Yes. I was being lazy. I’m an extremely lazy person. God bless me. — Noah Te Stroete

You're also not forthcoming with any reasonable support for your bare assertions, and that's because you don't have any. You're just buying for time.

Could an artificial brain be conscious? — Noah Te Stroete

Yes. The question is how different from our own brains it can be, in terms of the specific materials, and in terms of its structure and function, while still being conscious. But definitely an artificial brain made out of the same materials, with just the same structure and processes of a human brain, would be conscious.

I am not claiming I know the nature of this “divine” consciousness of which I speak. Could it also be somehow instantiated in something physical? — Noah Te Stroete

Remember that I'm a physicalist, so my view is that if something exists, it's going to be physically instantiated whether we like it or not. ;-)

My point was that it is more likely that the physical world exists, and that a conscious mind that is working properly is more likely to perceive it usually accurately. This is an abductive inference. — Noah Te Stroete

I think the whole idea of likelihood for such things is nonsense. That has to do with what likelihood is.

When I use the term “better” as in it’s a “better explanation”, I suppose I am really saying that I prefer it. What else could I mean? Do you prefer the explanation that conscious life spontaneously came about? If so, what is your justification?

When I use the term “better” as in it’s a “better explanation”, I suppose I am really saying that I prefer it. What else could I mean? Do you prefer the explanation that conscious life spontaneously came about? If so, what is your justification? — Noah Te Stroete

It's not a matter of preference. Maybe it is for you, but that would mean that you don't care about the truth or being reasonable. I do.

And you started out claiming that it was highly likely. Have you abandoned that claim now?

I think the whole idea of likelihood for such things is nonsense. That has to do with what likelihood is. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps it’s nonsense. Perhaps not. One cannot have certain beliefs about certain things without abductive inference, which may just be a matter of preferences.

It's not a matter of preference. Maybe it is for you, but that would mean that you don't care about the truth or being reasonable. I do. — S

That’s a non answer.

One cannot have certain beliefs about certain things without abductive inference, which may just be a matter of preferences. — Noah Te Stroete

They're not.

They're not. — S

How so or why not?

That’s a non answer. — Noah Te Stroete

No it isn't. Your questions were wrong. I corrected you. The answer is that it isn't a matter of preference.

No it isn't. Your questions were wrong. I corrected you. The answer is that it isn't a matter of preference. — S

What is it a matter of then? “Inference to the ‘best’ explanation.” What does “best” mean here?

Perhaps it’s nonsense. Perhaps not. One cannot have certain beliefs about certain things without abductive inference, which may just be a matter of preferences. — Noah Te Stroete

Because likelihood makes no sense if we don't have data re frequency of occurrence. Even then there are problems with it, but we definitely can't reach a conclusion about it without data re frequency.

Because likelihood makes no sense if we don't have data re frequency of occurrence. Even then there are problems with it, but we definitely can't reach a conclusion about it without data re frequency. — Terrapin Station

Then one cannot hold any beliefs such as belief about a lot of metaphysical or ontological things. What about your beliefs about physicalism?

I don't have any likelihood beliefs about anything that I don't have frequency data for, unless I think either it's 1 ("100%" or certain) or 0--impossible/incoherent.

I don't have any likelihood beliefs about anything that I don't have frequency data for, unless I think either it's 1 ("100%" or certain) or 0--impossible/incoherent. — Terrapin Station

But you have a preference for physicalism. Perhaps I’m not using “likelihood” in abductive inference the same way I would use “likelihood” in statistics.

How so or why not? — Noah Te Stroete

Abductive inference is not a matter of preference. I shouldn't even have to explain something so obvious. It's a form of reasoning, not a matter of preference. Do you even know what you're talking about? Do you actually know what abductive inference is?

What is it a matter of then? “Inference to the ‘best’ explanation.” What does “best” mean here? — Noah Te Stroete

It could mean a number of things, but if it means most preferable to you, then you're not being reasonable, you're just being emotional.

Hi, I know I'm being held in existence by a Supreme Being. You don't like the reality doing the conserving, I don't have a problem with that, but it's an undeniable fact I'm being held in existence by that "Entity."

So, there is evidence everyone is aware of.

I’m an extremely lazy person. — Noah Te Stroete

Hard to do philosophy like that though, especially the hard questions.

Hard to do philosophy like that though, especially the hard questions. — Christoffer

I wasn't always this way. I just don't care as much as I once did. In fact, my giving-a-fuck factor has gone down exponentially in the last decade. :razz:

It could mean a number of things, but if it means most preferable to you, then you're not being reasonable, you're just being emotional. — S

I take it to mean most preferable to someone, if not most preferable to the experts. What could "best" possibly mean?

I wasn't always this way. I just don't care as much as I once did. In fact, my giving-a-fuck factor has gone down exponentially in the last decade. — Noah Te Stroete

That can be true for personal things, but I don't think it's preferable for philosophy. If people want trivialities, there's Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and so on to be lazy on. Being lazy in philosophical discourses means you really get nothing out of it and just spam discussions with irrelevant stuff. In the end, what do you want to accomplish with participating in philosophy discussions?

That can be true for personal things, but I don't think it's preferable for philosophy. If people want trivialities, there's Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and so on to be lazy on. Being lazy in philosophical discourses means you really get nothing out of it and just spam discussions with irrelevant stuff. In the end, what do you want to accomplish with participating in philosophy discussions? — Christoffer

Yes, and that goes for you too, Daniel Cox.

Hi, I know I'm being held in existence by a Supreme Being. You don't like the reality doing the conserving, I don't have a problem with that, but it's an undeniable fact I'm being held in existence by that "Entity."

So, there is evidence everyone is aware of. — Daniel Cox

That can be true for personal things, but I don't think it's preferable for philosophy. If people want trivialities, there's Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and so on to be lazy on. Being lazy in philosophical discourses means you really get nothing out of it and just spams discussions with irrelevant stuff. In the end, what do you want to accomplish with participating in philosophy discussions? — Christoffer

I feel like my positions are well-supported and thoughtful. I have read hundreds and hundreds of books on philosophy, physics, biology, psychology, history, and tons of classic literature; just not in the last decade. When you've been constantly harassed by the community for dropping out of law school, losing your mind, and going on disability for schizoaffective disorder; you tend not to give much of a fuck anymore.

I take it to mean most preferable to someone, if not most preferable to the experts. What could "best" possibly mean? — Noah Te Stroete

I don't believe you're incapable of thinking up what that could mean. Are you just being lazy again? It could mean something like most plausible or least problematic. It could be an assessment based on reason, logic, science, or Occam's razor.

I agree with what Christopher said. You're not really doing philosophy when you say something similar to, "I like cheese!". Good for you, but we're trying to do philosophy here.

And how is my position not supported by logic, reason, or Occam's razor? It certainly is not contradictory to science either.

Yet, what someone has done in life means nothing if they can't present an argument that is convincing and listening to the counter-arguments being said, changing the initial argument.

Philosophy is more about challenging one's own ideas to improve them, change them, find the truth closest to humanly possible through rational thinking. But most philosophical discussions I witness tend to be evangelical rants in some vague attempt to pick a fight online or some other trivial reason.

When my head feels like burning because I get challenged by really good counter-arguments, I know my knowledge is improving. If not, it's usually a waste of time.

I feel like my positions are well-supported and thoughtful. — Noah Te Stroete

But your position here is neither of those things. Myself and Terrapin exposed a fault in your argument and you've been unwilling or unable to salvage it. It has been refuted. The fault was easy to find. It took me less than a minute, I think.

But most philosophical discussions I witness tend to be evangelical rants in some vague attempt to pick a fight online or some other trivial reason.

When my head feels like burning because I get challenged by really good counter-arguments, I know my knowledge is improving. If not, it's usually a waste of time. — Christoffer

How am I evangelizing? You haven't addressed anything I've said.

Furthermore, what good counter-arguments?

But your position here is neither of those things. Myself and Terrapin exposed a fault in your argument and you've been unwilling or unable to salvage it. It has been refuted. — S

Point out where I went wrong.

And how is my position not supported by logic, reason, or Occam's razor? It certainly is not contradictory to science either. — Noah Te Stroete

It may well be, but you still haven't shown this, and you still have the burden of doing so.

Point out where I went wrong. — Noah Te Stroete

I already have. Just retrace my replies. That's not difficult.