I promise to never reach your level betise-ness.

How do you create a brain without the history forming it? — Christoffer

Im not quite sure i understand this question.

Is this suggesting that previous 'versions' of the brain influence the current 'version'? Cause i'm just not seeing what would be missing from the artificial 'brain'. What is the 'history' you're noting, and where is it located in the 'real' brain?

Consciousness in us develop from our childhood, through life up until death. Neuroplasticity does not stop and the formation is part of developing everything about us. — Christoffer

Yes, I agree, but that's just because the brain keeps existing throughout that time. No reason to think the same wouldn't happen in an almost-identical system allowed to exist over time. Although, perhaps that's the 'magical' bit we can't quite explain yet.

Just turning on a brain that has no history and is just a bunch of neurons that has no developed relations in terms of formed memories etc. will only lead to a hallucinating mess of a person. — Christoffer

Is this your conception of a new-born? At what point in gestation did the brain become 'populated' enough to avoid this problem? How is the development of memory in an artificial (but materially identical) brain-computer system different to that in the brain? I agree, that a brain/mind with no concepts would be an absolutely nightmarish substrate for experience. I just don't see how there's a difference in development between the two - Or, at least, I want to know what you think makes the difference.

That consciousness forms is one thing, but that it forms into a human mind requires the development to be identical to a human brain developing. — Christoffer

Why? What's the special part that makes it a human consciousness? Or a human brain? I just cannot see what property is making a difference. Using the term 'human' doesn't seem to help, and a materially identical brain would be.. human..

If you were to copy a human consciousness, you might need to simulate the entire life. Starting with a newborn perfect copy based on some evolutionary template of a person in real life. Then let that simulation and perfect copy, within a simulated body, grow as a normal child until being grown and only then will you see a simulated human mind in action and fully functioning. That's the only way to go from scratch. — Christoffer

Why are you looking for a fully-developed adult consciousness? Why aren't you looking for a new-born consciousness? It may be that i agree with this assessment, and have no idea why this wasn't the intention to begin with. I suppose this goes to other questions though.

If you could merely simulate the experience of a life for that artificial consciousness, would it have the same effect? And if so, are we accepting that a simulated life is materially equal to a non-simulated one, in terms of brain/conscious development?

But why is it a simulation? If an artificial brain is inserted into an artificial body and let develop in the same temporal way a human develops, why wouldn't it develop the same way?

When someone tells you who they are, believe them. — LuckyR

I tend to think this is a veil for trusting your overwrought assumptions in most cases.

As I described in how we can theorize why humans developed this type of consciousness that we have. An evolutionary path that directed towards a certain goal for us, in my example, an evolutionary trait of adaptability. — Christoffer

Just like my example with the flower forming to a shape and color it cannot see, but still develop, so can our brain and body develop info a form that acts according to the need of adaptability. — Christoffer

HI Christoffer,

Don't think we've interacted before, so Hi :)

Why would these preclude an identical systematical object producing consciousness? Surely an 'artificial' system which is based upon the current iteration of the human brain, in all it's complexity, would include all of the results of that developmental period, thus providing a commensurate system that 'takes into account' the goals which its development 'pushed toward'?

I'm not tied to that, so my question then becomes: How does the 'history' change the actual 'formula' which results in consciousness? Is this a meld of physical and non-physical properties? Unless the conception of 'evolution' is somewhat woo woo I'm not quite understanding what is 'present in' the brain, whcih would not be 'present in' the almost-identical artificial system?

By "prima facie", do you mean - before all other beliefs are considered? If so, that just seems to say that all logical possibilities should be on the table. But they ought not to remain on the table for long. You based your belief on knowing your wife. — Relativist

Yes, 'on the face of it', i.e I cannot see how that is a given. It makes no sense to me on the face of it.

Yes, I agree. But without reason nothing changes about what's on the table. I would need something confirming one way or the other. But, this goes to the obvious and critical difference between the two examples we're using.

I don't know your wife, but I feel pretty strongly that no extraterrestrial aliens that look like humans have ever come to earth, so I feel justified in believing she's not an alien, — Relativist

Fair enough. That's a reason to think it's unlikely, but you have no knowledge, and so a belief is unwarranted. But that doesn't matter much to me - THey would have the same practical effect.

We agree that the rock is something we ought to withhold judgement (or abstain) on.

We also agree that your belief that your wife isn't an alien is reasonable. I hope you agree that MY belief about your wife is also reasonable, in that it follows from my prior belief about aliens. — Relativist

Neat. Then the contradiction remains...
I didn't claim to believe that.

It's logically possible your wife's an alien, but logical possibility is too weak to support a belief or even a suspicion. — Relativist

I don't believe she is. I don't believe she isn't. Again - what's hte problem? There seems to be a black and white fallacy here - you're importing a belief into my wording where there isn't any. Confusing a bit.

Similarly with unicorns and gods. — Relativist

These are not the same (on my view). The hypothetical rock and hte Unicorn could be - they seem equally unlikely (an exact cabbage shaped rock on the moon, corresponding with the one in my fridge? Come on...) Both logically possible though, so I simply give them no serious thought. I don't 'believe' anything about htem. There's nothing to believe or deny. I have no information or reasons to judge.
A deistic God is discoverable, too. So you need a reason to entertain it? Or is the unlikelihood and lack of evidence enough? Because that seems to contradict your position on Unicorns and my wife being an Alien.

I can see how you'd take this as some form of extreme skepticism - and fair enough, if that's what i'm doing - but as far as i can tell, I am not doing that. I am making a distinction between unobservable possibilities and ones which would be confirmed or denied by empirical data (this, to my mind is the difference between Theism and Deism, as will be obvious by now im sure).

Sure, a different epistemological process is fine, as long as it's a methodology that tends to lead to truth. — Relativist

If there is no observability/falsifiability in the concept (Theistic God) there is no truth to be lead to.

I don't preclude using the term think "agnostic", but I think it's useful to describe what one is agnostic about. As I said, I am agnostic to deism - although you disagree with me saying that, I guess. — Relativist

This is because, as far as I'm concerned (and, I don't actually see this as an interpretation) you are misusing the word/s. Deism entails discoverability. Agnosticism entails no discoverability in the subject one is agnostic about. So, is it not clear on that account that you cannot by an agnostic deist?

Unhelpful for what? As I said, I think the terms we use to describe ourselves are nothing more than imperfect introductions to our positions. Adhering to your preferred semantics doesn't seem like it would make the terms any more than that, either. I've described my position in a bit of detail, and I don't think your terms (anti-theist/deist) captures it any better than "atheist agnostic-deist, and possibly even worse. — Relativist

Your final sentence here is an answer to your first. Its entirely incoherent and seems to just absolutely ignore the linguistic inaccuracy and falseness, relative to your expounded position. If you believe in a theistic God, you cannot be an atheist. If you believe in the material, mind-independent world, you cannot be an idealist. If you entertain a deistic God, you cannot also be agnostic because the deistic God is discoverable. They are incompatible positions.

Look, your point is taken, but I see it as an attempt to maintain incongruent positions because you can use language that refers to things you are not entitled to refer yourself to, because you think words are imprecise. Not untrue - but to me, that's a bit of a cop-out, despite recognizing the potential futility of trying to 'standardize' the use of these words. They need to be.

Perfect example is that final sentence I noted - I didn't suggest it was an accurate label. I illustrated that the words we currently use do not capture your position - not because it doesn't fit into the definitions, but because the definitions actively preclude a deist from claiming God is not knowable. I suggested a new set of words to illustrate positions relative to deism, and separately, theism.

This seems an inarguably more fruitful project than just waffling on to each other about positions that don't comport with the terms we're using for them.

Consciousness emerging from anything we currently know of, seems magical to me.
The idea that a system which mimics hte brain can result in conscious experience seems to comport with the fact that the brain does either produce, or receive consciousness. What's special about hte brain?

I realise, that is the question to some degree - I just have no reason to think it is yet.

The statement you quoted said, "or at the very least it is the order, event A is prior to event B". Does that not already answer your question about causal order? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. It described a necessary aspect, by causal law.
It has nothign to do with how those changes occur, or in what medium.

The other features which make up the description of the physical change are the material elements and their spatial description. — Metaphysician Undercover

I find this unhelpful. This would seem an intuitive truism, but it explains nought about what's actually happening between A and B, other than the changes. What is the actually difference between point A and point B? If it's merely the changes in any given object, then we have infinite 'times' to deal with.
It's just observational stringency as best I can tell. The answer may be that we don't know or have the language though.

Therefore something must happen between A and C, and between C and B, to account for these differences. — Metaphysician Undercover

And this is what I'm asking about...

So do I but I can't learn anything from time-wasting questions like yours which a close, or careful, reading of my posts make unnecessary. Lazy (shallow) responses get old quick – especially semantic muddles & word salads. Disagreements are great only when they are substantive and thereby facilitate reciprocal learning. — 180 Proof

Your attitude betrays a lack of self-awareness. I don't have time for that - So it seems were in agreement, regardless

Take care mate :)

They don't want to entertain the possibility that there is no physical brain, that idealism might be the case. They're so opposed to idealism, they will seriously consider they might be zombies or "there is something it's like to be a sewer system". — RogueAI

I don't see any issue with biting this bullet. I already bite the p-zombies one.

New Zealand I recall did pretty well.
5d — TiredThinker

In terms of lives lost? Yep. In terms of everything else whatsoever? Absolutely not.

Time is the rate at which state A changes to state B, or at the very least it is the order, state A is prior to state. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see. If 'time' is the rate, what is the medium of change? As in, what actually represents the change (given the causal order requirement, such as 'cause' can be used here), as opposed to it's ratio compared to ...other changes?

To say something happens 'more quickly' than something else seems to infer that there's a ratio OF something.. 'change' isn't an actual thing, so just wondering what is being referred to there.

I think i saw zero films from 2023.

That is why no single change constitutes time — Metaphysician Undercover

Surely, even a single change represents the same as many.. It still has to 'traverse' from state A to state B - which is, as i take it, what constitutes time here..

Rewatching BBC Sherlock - about to hit His Last Vow - potential the best television episode of all time ;)

That's a whole 'nother level. I've never seen anything like it. — Leontiskos

This version is also utterly incredible.

:smirk:

I’m afraid I can’t. As stupid and belligerent as the affair might have been, the political class has been largely insulated from the pathologies they have unleashed on the country. For a few hours on January 6th they weren’t. — NOS4A2

Fair enough. I guess i'll take you describing Jan 6 as pathological as a win though lol. To note: that's exactly how BLM proponents feel.

Right. Richard Dawkins became popular, atheism became fashionable, atheists started debating with theists all over the place, and then atheists found that it was easier to argue when they don't have any burden of proof, and thus there was a popular attempt to redefine the word 'atheism' to connote a mere lack of belief. It is a superficial but also an uninteresting position. — Leontiskos

This is painfully bad commentary but as you are Catholic, it is unsurprising.

Bleeding Sun - Samuel Sagan

Process and Reality - Alfred North-Whitehead.

I do think that's fair.

But can you not see that a direct attack on the Whitehouse (literally storming it, occupying political offices and stealing government intel - lets leave aside whether Trump wanted that) is absolutely a serious, serious problem that raises it to a similar level of undesirability?

@Wayfarer Oh come on, the sandbox is fun!! LOL. No. I agree with you. The insults aren't good.

Yeah. But the absolute best case you can possibly make, given the facts (and let's assume Wayfarer is being naive here.. I know you do, but I don't) is that the entire system is fucked, no one likes it, and we're bound to have these events under such a divisive and intense social milieu. I fail to see how there's any appreciable difference here.

Which I'd agree with. I see "BLM riots X Jan 6" as a coin with heads on both sides. They relevant demos hate each other, and act accordingly. It only makes sense they would be comparable and equally illegitimate, undesirable and clearly dangerous.

There is no article at your link. No idea why, as it's there under the same title

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Washington,_D.C.#:~:text=Washington%2C%20D.C.%2C%20the%20capital%20of,Floyd%20riots%20in%20Washington%2C%20D.C.

The riot I was speaking about in particular was the assault on the whitehouse — NOS4A2

Which one? Super-unclear if you're cryptically referring to something other htan Jan 6.

They were civil disobedience. And I don't accept that there is a 'moral equivalence' between those protests, and the Trump insurrection — Wayfarer

No, not at all, they aren't equivalent. The BLM protests are morally worse on your account by way of resulting in more damage, more death and more net-negative for society.

That is part of the spin that MAGA has put on it to try and whitewash the insurrection. — Wayfarer

This hits me as viscerally ironic... You're defending death and destruction because its on the side you agree with? Both are civil disobedience, so im not sure what empirical difference you intend to use to make the moral difference obvious.

Who is saying that riots and civil disorder is a good thing? Comparing the BLM protests to the attack on the US Capital aimed at over-turning the election result is classic Trump 'whataboutism'. It's not going to go unchallenged. — Wayfarer

Hmm.. As noted, they are not analogous, but they both intended to upend institutional power systems, they both resulted from essentially conspiratorial thinking fanned by politicians (who actually took part, for BLM), to take power FOR those politicians.. including burning courthouses and they both resulted in net-negatives for the USA in huge ways. There is a good argument that the BLM protests were far worse.

I think the other thing to note is that anyone speaking this way is partaking in the culture war. In that case, I think the comparison IS apt. They represent polar opposite demographics, and the mechanisms were very similar.

It's no attempt to ignore Jan 6 and its implications and resulting effects on society. But the comparison is not as ill-apt as you seem to posit.

The attack bears no comparision to the 'Black Lives Matter' protests you're referring to, as none of them amounted to an assault on the Capitol. — Wayfarer

This is difficult. No, they are not analogous, but the BLM protests caused MORE damage and 19 people died.

(the links are the same page, but address the two issues separately on it)

*slinks away*

Yeah, it's not great :( I want to learn!!

Not at all. It irks me a lot - But its not his circus if i say something stupid.

I've stated and clarified my position. My apologies if it's still not clear enough. You antinatalists seem to worry yourselves about what you can't change or control and thereby make yourselves more miserable than you need to be, then spread that self-inflicted, pointless misery in order to have company. You wish were never born, or 'that is a better to never have been born', and yet, like other antinatalists, you're very much still here – apparently, surprise surprise, you'd rather suffer than 'not to be' – oh, but that's self-refuting, ain't it? Well anyway, good luck with all that, Amadeus – tediously spoon-feeding ain't my jam, so I'm off to find a more substantive topic to chew on. — 180 Proof

You did not. And no surprise. "you anti-natalists" LOL.
You do not understand anti-natalism.

And while I respect your position (above) your incredible need to condescend is suspicious in the highest, given you haven't accurate portrayed the anti-natalist position.

Ive had his position explained to me, and respect it. If i've said something dumb, it must be super-challenging to address it after several years of doing it for other people.
It's unhelpful for me, but he has his reasons :)

Ok, so I got back quicker than I thought - for a specific reason.

I suffered DiD for several years. Kastrup's analogy is absolutely incredible to relate to.

Time exists, but not in the way the would-be time travellers think. :D — Corvus

Fair enough.

If you established your own country or created your own world, then you could run it with that, suppose. — Corvus

My point was more that if we counted from the Big Bang time might have some relevance beyond social time-keeping. If the year we're using is based on the very first change that ever occurred, its much more palatable, I think, to take it as 'something'.

Really enjoying this.

I don’t see why this would be the case. We can induce what ‘the good’ is from its instances, just like how we induce what a triangle is from its instances; and we can use our current knowledge of ‘the good’ to make informed decisions about what can be classified as such. — Bob Ross

Doesn't this pre-supposes knowledge of the Good? As best i can tell, unless you're going to employ Platonic Forms, you can't induce what the Good is from instances. There is no concept for it to match to; just other like-instances based on your presupposition - which makes that induction false.
Triangles, on the other hand, can be understood a priori and an instance matches the concept.

The analogy i would use here (while trying not to ruffle feathers - its just extremely apt) is the definition of 'woman'. It has become popular for this exchange to take place:

A: What is a woman? (What is the Good?)
B: Anyone who identifies as a woman (Whatever you identify as The Good)
A: What are they identifying as? (What are you identifying 'it' as?)
B: A woman. (The Good)

Round, and round we go.

Non-moral intuitions are used to determine the category of ‘the good’, no different than how we non-morally intuit the concept or category of triangularity. — Bob Ross

I see these as very much different. The concept of a triangle is prior to intuition, allowing us to perceive a triangle. Morality has no such basis.

Think of it this way, — Bob Ross

Thank you; that made it very clear what you're saying. All of those attributes have moral valence to them. So, I'm finding it hard to understand how rejecting 'good' behaviour while acknowledging it is 'good' is not a moral choice. I realise you're trying to say 'Good' is not a moral category, but using your analogous example, it seems to be so.

acts which care about life to the maximal extent possible; and 'the bad' as the negation of it. However, I freely admit that inductions are not necessarily true and that this method of inquiry is sort of scientific. — Bob Ross

There we gooooo. Wasn't so hard, was it? ( i kid). Though, in light of the objections i've laid out, I can't see any reason to suspect the induction to Good and Bad is even serviceable. As you say, its grey, and there's no one-size-fits-all. So, in this sense, where's the fact? "X is good" wont be true for everyone - or even most people - I realize you've acknowledge the lack of normativity, but I can't even see how this gets us to moral facts per se. A fact is stance-independent right, but noting something is 'good' IS a stance. I think you're shoehorning a definition in(that of 'good' without moral valence) where it can't fit.

This means, that this view affirms #2 only technically insofar as we are talking about non-normative moral judgments; which means that this view is a sort of hybrid between realism and anti-realism, whereof it does affirm that there are moral facts, but none of them are normative. I am not sure what to make of it yet: it definitely exposes my deep anti-realist sympathies. — Bob Ross

As above, I am unsure that this is the case, as the theory is written. Also, as above, I note the non-normative nature of the theory - which certainly helps. You're not trying to establish oughts. Just good and bad, as moral facts.

However, the idea that someone can reasonably say "I will actively avoid doing good* things" and on your account, that would be A-moral - seems a bit incongruous. If something is objectively Good, how could we avoid the normative command to behave in line with the Good? I guess i'm finding it really hard to take that 'Good' is devoid of a moral stance - particularly if it means maximizing care about life (as murky as that concept is, i grok what you mean). It does not seem as if you could possibly have an a-moral stance on something objectively good or bad.

*I import your usage of 'Good' as someone objectively discernable.

:ok: Righteous.

I wonder though, if they can’t use language….or if they don’t do what seems to be congruent with the use of language….what do they use? — Mww

I'm unsure I grasp entirely what you're asking... But from what i can tell, thinking in images OR words is required for meaningful cognition. What else do we have? I do both, at different times.

haha. No. If you don't get it, far be it from me...

Before I respond to this with anything substantial, please do something other than hit-and-run - WHY is it nonsense? Give me an example that exceeds the global birthrate, which could reduce suffering in any meaningful way?

I don't believe the States are united anymore, or should be — Vera Mont

Can elaborate on what sense in whcih you think this is the case? cause, like.. they are the United States?

In other wods, antinatalism as speculation or (voluntary) policy does not positively affect the quality of the lives of those who are suffering here and now.Thus, what's the point of opposing (human) reproduction (which can ony make most sufferers suffer even more (e.g. despair))? :mask: — 180 Proof

Hmmm, I don't think this goes through.
I recognize AN fails to address current suffering, but it's not intended to. Anti-natalists in my experience harbour fairly extreme sympathy for current suffering, outside of their AN views - and that's actually what lead/s to the view.

If there are 8bil people currently suffering, I want that number to stop growing - otherwise, dealing with current suffering is futile - because it necessarily just racks up, and racks up and racks up with every new birth(is the position.. im not at all claiming that as capital T true). The position says that every new birth increases suffering. So, your point is somewhat moot. There's nothing to be done about current suffering.

Appended, and asking something different:

Choosing (as I inadvertantly have, btw) to defy one's biological drives, or genetic programming, in order not to breed ... — 180 Proof

Good to hear ;)
I have inadvertently fulfilled mine LOL. I feel, and have never felt any drive whatsoever to have any children and have to psychologically prepare myself every single day for parenthood. I regret it, and feel bad for my child every single day. This is my burden.
My wife, however, wants ninety kids (exaggeration - but is physically unable to have any more than the one she has (we have one each from previous relationships). That is her burden.

Is there a catch to this?

↪AmadeusD You might like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE&ab_channel=TheoriesofEverythingwithCurtJaimungal — RogueAI

Awesome, thank you! Getting it to while i work. Very long, so don't expect me to come back any time soon - or at all LOL