My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[ryan]

It would allow an external observer to know which DBT is the original, and the observer would be correct. The non-physical difference that I claim exists would be preserved by the observer.

That's a property of the observer, not of either clone.

But the original DBT still has true meaning independent of the observers.

 

[bilby]

That's a property of the observer, not of either clone.

But the original DBT still has true meaning independent of the observers.

Why? How? The two clones are indistinguishable absent the testimony of the observers. The difference is in the observer(s), not the clones.

 

[DBT]

Doesn't make any difference to the argument for location and object separation.

It would allow an external observer to know which DBT is the original, and the observer would be correct. The non-physical difference that I claim exists would be preserved by the observer.

Being present during the cloning process, the observer could only tell the original from clone by keeping track of their locations. Blindfold the observer and shuffle the original and the clone around, sort of like the pea and the three cups shuffle game, the observer would have no way of picking the original from the clone. The observer would only see two identical but separate individuals standing in front of him, each with his own unique perspective.

 

[ryan]

Do you think your mind is reducible to particles? If not, then what makes your mind any less fundamental than the elementary particles?

Of course the mind is reducible to particles. What the fuck else could possibly be an ingredient?

This is physics. It's as solidly certain as any knowledge in the history of mankind.

If your philosophy contradicts science, then it is fiction.

Philosophy might be a useful addition to science, but it cannot overrule it.

It makes far more sense to hypothesise that the
Moon is made of cheese than it is to hypothesise that the Standard Model is sufficiently wrong to allow for any other particles or forces to interact with humans.

Okay, then the particles have little minds. They experience little bits of pain and feel happy very briefly We are now encroaching on panpsychism, and panpsychism is the only way that I can agree with you.

 

[ryan]

But the original DBT still has true meaning independent of the observers.

Why? How? The two clones are indistinguishable absent the testimony of the observers. The difference is in the observer(s), not the clones.

So do we need to observe what is out for things to have happened a certain way?

 

[bilby]

Of course the mind is reducible to particles. What the fuck else could possibly be an ingredient?

This is physics. It's as solidly certain as any knowledge in the history of mankind.

If your philosophy contradicts science, then it is fiction.

Philosophy might be a useful addition to science, but it cannot overrule it.

It makes far more sense to hypothesise that the
Moon is made of cheese than it is to hypothesise that the Standard Model is sufficiently wrong to allow for any other particles or forces to interact with humans.

Okay, then the particles have little minds. They experience little bits of pain and feel happy very briefly We are now encroaching on panpsychism, and panpsychism is the only way that I can agree with you.

The particles don't have little minds, any more than an aircraft-carrier is made up of little tiny boats and planes.

 

[ryan]

It would allow an external observer to know which DBT is the original, and the observer would be correct. The non-physical difference that I claim exists would be preserved by the observer.

Being present during the cloning process, the observer could only tell the original from clone by keeping track of their locations. Blindfold the observer and shuffle the original and the clone around, sort of like the pea and the three cups shuffle game, the observer would have no way of picking the original from the clone. The observer would only see two identical but separate individuals standing in front of him, each with his own unique perspective.

Like I asked bilby, do we need to observe what is out there for things to have happened a certain way?

 

[bilby]

Why? How? The two clones are indistinguishable absent the testimony of the observers. The difference is in the observer(s), not the clones.

So do we need to observe what is out for things to have happened a certain way?

- - - Updated - - -

It would allow an external observer to know which DBT is the original, and the observer would be correct. The non-physical difference that I claim exists would be preserved by the observer.

Being present during the cloning process, the observer could only tell the original from clone by keeping track of their locations. Blindfold the observer and shuffle the original and the clone around, sort of like the pea and the three cups shuffle game, the observer would have no way of picking the original from the clone. The observer would only see two identical but separate individuals standing in front of him, each with his own unique perspective.

Like I asked bilby, do we need to observe what is out for things to have happened a certain way?

We need to observe (or record) what happened in order to know what happened.

I have no idea what the word 'out' is doing in your question - can you translate it into English for me?

 

[ryan]

Okay, then the particles have little minds. They experience little bits of pain and feel happy very briefly We are now encroaching on panpsychism, and panpsychism is the only way that I can agree with you.

The particles don't have little minds, any more than an aircraft-carrier is made up of little tiny boats and planes.

Okay, then you're saying that there is something about the aircraft carrier that is irreducible. How is this aircraft carrier any less fundamental than the elementary particles since both can't be reduced?

 

[ryan]

But the original DBT still has true meaning independent of the observers.

Why? How? The two clones are indistinguishable absent the testimony of the observers. The difference is in the observer(s), not the clones.

So do we need to observe what is out for things to have happened a certain way?

 

[bilby]

The particles don't have little minds, any more than an aircraft-carrier is made up of little tiny boats and planes.

Okay, then you're saying that there is something about the aircraft carrier that is irreducible. How is this aircraft carrier any less fundamental than the elementary particles since both can't be reduced?

No, I am saying that it is bloody stupid to suggest that either aircraft carriers or minds are irreducible.

Both are PATTERNS.

Minds are patterns of particles. Like pretty much every other phenomenon in the real world.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? How? The two clones are indistinguishable absent the testimony of the observers. The difference is in the observer(s), not the clones.

So do we need to observe what is out for things to have happened a certain way?

What the fuck do you mean by 'out'? Out of what?

 

[DBT]

Being present during the cloning process, the observer could only tell the original from clone by keeping track of their locations. Blindfold the observer and shuffle the original and the clone around, sort of like the pea and the three cups shuffle game, the observer would have no way of picking the original from the clone. The observer would only see two identical but separate individuals standing in front of him, each with his own unique perspective.

Like I asked bilby, do we need to observe what is out there for things to have happened a certain way?

The clone and the original are two separate physical bodies with two separate biological activities regardless of an observer. They may observe each other and at the same time be aware of their own position within the room, being aware of the physical positioning between self and other and their respective locations, each feeling himself to be the original self.

 

[ryan]

Okay, then you're saying that there is something about the aircraft carrier that is irreducible. How is this aircraft carrier any less fundamental than the elementary particles since both can't be reduced?

No, I am saying that it is bloody stupid to suggest that either aircraft carriers or minds are irreducible.

Both are PATTERNS.

Minds are patterns of particles. Like pretty much every other phenomenon in the real world.

How can the mind be reducible if it can't exist among its parts?

Why? How? The two clones are indistinguishable absent the testimony of the observers. The difference is in the observer(s), not the clones.

So do we need to observe what is out for things to have happened a certain way?

What the fuck do you mean by 'out'? Out of what?

I meant, "do we need to observe what is out there for things to have happened a certain way?".

 

[ryan]

Like I asked bilby, do we need to observe what is out there for things to have happened a certain way?

The clone and the original are two separate physical bodies with two separate biological activities regardless of an observer. They may observe each other and at the same time be aware of their own position within the room, being aware of the physical positioning between self and other and their respective locations, each feeling himself to be the original self.

I totally agree. But what does this have to do with the conversation we were having?

 

[DBT]

The clone and the original are two separate physical bodies with two separate biological activities regardless of an observer. They may observe each other and at the same time be aware of their own position within the room, being aware of the physical positioning between self and other and their respective locations, each feeling himself to be the original self.

I totally agree. But what does this have to do with the conversation we were having?

It illustrates that each body, whether clone or original, is a separate individual with his or her own experience of self and the world.

 

[bilby]

No, I am saying that it is bloody stupid to suggest that either aircraft carriers or minds are irreducible.

Both are PATTERNS.

Minds are patterns of particles. Like pretty much every other phenomenon in the real world.

How can the mind be reducible if it can't exist among its parts?

Why? How? The two clones are indistinguishable absent the testimony of the observers. The difference is in the observer(s), not the clones.

So do we need to observe what is out for things to have happened a certain way?

What the fuck do you mean by 'out'? Out of what?

I meant, "do we need to observe what is out there for things to have happened a certain way?".

No; we need to observe what is out there to destinguish between objects that are now identical, but only differ in their history.

A mind is made up of quarks, leptons and bosons. SO IS EVERYTHING ELSE. There is no special 'mind stuff'; the difference between a mind and a fire is the way those parts are arranged. A fire is made of fuel and oxygen. A mind is made of brain cells and nerve impulses. There are no particles of 'fire'. There are no particles of 'mind'.

Mind is a process. Like burning, it is real and physical, but it is not inherent in stuff; it is an emergent property of a specific arrangement of stuff.

Minds are not something special.

 

[Kharakov]

No. The pain is another part of the physical that is localized in their conscious state.

I don't divorce physical from mental, although what is defined as a personal mental state is not ever the whole physical state, and may not even correspond to an external physical state.

waaat thaaa

That seems like some serious B.S., like political debate type B.S.

Do you or don't you believe that a physical process in the brain is exactly and completely the experience of pain?

In the consciousness would be the correct terminology. Say that a consciousness is affected by a force which causes it to feel pain, and the force is part of a physical process outside of the brain, which does not have a measurable effect upon the brain (although the pain the consciousness feels would most likely affect the brain, if there is reciprocal supervenience between the consciousness and material structure of the brain).

Saying yes means that pain is a process of the elementary particles and not anything else.

No it doesn't. There might be other types of particles out there that only weakly interact with elementary particles. They could have their own EM equivalent, and interact with our "fundamental" particles primarily through gravitation (warping of spacetime) or some unique force that only the other form of matter has (say that it is a force that can act on our particles, but our particles cannot act upon it- an asymmetric force).

Or maybe it is something from the standard model, such as a Higgs bosons. Maybe there is an other model that can interact with standard model particles.

Say there are other model photon equivalents that have no standard model momentum, do not cause orbital jumps in electrons, but simply are re-emitted without causing any change to the standard model particles they interact with. This would allow other model beings to observe standard model activities, and if they've developed (or simply always had) a method of interacting with standard model particles (and the beings comprised of these particles) they could influence events among standard model beings at certain times.

WooooOOOoooooOOoo.. and they would bullshit all standard model is the only thing in existence people and all theists... or not.

 

[ryan]

How can the mind be reducible if it can't exist among its parts?

I meant, "do we need to observe what is out there for things to have happened a certain way?".

No; we need to observe what is out there to destinguish between objects that are now identical, but only differ in their history.

A mind is made up of quarks, leptons and bosons. SO IS EVERYTHING ELSE. There is no special 'mind stuff'; the difference between a mind and a fire is the way those parts are arranged. A fire is made of fuel and oxygen. A mind is made of brain cells and nerve impulses. There are no particles of 'fire'. There are no particles of 'mind'.

Mind is a process. Like burning, it is real and physical, but it is not inherent in stuff; it is an emergent property of a specific arrangement of stuff.

Minds are not something special.

Let's say scientists want to record what happens to me when I am in pain. They record me getting poked, and a highly sensitive machine models exactly what happened. Assume that they know what every particle did during the time I am in pain. Their full physical account would not include the sensation of pain that I felt.

 

[ryan]

waaat thaaa

That seems like some serious B.S., like political debate type B.S.

Do you or don't you believe that a physical process in the brain is exactly and completely the experience of pain?

In the consciousness would be the correct terminology. Say that a consciousness is affected by a force which causes it to feel pain, and the force is part of a physical process outside of the brain, which does not have a measurable effect upon the brain (although the pain the consciousness feels would most likely affect the brain, if there is reciprocal supervenience between the consciousness and material structure of the brain).

Saying yes means that pain is a process of the elementary particles and not anything else.

No it doesn't. There might be other types of particles out there that only weakly interact with elementary particles. They could have their own EM equivalent, and interact with our "fundamental" particles primarily through gravitation (warping of spacetime) or some unique force that only the other form of matter has (say that it is a force that can act on our particles, but our particles cannot act upon it- an asymmetric force).

Or maybe it is something from the standard model, such as a Higgs bosons. Maybe there is an other model that can interact with standard model particles.

Say there are other model photon equivalents that have no standard model momentum, do not cause orbital jumps in electrons, but simply are re-emitted without causing any change to the standard model particles they interact with. This would allow other model beings to observe standard model activities, and if they've developed (or simply always had) a method of interacting with standard model particles (and the beings comprised of these particles) they could influence events among standard model beings at certain times.

WooooOOOoooooOOoo.. and they would bullshit all standard model is the only thing in existence people and all theists... or not.

Okay, I didn't know that you were prepared to think outside of the Standard Model. Most people on this thread don't seem willing to do that.

 

[PyramidHead]

No; we need to observe what is out there to destinguish between objects that are now identical, but only differ in their history.

A mind is made up of quarks, leptons and bosons. SO IS EVERYTHING ELSE. There is no special 'mind stuff'; the difference between a mind and a fire is the way those parts are arranged. A fire is made of fuel and oxygen. A mind is made of brain cells and nerve impulses. There are no particles of 'fire'. There are no particles of 'mind'.

Mind is a process. Like burning, it is real and physical, but it is not inherent in stuff; it is an emergent property of a specific arrangement of stuff.

Minds are not something special.

Let's say scientists want to record what happens to me when I am in pain. They record me getting poked, and a highly sensitive machine models exactly what happened. Assume that they know what every particle did during the time I am in pain. Their full physical account would not include the sensation of pain that I felt.

How do you know? This is what I mean. If you had known about the "Mary's room" thought experiment and its volumes of rebuttals in philosophical journals, would you still flatly state what you did, with such apparent certainty?