Consciousness requires something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine?

[Darkneos]

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.

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

[bahman]

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.

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!

[Darkneos]

Could you please elaborate?


No. I prove that there is a mind.

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

[bahman]

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.

No, you didn't.

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

You are free to let it go but you failed to show that my argument is wrong.

[Darkneos]

So you fail since you reject to elaborate!

I did already.

No, you didn't.

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

You are free to let it go but you failed to show that my argument is wrong.

Already did, check back over the pages.

And again the conclusion doesn’t follow. Nothing says mind is doing all this you’re just asserting it’s mind. It’s the god of the gaps/argument from ignorance.

[bahman]

I did already.

No, you didn't.

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

You are free to let it go but you failed to show that my argument is wrong.

Already did, check back over the pages.

Could you please point me to the post? I cannot find your reasoning for what my argument is wrong.

And again the conclusion doesn’t follow. Nothing says mind is doing all this you’re just asserting it’s mind. It’s the god of the gaps/argument from ignorance.

No, the conclusion does follow.

[Darkneos]

No, you didn't.


You are free to let it go but you failed to show that my argument is wrong.

Already did, check back over the pages.

Could you please point me to the post? I cannot find your reasoning for what my argument is wrong.

And again the conclusion doesn’t follow. Nothing says mind is doing all this you’re just asserting it’s mind. It’s the god of the gaps/argument from ignorance.

No, the conclusion does follow.

It’s page three, I literally showed how all your premises aren’t true.

Furthermore your conclusion doesn’t follow. None of what you said would imply it’s mind. Not that it matters, there is no evidence for a mind.

[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. X and y can occur at the same time, the process would just be instant but still change.

If X and Y occur at the same point in time then the process is simultaneous. How could there be a change in a simultaneous process?

“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.

It means. A gap means that there is first X then nothing then Y.

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

The conclusion does follow as a matter of necessity. Simply if there is a gap and there is a change then there must be something that can cause Y given X.

[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. X and y can occur at the same time, the process would just be instant but still change.

If X and Y occur at the same point in time then the process is simultaneous. How could there be a change in a simultaneous process?

“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.

It means. A gap means that there is first X then nothing then Y.

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

The conclusion does follow as a matter of necessity. Simply if there is a gap and there is a change then there must be something that can cause Y given X.

The process would be instant, the change still happens. Also there is no gap. There is X and then there is Y. There is never nothing, nothing doesn’t exist.

The conclusion does follow as a matter of necessity. Simply if there is a gap and there is a change then there must be something that can cause Y given X.

Nope. There is no gap. Also there doesn’t have to be something that can cause Y given X. Again this is just reading like you want mind to be true. Cause and effect happens every day without mind being involved.

Even if your logic was sound NOTHING about this implies it has to be mind, it could be god, or flying pixies that are invisible. Even the phrase “must be something” is begging the question.

In short it’s nothing but bad logic that, even if true, doesn’t prove mind just asserts it HAS TO BE mind despite not demonstrating the existence of such a mind.

[commonsense]

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—

Doesn’t the above post look like Darkness’ assessment of your argument? Do you need more rebuttal from him?

[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. X and y can occur at the same time, the process would just be instant but still change.

If X and Y occur at the same point in time then the process is simultaneous. How could there be a change in a simultaneous process?

“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.

It means. A gap means that there is first X then nothing then Y.

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

The conclusion does follow as a matter of necessity. Simply if there is a gap and there is a change then there must be something that can cause Y given X.

The process would be instant, the change still happens.

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

Also there is no gap. There is X and then there is Y. There is never nothing, nothing doesn’t exist.

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

The conclusion does follow as a matter of necessity. Simply if there is a gap and there is a change then there must be something that can cause Y given X.

Nope. There is no gap. Also there doesn’t have to be something that can cause Y given X.

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

Again this is just reading like you want mind to be true. Cause and effect happens every day without mind being involved.

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

Even if your logic was sound NOTHING about this implies it has to be mind, it could be god, or flying pixies that are invisible.

I call it the mind.

Even the phrase “must be something” is begging the question.

No, it is not.

In short it’s nothing but bad logic that, even if true, doesn’t prove mind just asserts it HAS TO BE mind despite not demonstrating the existence of such a mind.

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

[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. 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—

Doesn’t the above post look like Darkness’ assessment of your argument? Do you need more rebuttal from him?

He edited that post and I missed it first. I answered that post so the discussion is not over.

[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.

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.

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.

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

Cause and effect can indeed be simultaneous.

I call it the mind.

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

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.

[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.

[Darkneos]

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.