists just asserting there is one. Like I said we don’t really have evidence for it.

Actually, I have an argument for the existence of the mind: Consider a change in a substance, X to Y. X and Y do not occur at the same point since otherwise there could be no change and the process is simultaneous. Therefore, X and Y should occur at different points in time. This means that there is a gap between X and Y so X cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.

[Darkneos]

No, the mind is needed for the experience. Any experience needs an experiencer. As I said, the experience cannot happen in a vacuum.


You definitely need a brain for thoughts but without a mind, there could not be any experience so no thought.


Experience is not a thing with the ability to cause. That is the mind that experiences and causes.

Again you’re really not proving a mind exists just asserting there is one. Like I said we don’t really have evidence for it.

Actually, I have an argument for the existence of the mind: Consider a change in a substance, X to Y. X and Y do not occur at the same point since otherwise there could be no change and the process is simultaneous. Therefore, X and Y should occur at different points in time. This means that there is a gap between X and Y so X cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.

Nope, literally none of that is true nor does it imply a mind. A logical argument isn’t proof of anything.

This just sounds like argument from ignorance.

[bahman]

Again you’re really not proving a mind exists just asserting there is one. Like I said we don’t really have evidence for it.

Actually, I have an argument for the existence of the mind: Consider a change in a substance, X to Y. X and Y do not occur at the same point since otherwise there could be no change and the process is simultaneous. Therefore, X and Y should occur at different points in time. This means that there is a gap between X and Y so X cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.

Nope, literally none of that is true nor does it imply a mind.

Nope, it is true and implies a mind.

A logical argument isn’t proof of anything.

Seriously!?

This just sounds like argument from ignorance.

Ahan. That shows your ignorance to understand my argument.

[Darkneos]

Actually, I have an argument for the existence of the mind: Consider a change in a substance, X to Y. X and Y do not occur at the same point since otherwise there could be no change and the process is simultaneous. Therefore, X and Y should occur at different points in time. This means that there is a gap between X and Y so X cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.

Nope, literally none of that is true nor does it imply a mind.

Nope, it is true and implies a mind.

A logical argument isn’t proof of anything.

Seriously!?

This just sounds like argument from ignorance.

Ahan. That shows your ignorance to understand my argument.

A logical argument isn’t proof of anything. Logic just shows conclusions follow from premises but that doesn’t make the premises true and they’ve been wrong before.

Also you’re delusional if you think this proves a mind. Literally none of it follows. X and y can occur at the same time, the process would just be instant but still change.

“Should” is just explaining what you want to be true not what is and then it fails from there. A gap between things doesn’t mean X doesn’t cause Y.

Nevermind that the conclusion doesn’t even follow one bit from this. You just kinda shoehorn mind in there

[bahman]

Nope, literally none of that is true nor does it imply a mind.

Nope, it is true and implies a mind.

A logical argument isn’t proof of anything.

Seriously!?

This just sounds like argument from ignorance.

Ahan. That shows your ignorance to understand my argument.

A logical argument isn’t proof of anything. Logic just shows conclusions follow from premises but that doesn’t make the premises true and they’ve been wrong before.

Also you’re delusional if you think this proves a mind. Literally none of it follows

Which part does not follow?

[Darkneos]

Nope, it is true and implies a mind.


Seriously!?


Ahan. That shows your ignorance to understand my argument.

A logical argument isn’t proof of anything. Logic just shows conclusions follow from premises but that doesn’t make the premises true and they’ve been wrong before.

Also you’re delusional if you think this proves a mind. Literally none of it follows

Which part does not follow?

All of it.

You just want there to be a mind an it shows in the “logic”

[bahman]

A logical argument isn’t proof of anything. Logic just shows conclusions follow from premises but that doesn’t make the premises true and they’ve been wrong before.

Also you’re delusional if you think this proves a mind. Literally none of it follows

Which part does not follow?

All of it.

Could you please elaborate?

You just want there to be a mind an it shows in the “logic”

No. I prove that there is a mind.