compatibilism

[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

[iambiguous]

Nah. The meat all by its lonesome can't accounts for personhood (bein' a free will). It, the meat, can't even account for the illusion of personhood. If we were just meat, we'd be just meat machines, and wouldn't be havin' this conversation.

Click.

Right, like henry and his ilk can provide us with a substantive, substantial, scientific account explaining how this part...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

...unfolded going back to the Big Bang? to the explanation for the existence of existence itself?

On the other hand, henry assures us this all goes back to his very own rendition of "a God, the God, my God". Only his God, after implanting souls with free will in mere mortals "down here", split the scene. Never to return?

At least with those here like IC, there's the claim that substantive scientific and historical evidence establishing the existence of the Christian God does exist. Just don't ask him to explore this evidence with you.

[iambiguous]

it can't account for the fact that meat can "think about" personhood, or "know" it's a person, or "believe" in Determinism, if that meat "chooses" to. In fact, Determinism can't describe any cognitive actions at all. It has to reduce them to some kind of meat-matter, at which point, those phenomena all become utterly experientially unrecognizable to an actual human being.

Yep...

If we were just meat, we'd be just meat machines, and wouldn't be havin' this conversation.

Click. And then some?

These two ever following each other around with their "yeps".

They both connect the dots between free will and a God, the God, their God. Only they are different Gods! Henry will burn in Hell for all eternity if IC can't convince him to accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior.

As for IC's fate given the existence of the Deist God? Don't ask henry. To the best of my recollection, he's not even sure there is an afterlife. Let alone salvation.

Religion it turns out is often about a scripted life. There are almost always moral commandments. And while a God, the God may not compel/force mere mortals to obey them, what if they don't...?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

it can't account for the fact that meat can "think about" personhood, or "know" it's a person, or "believe" in Determinism, if that meat "chooses" to. In fact, Determinism can't describe any cognitive actions at all. It has to reduce them to some kind of meat-matter, at which point, those phenomena all become utterly experientially unrecognizable to an actual human being.

Yep...

If we were just meat, we'd be just meat machines, and wouldn't be havin' this conversation.

Click. And then some?

These two ever following each other around with their "yeps".

They both connect the dots between free will and a God, the God, their God. Only they are different Gods! Henry will burn in Hell for all eternity if IC can't convince him to accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior.

As for IC's fate given the existence of the Deist God? Don't ask henry. To the best of my recollection, he's not even sure there is an afterlife. Let alone salvation.

Religion it turns out is often about a scripted life. There are almost always moral commandments. And while a God, the God may not compel/force mere mortals to obey them, what if they don't...?

Yeah but IC denied believing beyond knowledge!

Me: I trust you don't believe in anything, apart from coherent, justified true beliefs, so what am I missing?
'im: You are correct.

Unless!!!! He knows God?

[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.)

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

It's not even that. It's actually just a false analogy.

[Immanuel Can]

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

How mind exists, if Materialism or Physicalism is true.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

No, I get that you say you believe it. What doesn't make sense is why or how you would come to believe it, if you believe in Materialism or Physicalism, because it contradicts both.

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah but IC denied believing beyond knowledge!

Me: I trust you don't believe in anything, apart from coherent, justified true beliefs, so what am I missing?
'im: You are correct.

Unless!!!! He knows God?

Very good. You've arrived.

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

It's not even that. It's actually just a false analogy.

That's just a head in the sand level approach.

We built a machine that can do things previously relegated to only thinking beings, and we did it by mimicking the structures of the physical brain. If you can't even admit that it's a little bit of evidence that maybe those physical structures are responsible for thinking, it's a little bit of evidence that maybe that's where thought happens, your brain is cooked.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

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

How mind exists, if Materialism or Physicalism is true.

If?

Mind exists. By physicalism.

And you know I haven't examined it how?

Nature can't give us an answer we understand, so God done it?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Yeah but IC denied believing beyond knowledge!

Me: I trust you don't believe in anything, apart from coherent, justified true beliefs, so what am I missing?
'im: You are correct.

Unless!!!! He knows God?

Very good. You've arrived.

Wow! Give Him my regards. Hmmm, the word 'solipsism' just popped in to my head. Is that you Lord?!

[Immanuel Can]

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

It's not even that. It's actually just a false analogy.

That's just a head in the sand level approach.

No, it's an accurate classification, and one we very much need to understand in the present moment, given our entrancement with AI.

You'll find that though there's an alluring confusion between the two, there's no genuine compatibility between AI and real, human intelligence. And the appearance of the former is merely a product of the reality of the latter, not genuine intelligence at all.

See Searle's "Chinese Room" experiment, if you want to know why that's true.

[Immanuel Can]

Mind exists. By physicalism.

It exists. But not by physicalism.

Give me, please, the physical dimensions of rationality. How many ounces in a personality? What is the weight of a thought? What's the volume of logic, and how many pieces does "a morality" have?

You can see very easily that it's utterly foolish to attribute physical characteristics to mental phenomena. It's so obviously just a category error. And yet, as you insist, mind does exist. So how does it exist, if physicalism were true? Mental phenomena have no physical characteristics.

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah but IC denied believing beyond knowledge!

Me: I trust you don't believe in anything, apart from coherent, justified true beliefs, so what am I missing?
'im: You are correct.

Unless!!!! He knows God?

Very good. You've arrived.

Wow! Give Him my regards.

It's your own "regards" that would make any difference. I can't give Him that on your behalf. You'll have to speak to Him yourself...

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Mind exists. By physicalism.

It exists. But not by physicalism.

Give me, please, the physical dimensions of rationality. How many ounces in a personality? What is the weight of a thought? What's the volume of logic, and how many pieces does "a morality" have?

You can see very easily that it's utterly foolish to attribute physical characteristics to mental phenomena. It's so obviously just a category error. And yet, as you insist, mind does exist. So how does it exist, if physicalism were true? Mental phenomena have no physical characteristics.

You can see very easily that it's utterly foolish to attribute non-physical characteristics to mental phenomena. It's so obviously just a category error. [As the non-physical is meaningless]. And yet, as you insist, mind does exist. So how does it exist, if physicalism were true? [Because physicalism is true]. Mental phenomena have no non-physical characteristics.