Eliminating Qualia

[untermensche]

You haven't even heard the rest.

Do you claim that you do not have experiences?

Of course not! No one makes that claim.

I added the smilie horsie thing for comedic effect, since I think it's hilarious how anyone can spend so much time beating a...well...beating it, and continually beating it...

That is your claim.

There is nothing dead on my side.

I am simply saying that to have "experience" there must be something capable of having an experience.

The truth cannot be beaten to death.

It can either be heard or not.

 

[WAB]

Of course not! No one makes that claim.

I added the smilie horsie thing for comedic effect, since I think it's hilarious how anyone can spend so much time beating a...well...beating it, and continually beating it...

That is your claim.

There is nothing dead on my side.

I am simply saying that to have "experience" there must be something capable of having an experience.

The truth cannot be beaten to death.

It can either be heard or not.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that I have claimed that I do not have experiences?

If you answer yes, I will respond by asking you to isolate the exact place where I claimed to have never had experiences.

If you fail to do so, I shall be led to suspect that you are a bot placed here by the admins to see what would happen. It would be a cool experiment, actually.

 

[untermensche]

Let me get this straight, you are saying that I have claimed that I do not have experiences?

Absolutely not.

To beat a dead horse is to beat some idea that has been proven wrong over and over.

That is your claim with your cartoon.

But this is not an idea it is simply defining a concept.

The concept of experience.

It means when one thing experiences some other thing.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I need an honest person who will answer simple questions posed to them.

Do you know of one?

It's a simple question: can you prove objectively that you are not a zombie. It would be so easy if you had a mind.

I have no experience with zombies.

What are they and where can I observe one?

Of course you don’t. That’s an a fortiori fact because, as a zombie, you have no experience at all.

As is demonstrated perfectly by your abject failure to give any objective evidence that you are not.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Let me get this straight, you are saying that I have claimed that I do not have experiences?

Absolutely not.

To beat a dead horse is to beat some idea that has been proven wrong over and over.

That is your claim with your cartoon.

But this is not an idea it is simply defining a concept.

The concept of experience.

It means when one thing experiences some other thing.

And it’s that last line that sees your zombie club thrashing wildly in the stinking equine corpse of your error. I would use the metaphor of a mirror but your dead eyes see nothing, both metaphorically and literally as you are, of course, a zombie.

 

[DBT]

You have no experience of your mind.

Speak for yourself. Personally, I experience thoughts a lot. So does almost everyone I know, present company excluded, apparently.

The experience of a thought is an experience a mind has.

It is not an experience of a mind.

One of the aspects of mind is thought. Mind is composed of many features and aspects. All of these aspects and attributes of mind being generated by the activity of a brain.

 

[ruby sparks]

I know I experience.

Therein lies the serious flaw in your ontology, though you refuse to or can't see it, even if others can. That said, as with theism and other beliefs with irrational features, repeated reluctance to answer tricky questions has been a bit of a giveaway, during the thread.

By your ontology, you cannot know you experience, because you cannot know you even have a mind in the first place, because, you say, it cannot be experienced. 'I have no experience of my own mind' is what you have to end up saying, because your dogged commitment to your own idiosyncratic ontology has painted you into that absurd corner. You haven't properly thought through or therefore addressed the slippery ramifications of your personal ontology, and at this point, unless you come up with something, it's logically, rationally and empirically fucked, whether you accept it or not, even without the infinite regress.

That said, I believe I can think of a possible way out of the unpainted corner for you. It would involve proposing the existence of one other 'thing' and would, I think, at least avoid the infinite regress, if nothing else. Given that positing 'completely different things' is a bit of a predilection of yours, I'm guessing you'd like this one. I'll give you two clues; it's something you have already commented on in the thread and it's not the brain.

 

[fromderinside]

Drawing circles in the sand near the water so one can soon draw more circles in the sand without being bothered by the previous existence of drawn circles in the sand.

 

[untermensche]

I have no experience with zombies.

What are they and where can I observe one?

Of course you don’t. That’s an a fortiori fact because, as a zombie, you have no experience at all.

As is demonstrated perfectly by your abject failure to give any objective evidence that you are not.

Do you have any point?

You have spewed a bunch of worthless nonsense.

Shown you have no clue how evolution works.

Shown you have no clue how simple concepts like "experience" are defined.

You have no ideas.

You do nothing but point out bad arguments from third rate thinkers.

And then run away from them as soon as you vomit them.

What are you trying to say with this absolute nonsense child?

 

[untermensche]

The experience of a thought is an experience a mind has.

It is not an experience of a mind.

One of the aspects of mind is thought. Mind is composed of many features and aspects. All of these aspects and attributes of mind being generated by the activity of a brain.

No.

Thoughts are something a mind experiences.

And something a mind arranges and orders.

 

[untermensche]

I know I experience.

Therein lies the serious flaw in your ontology, though you refuse to or can't see it, even if others can. That said, as with theism and other beliefs with irrational features, repeated reluctance to answer tricky questions has been a bit of a giveaway, during the thread.

You can't hide behind "others". This is just you and whatever you can muster. Saying the word ontology over and over gives your nonsense no credibility.

You lie if you say you do not experience.

You had to experience my words in some way to reply to them.

And you, your mind, is what formed your reply and caused your fingers to type it out.

I have been given no tricky questions that have stumped me.

The very nature of the mind is it is pure subjectivity.

Yet some moron wants objective evidence of it.

When he already has all the evidence he needs but is just not honest enough to admit it.

I have found outright deliberate dishonesty in the defense of bad ideas is a common trait.

 

[DBT]

The experience of a thought is an experience a mind has.

It is not an experience of a mind.

One of the aspects of mind is thought. Mind is composed of many features and aspects. All of these aspects and attributes of mind being generated by the activity of a brain.

No.

Thoughts are something a mind experiences.

And something a mind arranges and orders.

That is your belief.

A belief you base on subjective experience, an assumption (ignoring the means and mechanisms of your experience)

A belief you assert, but cannot support with evidence.

It is being brain that 'arranges' your subjective experience.

You have been provided with ample evidence for this.

 

[untermensche]

No.

Thoughts are something a mind experiences.

And something a mind arranges and orders.

That is your belief.

To have a belief means there is something and it has a belief.

But I do not merely believe in some magical way that I am having the experiences I am having.

I know it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Morons that think they can just wave Descartes away with the flick of the wrist are deluded.

Absolutely deluded.

Something that only happens with minds.

 

[Subsymbolic]

No.

Thoughts are something a mind experiences.

And something a mind arranges and orders.

That is your belief.

To have a belief means there is something and it has a belief.

But I do not merely believe in some magical way that I am having the experiences I am having.

I know it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Morons that think they can just wave Descartes away with the flick of the wrist are deluded.

Absolutely deluded.

Something that only happens with minds.

Descartes assumed the mind and body were separate in his proof that the mind and body were separate.

This is a formal fallacy called petitio principii, better known as begging the question. His argument is both invalid and unsound.

Even a zombie can see that.

 

[untermensche]

To have a belief means there is something and it has a belief.

But I do not merely believe in some magical way that I am having the experiences I am having.

I know it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Morons that think they can just wave Descartes away with the flick of the wrist are deluded.

Absolutely deluded.

Something that only happens with minds.

Descartes assumed the mind and body were separate in his proof that the mind and body were separate.

This is a formal fallacy called petitio principii, better known as begging the question. His argument is both invalid and unsound.

Even a zombie can see that.

I am not caring about mind being separate from body.

You cannot tell me what "body" is so there is no use in it.

And I'll only understand what you mean by zombie when you show me evidence of one.

'The Walking Dead' does not count.

 

[untermensche]

I want you to prove madam that you are not a witch.

This is called an inquisition. Not an examination.

It is where the religious zealots always end up.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Ruby causes Um to fail the original Turing test.

Like a zombie.

 

[Subsymbolic]

To have a belief means there is something and it has a belief.

But I do not merely believe in some magical way that I am having the experiences I am having.

I know it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Morons that think they can just wave Descartes away with the flick of the wrist are deluded.

Absolutely deluded.

Something that only happens with minds.

Descartes assumed the mind and body were separate in his proof that the mind and body were separate.

This is a formal fallacy called petitio principii, better known as begging the question. His argument is both invalid and unsound.

Even a zombie can see that.

I am not caring about mind being separate from body.

You cannot tell me what "body" is so there is no use in it.

And I'll only understand what you mean by zombie when you show me evidence of one.

'The Walking Dead' does not count.

There is, of course, a world of objective evidence for bodies.

What of Descartes’ legacy bears examination today?

I note that you still haven’t offered any objective evidence for your mind.

As for zombies, you don’t need to believe in them to be one. Zombies don’t realise what they are, they don’t realise anything.

 

[untermensche]

Ruby causes Um to fail the original Turing test.

Like a zombie.

You are lost in a world of delusions.

You cannot talk about anything real so you talk about worthless nonsense like zombies and a test Turing said was stupidity and couldn't believe anybody would bother with.

I am not the sum total of what you can observe.

That is just more stupidity.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not caring about mind being separate from body.

You cannot tell me what "body" is so there is no use in it.

And I'll only understand what you mean by zombie when you show me evidence of one.

'The Walking Dead' does not count.

There is, of course, a world of objective evidence for bodies.

What of Descartes’ legacy bears examination today?

I note that you still haven’t offered any objective evidence for your mind.

As for zombies, you don’t need to believe in them to be one. Zombies don’t realise what they are, they don’t realise anything.

What is a "body"?

I don't think you have a clue.

You certainly can't say it is something a mind cannot interact with.

Since you have no clue what a mind is either.

You have no clue what a mind or a body are yet you have some objection.

Lost in delusion.

And what we have from Descartes is the undeniable:

If there are thoughts there is something aware of thoughts.

You can't have a thought unless you are a thing capable of having a thought.

You can't be aware of thoughts unless you are something capable of being aware of things.

If there is a thought there is also a mind.

Something some fools think doesn't exist because they have no idea what it is objectively.

As stupid a conclusion as could be made.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You are lost in a world of delusions.

You cannot talk about anything real so you talk about worthless nonsense like zombies and a test Turing said was stupidity and couldn't believe anybody would bother with.

I am not the sum total of what you can observe.

That is just more stupidity.

- - - Updated - - -

There is, of course, a world of objective evidence for bodies.

What of Descartes’ legacy bears examination today?

I note that you still haven’t offered any objective evidence for your mind.

As for zombies, you don’t need to believe in them to be one. Zombies don’t realise what they are, they don’t realise anything.

What is a "body"?

I don't think you have a clue.

You certainly can't say it is something a mind cannot interact with.

Since you have no clue what a mind is either.

You have no clue what a mind or a body are yet you have some objection.

Lost in delusion.

And what we have from Descartes is the undeniable:

If there are thoughts there is something aware of thoughts.

You can't have a thought unless you are a thing capable of having a thought.

You can't be aware of thoughts unless you are something capable of being aware of things.

If there is a thought there is also a mind.

Something some fools think doesn't exist because they have no idea what it is objectively.

As stupid a conclusion as could be made.

But, of course, you have no objective evidence of anything but behaviour.

You, of course, are the person who insists on this standard in others but who cannot accept it for himself.

As for Descartes, all he could say legitimately was that there was some thinking going on, not that it was his thinking.

More to the point the act of doubting is an Intentional act, not a phenomenal one. The only mind he can’t doubt is an intentional one.

Of course, none of this is remotely new. Except to you.