compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

You don't get a monopoly on the word mind.

I certainly never said I did.

Trying to refer to your position as mind is saying you do. It seems like you still can't fully wrap your mind around the idea that we both believe human beings have minds. Since we both agree on that, referring to your position as "mind" doesn't make sense. It makes me think you think you, and the people you agree with, have a monopoly on that word. That you get to decide that mind means specifically the viewpoint you want it to mean.

[Flannel Jesus]

My position is on "mind."

BOTH of our positions are on mind. You saying this is another thing that makes me think you think you have a monopoly on the word.

It's not, your position is on mind and mine is on non-mind. Mind is what we share in common - so having easy-access words to refer to the beliefs we DON'T share in common is actually really useful. That way we can easily refer to our distinct positions.

Mind isn't that word. Mind is what we have in common, not what distinguishes us.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't get a monopoly on the word mind.

I certainly never said I did.

Trying to refer to your position as mind is saying you do.

The only positions I've asserted here have to do with "mind." And it's the only concept you believe actually exists, so it's the only common ground for discussion we can possibly have.

Unless you already believe in souls, too?

It seems like you still can't fully wrap your mind around the idea that we both believe human beings have minds.

Funny, since I just said in my last message that I fully accept that you believe in minds too.

What are you playing at? Are you trying to subvert the conversation by pulling into it entities you don't even believe in? Why would you do that, unless you thought you were losing the mind debate, and were trying desperately to get away from it...

Here's the bottom line. Even an Atheist like Thomas Nagel believes minds exist. So Nagel and I could discuss minds, even though I'm a Theist and he's not. But I doubt we could find a way to discuss, soul, since he denies that any such exist. So far as I know, your situation is similar to Nagel's, though you seem to choke on the realization that mind is a serious problem for "meat" believers...which, interestingly, is exactly the point Nagel's NOT afraid to face.

[Immanuel Can]

My position is on "mind."

BOTH of our positions are on mind. You saying this is another thing that makes me think you think you have a monopoly on the word.

Clear your head, then. No such thing was either said or implied. And you won't find it in anything I wrote, even if you imagined it.

I accept that you believe mind exists. What we're debating is whether or not it's just "meat." You say it is, and I say that's impossible.

And existentially, I've got the best case, because even you cannot deny the existence of mind, since you're using it for this conversation.

[Flannel Jesus]

My position is on "mind."

BOTH of our positions are on mind. You saying this is another thing that makes me think you think you have a monopoly on the word.

Clear your head, then. No such thing was either said or implied. And you won't find it in anything I wrote, even if you imagined it.

I accept that you believe mind exists. What we're debating is whether or not it's just "meat."

So you like using a single easy access term for my specific position but don't want me to have one for yours... Hmm

[Immanuel Can]

BOTH of our positions are on mind. You saying this is another thing that makes me think you think you have a monopoly on the word.

Clear your head, then. No such thing was either said or implied. And you won't find it in anything I wrote, even if you imagined it.

I accept that you believe mind exists. What we're debating is whether or not it's just "meat."

So you like using a single easy access term for my specific position but don't want me to have one for yours... Hmm

No, I like us both to be able to talk about things we actually believe in. It's called "establishing common terms," and it's essential to philosophical progress. "Mind" is our common term. And it's the one we started with. So I can't see any good motive at all for you wanting to change it so suddenly. It makes me think that maybe you're just trying to find a term you CAN deny, so you don't have to face the questions raised by the existence of mind.

That would be evasive and disingenuous, so I'm loath to conclude that's what you're doing. But the alternative, that you actually believe in "soul," seems even less plausible to me.

[Flannel Jesus]

Weird how much you refuse me such a simple thing. Hmm..

[Martin Peter Clarke]

How is “emergence” actually an “explanation”? It tells us absolutely nothing about the process in which it asks us to have belief.

Ah. So you’re one of those folks who thinks he doesn’t believe things? You don’t have faith in your own explanations, then. You must not “ believe” it.

It doesn't have to. We're far to feeble minded to understand.

I think we’d be best to find that out by looking, rather that by presuming it, don’t you? Let’s see how far we get with our inquiries before deciding we’re too feeble-minded to get anywhere.

Look at what? My feeblemindedness being demonstrated by 'far to feeble'. Our feeblemindedness includes not recognising it of course. Your Jungian 4 sigma reach exceeds my grasp.

[Immanuel Can]

Weird how much you refuse me such a simple thing. Hmm..

I was about to say the same. You seem not to want us to have common terms.

I think you're just playing games. You seem to have given up any philosophical purpose, and started to try to find a way to skate out.

Interesting that you no longer quote me, too...so that I am not notified when you respond...

Is it the last word, that you really want?

Then you can have it. It's not worth anything, then.

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't have to. We're far to feeble minded to understand.

I think we’d be best to find that out by looking, rather that by presuming it, don’t you? Let’s see how far we get with our inquiries before deciding we’re too feeble-minded to get anywhere.

Look at what?

The question of mind, of course. Why decide you're too feeble minded to deal with it, before you even examine it? It doesn't make sense.

[Flannel Jesus]

Anyway, at the end of the day, what we have on the mind-is-physical side is, we've built a machine out of a simplified simulation of physical brains - a neural net - and it can talk to us! It can even pass a turing test, which is to say it can convince us it too has a mind! That doesntt' mean it has a mind just yet, but... well, it's a pretty solid piece of evidence towards minds being physical.

Meanwhile the non-physical mind idea has as much evidence for it today as it had a thousand years ago. Nada. Nilch. Not a single model. No idea how this non-physical mind actually operates. What kind of causality it exists under. No idea how it evolves from the past to the future.

It's just an appeal to magic. Minds seem kinda magical, so they must operate in a realm of magic. That's as far as it has gone, and as far as it will ever go. It is an anti-explanation. It's giving up on any hope of a real explanation.

[Immanuel Can]

Anyway, at the end of the day, what we have on the mind-is-physical side is, we've built a machine out of a simplified simulation of physical brains - a neural net - and it can talk to us! It can even pass a turing test, which is to say it can convince us it too has a mind! That doesntt' mean it has a mind just yet, but... well, it's a pretty solid piece of evidence towards minds being physical.

There's quite a difference between anything being really sentient, and something that can fool human beings. They're not even on the same continuum, in fact. (See the famous Weitzenbaum experiment with Eliza: even a rudimentary language algorithm fools most people.)

Meanwhile the non-physical mind idea has as much evidence for it today as it had a thousand years ago.

Lots, you mean? You're using your mind right now, in fact...at least, I hope you are.

[Flannel Jesus]

Anyway, at the end of the day, what we have on the mind-is-physical side is, we've built a machine out of a simplified simulation of physical brains - a neural net - and it can talk to us! It can even pass a turing test, which is to say it can convince us it too has a mind! That doesntt' mean it has a mind just yet, but... well, it's a pretty solid piece of evidence towards minds being physical.

There's quite a difference between anything being really sentient, and something that can fool human beings. They're not even on the same continuum, in fact. (See the famous Weitzenbaum experiment with Eliza: even a rudimentary language algorithm fools most people.)

yup, that's why I called it evidence and not proof.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I think we’d be best to find that out by looking, rather that by presuming it, don’t you? Let’s see how far we get with our inquiries before deciding we’re too feeble-minded to get anywhere.

Look at what?

The question of mind, of course. Why decide you're too feeble minded to deal with it, before you even examine it? It doesn't make sense.

? what question haven't I examined

[Flannel Jesus]

Lots, you mean? You're using your mind right now, in fact...at least, I hope you are.

After all this, you STILL don't get that I believe minds exist? Even after you assured me that you do understand that? Wow.

You are genuinely intellectually hopeless.