Darwinian Dissonance?

Internet Infidels ^ | Timeless | Paul A. Dernavich

[general_re]

You then ask, why can't we accept another unproveable, unmeasurable assumption - that consciousness requires God?

Thou shalt not unnecessarily multiply entities. ;)

[VadeRetro]

Thou shalt not unnecessarily multiply entities.

You have blown your Satanic cover! "Go forth and multiply!"

[Tribune7]

bump

[js1138]

394 must have been interesting. Glad I missed it.

[js1138]

Please explain intelligence without consciousness…

Please try reading #370 (the post you are referring to). Intelligence is the observable behavior of solving problems. Intelligence can be crudely quantified by the relative complexity of problems solved.

Consciousness is inferred. There is no standard for inferring consciousness, even in living humans. (As a Special Ed major I've met quite a few humans who showed absolutely none of the behavior we use to infer conscious -- eye contact, voluntary movement, etc.)

We already have rudimentary artifical intelligence. We have computer systems that manage the power grid and evolve their own solutions to the distribution of electric power. They do not simply follow preprogrammed if...then...else logic. They create new algorithms for achieving goals.

You do not have to accept this, but you will be increasingly crushed by a future in which computers magnify our problem solving abilities. But none of these machines are likely to be considered conscious. Not in the near future.

[VadeRetro]

You have Freepmail!

[PDerna]

Fine...then which part do you want me to retract? When I say "propositions with no verifiable evidence," I am referring to those specific axiomatic truths, which cannot be scientifically proven or scientifically disproven, but which we assume to be true, like the sensory evidence principle you mentioned in 380. Like you said, "in your entire existence I'll wager you've never encountered a single instance of anything which contradicted those axioms," and you would be correct. So which part am I retracting?

[PatrickHenry]

I'm giving up on you. I thought you had potential, so I put in some time, but I'm done now. Go in peace.

[longshadow]

"Dance of the Obfuscatory Wankers" placemarker

[PDerna]

I will yield to you on that one. Descartes was not a chemist and neither am I, so to say that the combination of hydrogen and oxygen produces a result that can be said to be out of proportion to the seeming properties of each is perhaps a valid objection.

However, consciousness (and even more so, truth and falsity) is a whole different subject. Science cannot account for it - only the appearance or illusion of it, and the effects of it. But our self-aware experience of the 'now' is a mystery (the Jaki passage again, in 290). Scientifically speaking, consciousness does not exist. Science should not be concerned with it, let alone claim that it must have purely a material explanation. That is an incorrect assumption.

Let me ask you this. I want to go further but I don’t want to be accused of putting words in your mouth. Which of the following statements would you say expresses your belief, or is closest to it?
A. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is not true
B. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is not chiefly a concern of science

[Heartlander]

We already have rudimentary artifical intelligence.

And rudimentary artificial intelligence from?
Mindlessness? – No
Conscious intelligence? – Yes

And even if you believe “Conciousness is inferred”, is it inferred by?:
Mindlessness?
Conscious intelligence?

To confuse noumenon with phenomenon is to look through a telescope from the wrong end.

That being said, I truly applaud your work in helping the less fortunate. I say this with true respect and experience.

[Heartlander]

What is this?… Did you have my post deleted? I have never asked for any of your posts to be deleted no matter how offensive I thought them to be…(I have never hit the abuse button on anyone)
Ironically, the only offensiveness in post #394 that I see are the quotations from… -- you!

[VadeRetro]

What is this?… Did you have my post deleted?

You're as reckless in your accusations as in your arguments. Wasn't me. I know who it was but I'll leave it up to him if he wants to tell you or not. (He mentioned having signed the abuse report.)

Ironically, the only offensiveness in post #394 that I see are the quotations from… -- you!

That's one problem with deleting a post like that. Anyone can pretend to misremember its content.

[Heartlander]

That's one problem with deleting a post like that. Anyone can pretend to misremember its content.

Fine. Tell this ‘person’ not to do it so I may post it again.

[VadeRetro]

It is the site management who determines what posts and what posters stay and go. The particular reply involved was indeed out of bounds and should not be reposted. Maybe just think of a different, calmer, and better answer.

[Heartlander]

Wrong! It is up to those who report what ‘they’ see as abuse. Management does not go through every post and you know this…

Tell your friend so I can re-post…

[VadeRetro]

As someone who has had a 3-day timeout for reposting a deleted post, I recommend sanity.

[Heartlander]

As someone who has had a 3-day timeout for reposting a deleted post, I recommend sanity.

I’ve never had this happen and fail to see how it is relevant.

You did not hit the ‘abuse button’… You have control here, as you know who did

Can I re-post Vade? Will it hurt you soo badly that you refuse?

[VadeRetro]

Such tortured logic. Apparently, you can't reason even this out for yourself. I will attempt to explain.

Anyone can hit the button. Not just the person who hit it the first time but anyone. If you repeat a deleted post, anyone can read the thread and see that Heartlander has repeated a perfectly deletable performance which was no credit to himself the first time. It is the management--the mods and JR--which decides these things. Your issue with what you can and cannot post on FR is better taken up with them if you have to take it up with somebody. In good conscience I have to recommend calming down and rethinking instead.

I have errands to run. Again, I'd cool it.

[PatrickHenry]

I've had no involvement in of this, and I can't even remember the last time I hit the abuse button; but you're right. The mods don't like re-posting a previously-deleted post. If I remember correctly, that was the cause of medved's undoing.