Are There Other Minds On Youtube? (Part 3)

Here below is the most recent exchange, part 1 is here, part two is here.  I now realize that maybe I dumped too many links in this response, and it would take forever for someone to actually read them.  I think when I wrote this I just assumed the person wouldn’t read them anyways, but I wanted anyone else who was reading along to be able to get a deeper view.

cindyisa10

+bpansky“You are very confused and are giving more red herrings (talking about evolution and survival is irrelevant, you must admit that if a god created p-zombies, they would still appear to believe that each other had inner consciousness, and you would look at them and think they are the same etc. so the whole issue remains)”

Not so fast. You obviously don’t understand what a p-zombie is, do you? Any physical system that lacks self-awareness can be logically argued to be a p-zombie. I’ve simply asked you for testable hypothesis where a third-party observer can empirically verify that the physical system in question has self-awareness. My computer executes instruction sets. It performs math functions. It’s a zombie information processing system. Would you disagree?

“Your ranting is becoming alarmingly ignorant (awareness of pain isn’t necessary for survival? What?!?)”

It’s simple. When you touch your hand on a stove, you react and pull your hand away WITHOUT being aware of it. All your behaviors can be this way. There’s no need for self-awareness in any part of your physical system.

“Justified belief is a huge topic, but I think it is is a red herring here because I assume we all accept logic and reason and evidence. And I think that’s all I need to use here.”

Your talk about logic and reason is self-refuting on Naturalism. What’s perplexing is that YOU didn’t rationally arrive to the conclusion that atheistic Naturalism is true. Rather, the sub-atomic particles that comprise you dictated it. ALL your actions, thoughts, behaviors, and BELIEFS are FULLY dictated by the current configuration of sub-atomic particles in your head. Again, you DON’T have any say in the matter because the universe wrote your script. PHYSICS RULES. Are you under an illusory spell that you somehow have freewill and can violate the laws of physics? Under Naturalism, NONE OF US come to discover truth volitionally or rationally. Physics causes you to fizz atheistically and causes others to fizz theistically, agnostically, etc… What’s even worse is that when a man rapes a child, although he’ll suffer the consequences, he can’t be morally blamed or praised because he can only dance to his DNA. With the above said, WHY do you ask such questions about reality when YOU don’t have a say in the matter? Perhaps silicon computers are closer to reality. They neither grieve, nor have emotions, nor care, nor have self-awareness, nor complain about morals. Only they can fully live Carrier’s scientific life. LOL

“Your insistence that atheism and Naturalism entail p-zombies is typical, but nonsense. P-zombies are nonsense, and have been debunked numerous times. Just go to the Wikipedia page if you like. Googling “The Intentional Stance” might also be helpful.”

Really? P-zombies have not been debunked. Computers are physical systems that execute instruction sets without requiring self-awareness. I’ve also demonstrated that you can react to pain without the need to be aware of it. You can’t simply dismiss this epistemological problem and pretend there isn’t one. This is a typical move made by lazy atheists in attempts to avoid the implications and remain committed to their a-priori Naturalism. My computer is a zombie information processing system? Right?

“…I said that predictions have to be based on a hypothesis. But a hypothesis has to be coherent. P-zombies have never been coherent. Thus it does not predict any of the evidence. This is why I listed some of my evidence as questions about how else it would be possible.”

I don’t EVER recall suggesting p-zombies as a hypothesis. How did you come up with this? I simply asked YOU to provide a hypothesis that can test if a physical system, other than yourself, IS self-aware and has inner mental qualia. Does Star Trek’s character ‘Data’ “PREDICT” any of the evidence of self-awareness? Until you DEMONSTRATE to a third-party observer that you or anyone else is actually sentient and self-aware, you can’t claim to KNOW through means of the scientific method that other physical systems are in fact self-aware. WHY? No one has access to your inner mental life but you. You have provided nothing but a weak inference. Sorry!!!

“I could pick apart your other points too, but that would be a waste of time. Let’s please try to avoid derailing with red herrings.”

I would LOVE you to do so because I’m barely scratching the surface with the several problems with Carrier’s Atheistic Naturalism and so-called scientific life. This is NOT a waste of time. It is central to finding truth.


MY REPLY

I’d like to point out that I could (if I wanted) just point to what Richard Carrier has actually written (for instance in his book Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism) and I could correctly say that your position is debunked. He goes over free will, the physical mind, reason, morality, and so many other things. Your complaints show me that you haven’t read what he has actually said.

“Not so fast. You obviously don’t understand what a p-zombie is, do you? Any physical system that lacks self-awareness can be logically argued to be a p-zombie.”

I don’t see what this has to do with the part you were replying to. Maybe you were confused where I said that a zombie had a “belief”. Well, just change that to “behaved exactly as though it were a person with that belief”. Obviously.

“P-zombies have not been debunked. Computers are physical systems that execute instruction sets without requiring self-awareness.”
Well sure, not all computers are aware or conscious or have experience. So what? P-zombies have still been debunked.

“I don’t EVER recall suggesting p-zombies as a hypothesis. How did you come up with this?”

Here you’re a bit confused about what I was saying. You asked me why I believe in other minds: I’m just answering that I believe this because it is the only coherent hypothesis that fits the evidence. Don’t freak out on me for trying to answer your questions.

“I’ve simply asked you for testable hypothesis where a third-party observer can empirically verify that the physical system in question has self-awareness.”

(I thought I gave a good enough response to this) Anyways, there are already scientific tests like this. They have been applied to many animals, and some do show evidence of self-awareness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#Animals

With people it is easier: just ask them about themselves. It is incoherent to say that they are somehow able to process and then give such information without being self aware. Doing so requires self-awareness.

“My computer executes instruction sets. It performs math functions. It’s a zombie information processing system. Would you disagree?”

I think some computer processes may have a type of experience. If they do the things that experience accomplishes. Duh.

“When you touch your hand on a stove, you react and pull your hand away WITHOUT being aware of it. All your behaviors can be this way.”

False, not all behaviours. For example, again, when people tell me what they are aware of.

Try evidence instead of a-priori assertions. I think Daniel Dennett is correct when he says that people don’t know how big of a task it is to actually conceive of a full zombie.

“Your talk about logic and reason is self-refuting on Naturalism.”

Typical assertion. I notice it is presented without the slightest shred of evidence. But that’s just as well because it has been debunked so thoroughly already here:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/3b.html

and here:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/rea.html

and more here

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/reppert.html

“What’s perplexing is that YOU didn’t rationally arrive to the conclusion that atheistic Naturalism is true. Rather, the sub-atomic particles that comprise you dictated it.”

I did rationally arrive at this conclusion, and I did so by being a physical system capable of these kinds of processes.

“Are you under an illusory spell that you somehow have freewill and can violate the laws of physics?”

Nope. Compatibilist Free Will unites Free Will with the physics of the universe.

“Under Naturalism, NONE OF US come to discover truth volitionally or rationally. Physics causes you to fizz atheistically and causes others to fizz theistically, agnostically, etc… What’s even worse is that when a man rapes a child, although he’ll suffer the consequences, he can’t be morally blamed or praised because he can only dance to his DNA. With the above said, WHY do you ask such questions about reality when YOU don’t have a say in the matter? Perhaps silicon computers are closer to reality. They neither grieve, nor have emotions, nor care, nor have self-awareness, nor complain about morals. Only they can fully live Carrier’s scientific life. LOL”

Lol more evidence that you haven’t read Carrier. Now you’re in unhinged rant mode. Each of these topics: our ability to reason, morality, and experience, our motivations and values, are all handled just fine by Naturalism. Carrier has written about all of them. Many other people have used science on these issues as well ( for example, see the wikipedia page for Scientific Morality).

http://www.richardcarrier.info/naturalism.html

http://infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/

I’m not sure how to condense all of it into bite size pieces I can write here. If you really care what I believe about these subjects (or what Carrier believes) maybe I can go into more detail. For now I’m not sure you actually do care. Even in the video you are commenting on, I’m pretty sure he debunked some of this nonsense you think about morality. So maybe you didn’t watch carefully enough.

“remain committed to their a-priori Naturalism”

No I don’t believe Naturalism a-priori. There has even been a real science paper published that talks about how we could test and discover supernatural entities if they existed:

[Link]

Plus (again) Carrier himself has talked about this. I’ve even argued the point against other atheists/naturalists over at Pharyngula and Rationalwiki. Some of them are noobs who think that everything that exists is “natural” by definition, but that’s a silly word game.

“I’m barely scratching the surface with the several problems with Carrier’s Atheistic Naturalism and so-called scientific life. This is NOT a waste of time. It is central to finding truth.”

Again, you don’t seem to even know what his position is. Go read his book “Sense and Goodness Without God: A defense of Metaphysical Naturalism” and also see his online writings for even more if you want. They go far beyond the surface.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s