...and that "zombic hunch" is exactly what I mean by consciousness not being intuitive for people to understand.
The simple fact is is that you can't replicate a human and not give it a consciousness. If it has human cognitive abilities, it's conscious. Consciousness isn't "something else," it's the human cognitive processes working. If one says that we don't have a significant understanding of consciousness, then they really mean (or should mean) we don't have a significant understanding of how the brain works (and/or how its parts all play together).
Much of the discussion on consciousness is very muddled by "intuition" and the belief that there must be something "extra" to make a being conscious.
I've been in multiple arguments here on./ over consciousness, and the objections raised are usually Searle's. If you don't know what "quasi-dualistic" means in regards to Searle, then you probably aren't informed enough on this topic to contribute. Another poster gave a clear indication of knowing exactly what I meant, so looks like it's just you.
I used to say the same thing, except I've come to realize it's all semantics, and the constitution never meant a damn thing, not since its ratification, not now, not ever.
I was completely aware of what I posted and I still stand behind it. It is a particular brand of government badmouthing they are after, the people that want real change and oppose the government absolutely and completely--the truly unpatriotic. They could care less about people that grumble about traffic fines.
Don't like someone badmouthing the government? Require them to register. Then when they (obviously) don't do it, stick 'em in jail and take their money.
whoops, forgot that I'm not on a forum, should've used the blockquote tag..
*Most of the objections of functionalism either, when applied to the brain, end up also arguing that the brain itself doesn't/can't "create" consciousness (or better put, "form" consciousness) or are either commonsense gut-feeling responses to functionalism. You may feel free still thinking in terms of "souls" and "something more to humanity than just the flesh and neural machinery."
..."but you'll still be wrong."
Arguments like the Chinese room show just how silly the objections towards functionalism are.
Just like in the creationism vs evolution "debate" just because there is disagreement does not mean we do not have the answer, or at least a good approximation of the answer.
[quote]Meanwhile, nobody has any significant understanding of what consciousness is.[/quote]
Only if you want to cling to silly quasi-dualistic Searle-inspired objections towards functionalism.
Most of the objections of functionalism either, when applied to the brain, end up also arguing that the brain itself doesn't/can't "create" consciousness (or better put, "form" consciousness) or are either commonsense gut-feeling responses to functionalism. You may feel free still thinking in terms of "souls" and "something more to humanity than just the flesh and neural machinery."
The consciousness "debate" will never be settled (at rather, widely agreed upon), because the answer just doesn't mesh intuitively with human introspection. Many people cling to the basic concept of "souls," at least on an intuitive level, which is why we have nonsense like Chalmer's p-zombies muddying up the discussion.
The obvious solution is to create a machine/AI that, after a deep brain structure analysis, replicates your cognitive functions. Turn it on at the same time your body is destroyed (to prevent confusion and fighting between the two) and you are now a machine and ready to rule over the meatbag fleshlings.
Many scientists get their code from companies or individuals that license it to them, much like most other software. They're not in the position to release the code for many experiments...!
OK, so they don't skip a grade, but your suggestion is "completely fucking idiotic" at best. I have a better one... how about the bullies are held down by authority figures while the bullied kick their skulls in?
Until you get to college in one of the sciences where they use APA style and find yet another reason how high school doesn't really prepare you for college.
The ones that foolishly are "good kids" and don't fight back because they're told "violence solves nothing" and aren't taught to self defend, and are too slow to realize that the bullies aren't going to be punished by authority figures, who were probably bullies themselves when they were young and "understand" why the bully would want to beat up Little Tommy Nerd.
Let's face it, being a "good kid" is not the way to get through life. I was a "good kid" and the older I get the more I realized life would have been better and more fair had I been a prick willing to get in trouble. Some people need the motherloving shit kicked out of them. Some people deserve their teeth being knocked out and their eyes gouged out. Sounds tough, but there are many people walking this Earth that shouldn't be, and public schools are protecting them, not systematically executing them.
Am I bitter over my childhood and the public school systems I went through? What do you think?
That implies they care about universal enforcement of the law. They don't really care if someone whines about a traffic fine anonymously on the blog. No, they'll go after "particular" offenders, or they'll use it to punish dissidents they particularly dislike after already having them so they have something that can stick. That's how modern democracy works, after all--enough laws and you'll be able to nail someone on something eventually.
I mean, no evidence that the current latest fully patched IE is less secure is much less impressive when you realize that it's pretty damn easy to not yet have evidence of security holes in the latest patch when there's likely not enough time for people to have discovered them.
Isn't it better to go by track record than direct evidence for "current safety" simply because exploits are discovered and not readily known? If IE has a bad track record and Firefox doesn't, it might indicate that Firefox is still secure as there may be undiscovered or undisclosed exploits in IE due to shitty security programming that the UK gov't simply doesn't know about. Additionally, future updates could introduce more bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
...and that "zombic hunch" is exactly what I mean by consciousness not being intuitive for people to understand.
The simple fact is is that you can't replicate a human and not give it a consciousness. If it has human cognitive abilities, it's conscious. Consciousness isn't "something else," it's the human cognitive processes working. If one says that we don't have a significant understanding of consciousness, then they really mean (or should mean) we don't have a significant understanding of how the brain works (and/or how its parts all play together).
Much of the discussion on consciousness is very muddled by "intuition" and the belief that there must be something "extra" to make a being conscious.
Did you discover that book while dowsing for a good one at Barnes and Noble?
I've been in multiple arguments here on ./ over consciousness, and the objections raised are usually Searle's. If you don't know what "quasi-dualistic" means in regards to Searle, then you probably aren't informed enough on this topic to contribute. Another poster gave a clear indication of knowing exactly what I meant, so looks like it's just you.
Whatever you think my argument is, it is not that. Props for trying to apply what you just learned in your philosophy class, though.
That is, you can reasonably claim that we don't have a deep understanding of what consciousness is without being a dualist.
True, but the most common ones around here by far I see is the Searle-inspired nonsense, which is dualistic despite Searle's own objections.
Only if you believe in magic and *giggle* "souls".
I used to say the same thing, except I've come to realize it's all semantics, and the constitution never meant a damn thing, not since its ratification, not now, not ever.
I was completely aware of what I posted and I still stand behind it. It is a particular brand of government badmouthing they are after, the people that want real change and oppose the government absolutely and completely--the truly unpatriotic. They could care less about people that grumble about traffic fines.
Don't like someone badmouthing the government? Require them to register. Then when they (obviously) don't do it, stick 'em in jail and take their money.
Enjoy your democracy, guys.
whoops, forgot that I'm not on a forum, should've used the blockquote tag..
Arguments like the Chinese room show just how silly the objections towards functionalism are.
Just like in the creationism vs evolution "debate" just because there is disagreement does not mean we do not have the answer, or at least a good approximation of the answer.
[quote]Meanwhile, nobody has any significant understanding of what consciousness is.[/quote]
Only if you want to cling to silly quasi-dualistic Searle-inspired objections towards functionalism.
Most of the objections of functionalism either, when applied to the brain, end up also arguing that the brain itself doesn't/can't "create" consciousness (or better put, "form" consciousness) or are either commonsense gut-feeling responses to functionalism. You may feel free still thinking in terms of "souls" and "something more to humanity than just the flesh and neural machinery."
The consciousness "debate" will never be settled (at rather, widely agreed upon), because the answer just doesn't mesh intuitively with human introspection. Many people cling to the basic concept of "souls," at least on an intuitive level, which is why we have nonsense like Chalmer's p-zombies muddying up the discussion.
The obvious solution is to create a machine/AI that, after a deep brain structure analysis, replicates your cognitive functions. Turn it on at the same time your body is destroyed (to prevent confusion and fighting between the two) and you are now a machine and ready to rule over the meatbag fleshlings.
That's not Anonymous' goal, only mine.
That's the entire idea behind democracy.
Many scientists get their code from companies or individuals that license it to them, much like most other software. They're not in the position to release the code for many experiments...!
Netbooks that run Mac OSX?
OK, so they don't skip a grade, but your suggestion is "completely fucking idiotic" at best. I have a better one... how about the bullies are held down by authority figures while the bullied kick their skulls in?
It's called "hyperbole."
Until you get to college in one of the sciences where they use APA style and find yet another reason how high school doesn't really prepare you for college.
GREAT suggestion champ! Truly brilliant! Skip a grade--beat the snot out of people! AWESOME idea!
The ones that foolishly are "good kids" and don't fight back because they're told "violence solves nothing" and aren't taught to self defend, and are too slow to realize that the bullies aren't going to be punished by authority figures, who were probably bullies themselves when they were young and "understand" why the bully would want to beat up Little Tommy Nerd.
Let's face it, being a "good kid" is not the way to get through life. I was a "good kid" and the older I get the more I realized life would have been better and more fair had I been a prick willing to get in trouble. Some people need the motherloving shit kicked out of them. Some people deserve their teeth being knocked out and their eyes gouged out. Sounds tough, but there are many people walking this Earth that shouldn't be, and public schools are protecting them, not systematically executing them.
Am I bitter over my childhood and the public school systems I went through? What do you think?
That implies they care about universal enforcement of the law. They don't really care if someone whines about a traffic fine anonymously on the blog. No, they'll go after "particular" offenders, or they'll use it to punish dissidents they particularly dislike after already having them so they have something that can stick. That's how modern democracy works, after all--enough laws and you'll be able to nail someone on something eventually.
And the potential for a one-way paid vacation to Siberia for a few lucky winners!
I mean, no evidence that the current latest fully patched IE is less secure is much less impressive when you realize that it's pretty damn easy to not yet have evidence of security holes in the latest patch when there's likely not enough time for people to have discovered them.
Isn't it better to go by track record than direct evidence for "current safety" simply because exploits are discovered and not readily known? If IE has a bad track record and Firefox doesn't, it might indicate that Firefox is still secure as there may be undiscovered or undisclosed exploits in IE due to shitty security programming that the UK gov't simply doesn't know about. Additionally, future updates could introduce more bugs.
Hey now, wait just a moment, you didn't ask me what I think of conservatives. Hint: It's essentially the same thing.