Do minds exist?

[none]

dude, you are just wasting your time.
you make shit up
you whine and cry about not explaining what the fuck you ,make up
then you whine when challenged.
I don't need the abuse
you need to get a grip and some backbone

The fact that you actually think you can lecture me is amusing.

Your ideas suck.

But the good news is anybody can grow and their mind can expand, as long as they allow it.

I was trying to help you as you are chasing your asshole in a public display
seriously if you get a charge out of being a dick go for it.
for some reason I seen your pain.
and don't start with your imagined mind, enough already
we understand, everybody who read your posts understands you have an idea... wish is more like it though... get over it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Whatever it is.

It is.

But it is that which is aware of sensory information and memories, not the sum total of it.

What is the difference between having a sensory experience and being aware of a sensory experience?

Isn't the awareness of a sensory experience just having the experience?

This is good, you're making me think, thanks.

This is the scientific proof that communication between minds is possible.
There's some causal effect.
So that's it. Minds exist.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is blue, the thing in itself, and there is the awareness of blue.

They are not the same thing.

The problem with this view is that it suggests that blue could exist outside of experience. It suggests that what we experience when we experience blue (or blueness) is not different from blueness when it's not experience. But we can't even think of blue outside our experience of it. So, it looks like a problem.

But, we can experience different qualia at the same time, for example when looking at flowers of different colours, which suggests that qualia are not just a part of experience.


Both models are conceivable, it seems to me. Can you explain why a quale and the experience of it should be two different things as opposed to just one thing, i.e. experience capable of having different qualities (qualia).
EB

 

[none]

What is the difference between having a sensory experience and being aware of a sensory experience?

Isn't the awareness of a sensory experience just having the experience?

This is good, you're making me think, thanks.

This is the scientific proof that communication between minds is possible.
There's some causal effect.
So that's it. Minds exist.
EB

no you are completely wrong, you don't understand that the brain is responsible for motor control and thought.
you don't even know what a mind, the mind, or minds are.
you can't even speak what they are nor type what they are.

 

[Juma]

What is the difference between having a sensory experience and being aware of a sensory experience?

Isn't the awareness of a sensory experience just having the experience?

This is good, you're making me think, thanks.

This is the scientific proof that communication between minds is possible.
There's some causal effect.
So that's it. Minds exist.
EB

But if Rousseau is a bot?

 

[untermensche]

There is blue, the thing in itself, and there is the awareness of blue.

They are not the same thing.

The problem with this view is that it suggests that blue could exist outside of experience.

It doesn't say anything about what is possible. It only says what is.

To be aware of blue requires both blue and something that is able to be aware of "things".

But, we can experience different qualia at the same time, for example when looking at flowers of different colours, which suggests that qualia are not just a part of experience.

Both models are conceivable, it seems to me. Can you explain why a quale and the experience of it should be two different things as opposed to just one thing, i.e. experience capable of having different qualities (qualia).
EB

There is a problem with this theory.

A "quale" like blue is something the brain creates in response to a certain stimulus, but awareness is something that is always active, even somewhat when asleep.

So it makes little sense to think awareness and quales are somehow linked. They are distinct. One is always active the other is only present when the proper stimulus is present.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the scientific proof that communication between minds is possible.
There's some causal effect.
So that's it. Minds exist.
EB

But if Rousseau is a bot?

A bot that wasn't a product of and therefore an extension of a human mind?

 

[Juma]

The problem with this view is that it suggests that blue could exist outside of experience.

It doesn't say anything about what is possible. It only says what is.

To be aware of blue requires both blue and something that is able to be aware of "things".

But, we can experience different qualia at the same time, for example when looking at flowers of different colours, which suggests that qualia are not just a part of experience.

Both models are conceivable, it seems to me. Can you explain why a quale and the experience of it should be two different things as opposed to just one thing, i.e. experience capable of having different qualities (qualia).
EB

There is a problem with this theory.

A "quale" like blue is something the brain creates in response to a certain stimulus, but awareness is something that is always active, even somewhat when asleep.

So it makes little sense to think awareness and quales are somehow linked. They are distinct. One is always active the other is only present when the proper stimulus is present.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the scientific proof that communication between minds is possible.
There's some causal effect.
So that's it. Minds exist.
EB

But if Rousseau is a bot?

A bot that wasn't a product of and therefore an extension of a human mind?

No. A bot that has evolved by itself in some suitable environment.

 

[untermensche]

No. A bot that has evolved by itself in some suitable environment.

So some bot that just arose without any input from a human mind?

 

[Juma]

No. A bot that has evolved by itself in some suitable environment.

So some bot that just arose without any input from a human mind?

Yes.

 

[untermensche]

So some bot that just arose without any input from a human mind?

Yes.

What planet does it exist on?

 

[Juma]

Yes.

What planet does it exist on?

Why would that matter?

 

[untermensche]

What planet does it exist on?

Why would that matter?

Because it is a fantasy.

 

[bilby]

Why would that matter?

Because it is a fantasy.

Are you a creationist?

Because if not, the idea that intelligence can arise spontaneously without the intervention of a prior intelligence is (to coin a phrase) a no-brainer.

 

[untermensche]

Because it is a fantasy.

Are you a creationist?

Because if not, the idea that intelligence can arise spontaneously without the intervention of a prior intelligence is (to coin a phrase) a no-brainer.

Is intelligent life a bot?

Has that been demonstrated?

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is the scientific proof that communication between minds is possible.
There's some causal effect.
So that's it. Minds exist.
EB

But if Rousseau is a bot?

Er- I was, like, kidding?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

....
EB

Yup.

Communicating.

 

[Juma]

But if Rousseau is a bot?

Er- I was, like, kidding?
EB

Yes. But my responce was for unter,

 

[fromderinside]

Of course Juma. We believe you.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, to sum up, yes, some* mind(s) do(es) exist.

Like Descartes said.
EB


(*) "Some" in the logical sense.