The Darwinian Mob

For the discussion of philosophical books.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:52 am

Impenitent wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:A dog does not know he is a dog so I agree that he is not self-conscious. However, a dog has experiences so we can argue for a particular definition of consciousness that involves consciousness being both attentional and experiential.

A computer can fool a person into believing that said person is actually talking to a human being. The machine may be able to do so by acting out convincing responses that indicate it is experiencing the conservation. It may even be able to act hurt and offended. But in the end it is only act, it can't be hurt and offended. Only people are able to have such experiences.
only people... not dogs...

-Imp

Wouldn't you say there is something it is like to be a dog? In the same way there is something it is like to be me or you.

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:00 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:A dog does not know he is a dog so I agree that he is not self-conscious. However, a dog has experiences so we can argue for a particular definition of consciousness that involves consciousness being both attentional and experiential.

A computer can fool a person into believing that said person is actually talking to a human being. The machine may be able to do so by acting out convincing responses that indicate it is experiencing the conservation. It may even be able to act hurt and offended. But in the end it is only act, it can't be hurt and offended. Only people are able to have such experiences.
only people... not dogs...

-Imp

Wouldn't you say there is something it is like to be a dog? In the same way there is something it is like to be me or you.
nope... the form of dog expired with Plato...

you said it yourself "Only people are able to have such experiences."

-Imp

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:08 am

Impenitent wrote:

nope... the form of dog expired with Plato...

you said it yourself "Only people are able to have such experiences."

-Imp
I would have thought that only people can only be self-conscious, self-aware and have hurt feelings. These are all experiential, but that is not the extent of experience.

If I go into my back yard my dog might run up to me with a ball in his mouth and drop it at my feet. I will say to myself, "I wish I had never started this dam game in the first place". Nonetheless, I will pick it up and throw it for him. After all he enjoys the game.

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:18 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Impenitent wrote:

nope... the form of dog expired with Plato...

you said it yourself "Only people are able to have such experiences."

-Imp
I would have thought that only people can only be self-conscious, self-aware and have hurt feelings. These are all experiential, but that is not the extent of experience.

If I go into my back yard my dog might run up to me with a ball in his mouth and drop it at my feet. I will say to myself, "I wish I had never started this dam game in the first place". Nonetheless, I will pick it up and throw it for him. After all he enjoys the game.
enjoys? your judgment of the dog's reflexive behavior is that it enjoys it...

-Imp

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:22 am

Impenitent wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
Impenitent wrote:

nope... the form of dog expired with Plato...

you said it yourself "Only people are able to have such experiences."

-Imp
I would have thought that only people can only be self-conscious, self-aware and have hurt feelings. These are all experiential, but that is not the extent of experience.

If I go into my back yard my dog might run up to me with a ball in his mouth and drop it at my feet. I will say to myself, "I wish I had never started this dam game in the first place". Nonetheless, I will pick it up and throw it for him. After all he enjoys the game.
enjoys? your judgment of the dog's reflexive behavior is that it enjoys it...

-Imp

"Plays" is also a judgement I make as well. I can't ask him if he enjoys playing the game. So are you saying there is nothing it is like for him to play fetch?

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:25 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
Ginkgo wrote: I would have thought that only people can only be self-conscious, self-aware and have hurt feelings. These are all experiential, but that is not the extent of experience.

If I go into my back yard my dog might run up to me with a ball in his mouth and drop it at my feet. I will say to myself, "I wish I had never started this dam game in the first place". Nonetheless, I will pick it up and throw it for him. After all he enjoys the game.
enjoys? your judgment of the dog's reflexive behavior is that it enjoys it...

-Imp

"Plays" is also a judgement I make as well. I can't ask him if he enjoys playing the game. So are you saying there is nothing it is like for him to play fetch?
"a computer can fool a person..."

as the dog does...

-Imp

(anthropomorphic error) ed.
Last edited by Impenitent on Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:33 am

Impenitent wrote:
"a computer can fool a person..."

as the dog does...

-Imp

(anthropocentric error)
So when I drop a brick on his tail and he yelps and whimpers he is not really feeling pain he is only ACTING like he is in pain?
Last edited by Ginkgo on Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:36 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
"a computer can fool a person..."

as the dog does...

-Imp

(anthropomorphic error) ed.
So when I drop a brick on his tail and he yelps and whimpers he is not really feeling pain the is only ACTING like he is in pain?
your judgment of the dog's reflexive behavior is that it is in pain...

-Imp

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:41 am

Impenitent wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
"a computer can fool a person..."

as the dog does...

-Imp

(anthropomorphic error) ed.
So when I drop a brick on his tail and he yelps and whimpers he is not really feeling pain the is only ACTING like he is in pain?
your judgment of the dog's reflexive behavior is that it is in pain...

-Imp

From this I will assume you are saying that he is not really experiencing any pain and that there is nothing it is like for him to have a brick dropped on his tail.

Would you be happy saying this?

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:59 am

what I am saying is that you are positing human emotions on a non human...

this leads to absurdities like certain utilitarianist ethical systems in which the pain of 1000 animals outweighs the pain of your child...

check singer...

-Imp

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:17 pm

Impenitent wrote:what I am saying is that you are positing human emotions on a non human...

this leads to absurdities like certain utilitarianist ethical systems in which the pain of 1000 animals outweighs the pain of your child...

check singer...

-Imp
Consciousness if of course a controversial topic. Animal consciousness more so. I am attributing some attributes of human consciousness to animals while at the same time saying that animal consciousness is very much different to human consciousness. So I acknowledge the good point you are making in this regard.

In this particular case I am not doing ethics. As you know Utilitarianism is a moral theory that is a prescription for the way people ought to act. Mine is not a normative theory in terms of saying if animal consciousness is desirable or not. I am actually doing ontology, but if I were doing ethics (and I am not) my argument would be closer to a meta ethical theory.

Having said all of this I think that most people would acknowledge that dogs have the experience of pain and they can attend to things. In this way they share a couple of aspects of human consciousness.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:21 am

Impenitent wrote:can an artificial, biologically bodyless mind can be equated to a mental activity encased in a biological housing?

-Imp
What if the bodiless mind was not artificial, but instead, an entity whose unconscious existence predated the universe?

Greylorn

uwot
Posts: 4394
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by uwot » Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:12 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:What if the bodiless mind was not artificial, but instead, an entity whose unconscious existence predated the universe?

Greylorn
Well, in that case at least part of beon theory would be true. Perhaps you were following the discussion with Immanuel Can; he does the same as you, and astrologers, and psychoanalysts, all sorts of well meaning scientific prophets and disciples, as well as cranks and charlatans and every religious person ever: create a narrative, quite possibly a logically valid one, and then takes the conclusions as proven. Any such story may be true, but if you want scientists to take it seriously, you have to provide evidence that the initial premises are sound. You might get away with a piece of watertight logic if you are talking to a philosopher, but insisting that the premises are true, because the argument is valid, ie: you have to read the whole book to understand it, will only work on people willing to suspend judgement. There are plenty of those, we all do it to some degree, but finding them is all down to marketing and charm; which is why you're struggling.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:40 pm

uwot wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:What if the bodiless mind was not artificial, but instead, an entity whose unconscious existence predated the universe?

Greylorn
Well, in that case at least part of beon theory would be true. Perhaps you were following the discussion with Immanuel Can; he does the same as you, and astrologers, and psychoanalysts, all sorts of well meaning scientific prophets and disciples, as well as cranks and charlatans and every religious person ever: create a narrative, quite possibly a logically valid one, and then takes the conclusions as proven. Any such story may be true, but if you want scientists to take it seriously, you have to provide evidence that the initial premises are sound. You might get away with a piece of watertight logic if you are talking to a philosopher, but insisting that the premises are true, because the argument is valid, ie: you have to read the whole book to understand it, will only work on people willing to suspend judgement. There are plenty of those, we all do it to some degree, but finding them is all down to marketing and charm; which is why you're struggling.
uwot,

Surely your last sentence is about my lack of marketing skills? :?

Any presentation of alternative ideas requires the person evaluating them to suspend judgement until he has perused and evaluated them. That is why Charles Darwin wrote his theories of evolution in books. By their nature and the investment one must make to obtain a book, books are more likely to be studied and evaluated than ideas presented in a casual conversation.

I detest writing, and would prefer to go out in the woods with firearm or chainsaw and bring something useful home; or even better, go dancing with pretty young women with big tits. So for decades I tried to present Beon Theory by word of mouth. Impossible. Most people's minds are looking for flaws in the presentation before I've uttered two sentences, as soon as they realize that B.T. runs contrary to their beliefs. It always does, because B.T. differs from all belief systems, including atheism.

So I finally killed ten years writing my book. The next trick is to get someone with enough intelligence to comprehend it to take the time to read it. I knew that this would be difficult, but I had no clue as to how difficult. Speed readers are a real problem. The speed-reading brain grasps strings of words but cannot absorb more than one minor newish concept amid 5000 words. DUAS contains about 40-50 unique concepts, including several that are certain to challenge the beliefs and opinions of any well-educated person.

There is superb evidence for Beon Theory, superior in both quantity and quality to the evidence for its competitors. I'm referring to evidence that has already been discovered, within fields as varied as physics, psychology, neurology, biology. Some is complex, like split-brain research. Some is exceedingly simple.

For example, Beon Theory nicely explains the phenomenon of "handedness," the preference in humans to use either right or left hand for operations requiring careful focus and control. Conventional theories of the mind have been unable to explain this, and thus direct their energies to pretending that animals operate similarly, which they do not. (I'm guessing that porpoises and dolphins will exhibit right/left preferences, however.)

On the complex side, B.T. has an explanation of Quantum Mechanics, particularly the "why" aspect of this phenomenon. It also explains why we can only deal with it mathematically at the level of probability theory.

Back to the simple side, Beon Theory happens to explain Dark Energy, incidentally. Etc. etc.

I'm certain that no intelligent, yet honest person, however prejudiced in favor of his/her/its programmed beliefs, would expect to understand complex and contrary ideas without carefully perusing a serious book describing them. Darwin seems to have felt the same way-- but perhaps the "philosophers" on this thread are an exception, capable of evaluating and understanding a theory involving input from nearly every branch of science, developed over a period of 50 years, from a few words on an internet blog. Have I underestimated philosophers so badly? Are they that effing brilliant?
_________

Long ago I looked at a few of I.Can's posts and found nothing to recommend them. Had I been following them, you'd know.

I do not treat my ideas as in any way given, or proven. I've taken that approach only with the ideas of others-- first, Catholicism and the American way; later, physics, medicine, general science. After realizing how badly I'd been conned by those well-meaning believers, I developed my own theories. I did my best to ground those ideas in well-proven facts, or theories that were well-supported by hard-won evidence.

To develop a complex theory one must operate under an assumption that it is a good theory, but not necessarily that it represents reality. From that perspective one can kick it around and evaluate what comes back, and modify the theory accordingly. Beon Theory was invented in 1960 and subsequently well kicked, by men smarter than me. The current version retains only vestigial tails from its original. So, kindly do not compare me to conventional believers and run-of-the-mill crackpots. I am not conventional, and could be the guru of all crackpots if I wanted such a silly job.

BTW, do you happen to know of any good internet Charm Schools to which I might apply?

Greylorn

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:14 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Impenitent wrote:can an artificial, biologically bodyless mind can be equated to a mental activity encased in a biological housing?

-Imp
What if the bodiless mind was not artificial, but instead, an entity whose unconscious existence predated the universe?

Greylorn
it still suffers from the anthropomorphic error

-Imp

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests