Consciousness requires something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine?

[commonsense]

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

Yep

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

I’m just wondering if there has to be an algorithm to prove that a bit of logic is wrong…

[commonsense]

Nope. Not only does your logic NOT follow but you don’t prove a mind. You just assert there has to be one.

So you fail since you reject to elaborate!

I did already.

Not that I had to because your conclusion doesn’t follow

I wonder if the existence of mind could be expressed this way: I think, therefore I have a mind.

How would you counter that?

[Darkneos]

So you fail since you reject to elaborate!

I did already.

Not that I had to because your conclusion doesn’t follow

I wonder if the existence of mind could be expressed this way: I think, therefore I have a mind.

How would you counter that?

You'd have to know that thinking is taking place. Even then all you can really say is that thinking is taking place, not that there is a mind.

[commonsense]

I did already.

Not that I had to because your conclusion doesn’t follow

I wonder if the existence of mind could be expressed this way: I think, therefore I have a mind.

How would you counter that?

You'd have to know that thinking is taking place. Even then all you can really say is that thinking is taking place, not that there is a mind.

OK, if I am self-aware and the thinking is taking place within my awareness, I would know that thinking is taking place.

If I know that thinking is taking place and if (actually big IF) I know that a mind and nothing else can think, I would know that at least one mind exists.

So, would it be fair to say that we can accept a priori that by definition a mind is able to think and that nothing else can think?

Or is that taking the claim that mind exists simply as a priori and restating it as a proven conclusion?

[Darkneos]

I wonder if the existence of mind could be expressed this way: I think, therefore I have a mind.

How would you counter that?

You'd have to know that thinking is taking place. Even then all you can really say is that thinking is taking place, not that there is a mind.

OK, if I am self-aware and the thinking is taking place within my awareness, I would know that thinking is taking place.

If I know that thinking is taking place and if (actually big IF) I know that a mind and nothing else can think, I would know that at least one mind exists.

So, would it be fair to say that we can accept a priori that by definition a mind is able to think and that nothing else can think?

Or is that taking the claim that mind exists simply as a priori and restating it as a proven conclusion?

You're still begging the question as to what, if anything, is thinking. It's why Descartes line doesn't follow, he assumes the I.

not that any of this matters as it doesn't really affect your life.

[commonsense]

You'd have to know that thinking is taking place. Even then all you can really say is that thinking is taking place, not that there is a mind.

OK, if I am self-aware and the thinking is taking place within my awareness, I would know that thinking is taking place.

If I know that thinking is taking place and if (actually big IF) I know that a mind and nothing else can think, I would know that at least one mind exists.

So, would it be fair to say that we can accept a priori that by definition a mind is able to think and that nothing else can think?

Or is that taking the claim that mind exists simply as a priori and restating it as a proven conclusion?

You're still begging the question as to what, if anything, is thinking. It's why Descartes line doesn't follow, he assumes the I.

not that any of this matters as it doesn't really affect your life.

I see it now.

[Skepdick]

Because you’re just wrong

It's like you don't even understand that the only way you would fail to produce said program is if I was right.

Which I am.

Which is why you can't produce the program.

Because you're just wrong.

This Turing machine needs a reboot.

[Darkneos]

It's like you don't even understand that the only way you would fail to produce said program is if I was right.

Which I am.

Which is why you can't produce the program.

Because you're just wrong.

This Turing machine needs a reboot.

You're just wrong.

[bahman]

If the process is simultaneous then there is no change. I think that is obvious.

Nope, the change is just instant. Stop making stuff up.

That is you who are making stuff that is logically impossible. The distance between two immediate points in time is either zero or nonzero. If the distance is zero you have no change in time so no change in the stuff. If the distance is nonzero then you have a gap and you can have a change.

What do you mean by then? Could you please clarify it? If the process is simultaneous then there is no then.

There is a then, it's after the instant. The process being simultaneous doesn't mean there is no then. There is before the process and after it.

Now, you are really making nonsense stuff. Do you know what simultaneous means?

There is a gap and the mind is necessary to allow causation of Y given X.

Nope, there is no gap and even if there was that doesn't mean mind. Again you're begging the question.

There is a gap and change requires mind.

Cause and effect cannot be simultaneous. You have cause first then effct.

Cause and effect can indeed be simultaneous.

No.

I call it the mind.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you call it that doesn't make it so or prove anything.

It is relevant. The mind is not God.

It has to be something unchangeable with the ability to experience and cause. I call this the mind.

Nope, wrong again. You're still begging the question. Your logic is just bad. You are assuming the conclusion but nothing you have said is true and even if so doesn't lead to mind.

No, I reach the conclusion. You just cannot see it because you don't want to see it.

[Darkneos]

If the process is simultaneous then there is no change. I think that is obvious.

Nope, the change is just instant. Stop making stuff up.

That is you who are making stuff that is logically impossible. The distance between two immediate points in time is either zero or nonzero. If the distance is zero you have no change in time so no change in the stuff. If the distance is nonzero then you have a gap and you can have a change.

What do you mean by then? Could you please clarify it? If the process is simultaneous then there is no then.

There is a then, it's after the instant. The process being simultaneous doesn't mean there is no then. There is before the process and after it.

Now, you are really making nonsense stuff. Do you know what simultaneous means?

There is a gap and the mind is necessary to allow causation of Y given X.

Nope, there is no gap and even if there was that doesn't mean mind. Again you're begging the question.

There is a gap and change requires mind.

Cause and effect cannot be simultaneous. You have cause first then effct.

Cause and effect can indeed be simultaneous.

No.

I call it the mind.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you call it that doesn't make it so or prove anything.

It is relevant. The mind is not God.

It has to be something unchangeable with the ability to experience and cause. I call this the mind.

Nope, wrong again. You're still begging the question. Your logic is just bad. You are assuming the conclusion but nothing you have said is true and even if so doesn't lead to mind.

No, I reach the conclusion. You just cannot see it because you don't want to see it.

Like I said, if the difference is zero then it’s instant. You don’t need a gap for a change. Even if there was one it doesn’t prove anything.

Simultaneous means it happens at the same time, and again such things do happen in reality.

Again, no gap and literally nothing saying that change requires mind. You’re just making that up because you want there to be mind but so far nothing you said leads to it. Nothing suggests changes requires a mind, in fact there doesn’t seem to be anything in reality that requires a mind.

It’s so funny because you haven’t even shown mine to exist first, so you can’t assert that it’s responsible for all these things. Also you don’t even know if it is doing what you claim it does. All you’ve done is just assert it without logic.

It is relevant. The mind is not God.

It’s not. You’re shoehorning it in by saying there has to be something that causes change. I said that could be anything and not really mind. You assume the conclusion.

No, I reach the conclusion. You just cannot see it because you don't want to see it.

At this point it’s just easier to call you stupid. You can’t see that all you’ve done is assert that it has to be mind, yet haven’t shown it is. All you do is assume the conclusion.

The quality of this forum has been disappointing so far. So little actually understand science or logical arguments.

You’re just embarrassing yourself.

[Darkneos]

TLDR: change doesn’t require a mind, that’s just stupid.

[bahman]

TLDR: change doesn’t require a mind, that’s just stupid.

I am done with you. You don't even understand the difference between temporal and simultaneous processes.

[Darkneos]

TLDR: change doesn’t require a mind, that’s just stupid.

I am done with you. You don't even understand the difference between temporal and simultaneous processes.

It’s more like you don’t, let alone the very basics of logic. Just because you want mind to exist doesn’t mean it does.

[commonsense]

If the process is simultaneous then there is no change. I think that is obvious.

Nope, the change is just instant. Stop making stuff up.

Instantaneous/simultaneously: they mean the same thing If you think otherwise, then tell me how you would measure the difference.

[Darkneos]

If the process is simultaneous then there is no change. I think that is obvious.

Nope, the change is just instant. Stop making stuff up.

Instantaneous/simultaneously: they mean the same thing If you think otherwise, then tell me how you would measure the difference.

It's kinda irrelevant since his logic doesn't prove mind or that mind is responsible for change. It just asserts it.