Really now, Garrett. Are you claiming transistors have nothing to do with computers? — RogueAI
The logical equivalent of your line of inquiry is asking me if I'm talking about heat-sinks, or circuits. — Garrett Travers
What part do you disagree with? — RogueAI
In the digital world, a transistor is a binary switch and the fundamental building block of computer circuitry." — RogueAI
I'm an immaterialist. — RogueAI
I don't agree the comic, but I've had discussions with computationalists who do. — RogueAI
Your position sounds like computationalism, but you seem uncomfortable exploring what a conscious computer would entail. — RogueAI
Suppose we make a functional equivalent to a working brain out of transistors, rheostats, and other electronics. Would it be conscious? — RogueAI
Suppose we make a functional equivalent to a working brain out of transistors, rheostats, and other electronics. Would it be conscious?
— RogueAI
No. — Garrett Travers
What do you think would happen to your consciousness if you had that done to you? — RogueAI
1. If you dont experience other people's mental states then how do you know about them? What form does your knowledge of other people's mental states take?
— Harry Hindu
I don't know about them. Other people have to tell me about them. Same as everyone. — Garrett Travers
Now I'm disappointed. I thought you were going to provide some links to the research of how brains produce mental states. Instead I get an ad hominem. Please don't let my name fool you into thinking that I'm a mystical woo person.This is mystical woo. You only ever experience what your brain produces for you as experience. Absolutely nothing else, ever. This sensory model of the world is actually data accrued and organized by the brain it recieved from the world. And no, you don't look at other people's mental states, that would be telepathic. What you experience is the presence of other humans WITH mental states just like yours, but to which each is exclusively bound to, respectively.
Experience: practical contact with and observation of facts or events.
This is not something applicable between mental states. This is the sensory data recieved by the brain to create that model of the world of yours. — Garrett Travers
1. If you dont experience other people's mental states then how do you know about them? What form does your knowledge of other people's mental states take?
— Harry Hindu
I don't know about them. Other people have to tell me about them. Same as everyone.
— Garrett Travers
If you don't know about mental states, then doesn't that pull the rug out from under your arguments? How can you talk about something that you don't know?
I am not confined to my experience of my brain. Like I said, I don't experience my brain. I experience a sensory model of the world. I experience brains when looking at other people's mental states.
— Harry Hindu
This is mystical woo. You only ever experience what your brain produces for you as experience. Absolutely nothing else, ever. This sensory model of the world is actually data accrued and organized by the brain it recieved from the world. And no, you don't look at other people's mental states, that would be telepathic. What you experience is the presence of other humans WITH mental states just like yours, but to which each is exclusively bound to, respectively.
Experience: practical contact with and observation of facts or events.
This is not something applicable between mental states. This is the sensory data recieved by the brain to create that model of the world of yours.
— Garrett Travers
Now I'm disappointed. I thought you were going to provide some links to the research of how brains produce mental states. Instead I get an ad hominem. Please don't let my name fool you into thinking that I'm a mystical woo person.
What is "you" and where is "you" relative to your brain?
The issue here is that you can't seem to explain how a physical brain produces mental states, or even clarify what you mean by such a statement. You aren't even sure that mental states exist because you claim to not know about mental states, yet assert that they are produced by the brain. In what way are they produced?
If you only experience what your brain produces for you to experience, doesn't that mean other people's brains? How do you get at the states of the world via what your brain produces (mental states)?
Personally, I think it is wrong to imply causality to brain and mental states, as in they are produced. Instead, it's more helpful to think of brains and mental states as the same thing - just from different views (one is viewed and the other is the view - viewing the view, or thinking about thinking, or knowing that you know are sensory feedback loops (cartesian theatres).
I believe the answers will come from an amalgam of neurosicence, quantum physics and process philosophy. QM needs to get it's grip on explaining the observer effect. — Harry Hindu
Brain states are mental states. — Garrett Travers
Brain states are mental states. — Garrett Travers
Imagine we have two ancient Greeks conversing about their mental states. They talk about being happy to see their kids grow up, and about the aches and pains of being old. You would agree they are exchanging meaningful information about their mental states with each other, right?
Now, let's stipulate that these ancient Greeks had no idea what the brain does. Even worse, they believe the function of the brain is to cool the blood. And yet, if mental states are brain states, and the two Greeks are meaningfully exchanging information about their mental states, it follows that they are also meaningfully exchanging information about their brain states. But that is clearly impossible, since they have no idea what brain states even are, and are clueless about what the function of the brain is. — RogueAI
Thoughts don't exist, — Garrett Travers
There are thoughts, I experience thoughts, but thoughts do not exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm
There are thoughts, I experience thoughts, but thoughts do not exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm
That's correct. — Garrett Travers
There are thoughts, but thoughts do not exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I posted a slew of neuroscience journals in a comment to Rouge AI's above, you guys really need to read those. — Garrett Travers
Neuroscience is irrelevant here. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Neuroscience is the ONLY thing that is relavent here. — Garrett Travers
Thoughts are neuronal processes, period, end of story. In — Garrett Travers
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.