Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:54 pm
The robot comprehends enough to make the choice.
"Comprehends" is not a verb one can use literally about robots. They "comprehend" nothing at all.
Not talking about human comprehension, and your refusal to use the word elsewhere holds no weight unless you can say how I different from the robot except in degree of complexity, without premises borrowed from the non-physical view. Your continued application of the premise that humans are special is clouding your ability to analyze anything.
You notice I reach for the simple examples (thermostat say) to learn the nature of words (like 'choice'), then just scale that up to understand more complex things where the algorithm is too complex to follow. If you refuse to use any of these nouns and verbs elsewhere, then learning becomes impossible. I'm not suggesting we should make thermostats into citizens.
Your will cannot act, because if it could, it would be part of the material. This, BTW, is what I meant several posts ago when I say you don't state your position.
If I understood your question, I would attempt an answer.
I will attempt to clarify. You will to evade a rock rolling towards you, but your physical body operates on physical principles all in the same way that is always argued in these determinism debates. No, I don't think there is hard determinism either, but your immediate behavior is still pretty much determined by prior state. How do you effect your choice to evade? I do it the automaton way: Notice the rock, assess danger, take action. But your view has the body with no will of its own, so how does the will translate to some physical difference that initiates the evasion act?
If you say that instance would be an automatic response, then pick an example where it is not. This is the falsification test your view suggests. Demonstrate a violation of known physics, else the body is acting exactly in the way a physicalist would suggest.
There were other issues you always evade, but that was the one I referenced in the piece above.
What is the function of the soul? Not asking how it works. OK, it has will and higher experience (qualia and such). How about cognition, intelligence and memory? What does the brain do on the other hand. Sure, heartbeat and such, but where's the cutoff?
In effect, I'm asking what you expect to take with you into the afterlife, and what gets lost/replaced in the afterlife.
I cannot word it that way to all dualists since not all of them believe in an afterlife for the mental component.
This is incorrect. You should read Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment, and you'd understand why it's wrong.
I have. Was unaware that it was about 'will', but then I didn't draw Searle's concluson either. It was a poor conception of something designed to fail a black box Turing test.
You've misunderstood the Turing Test if you suppose it's a rejoinder to the Chinese Room problem. Turing was interested in quite a different question than Searle. Searle wanted to ask, "Can computers think?" and Turing wanted to say, "Forget that: can computers
fool people into
imagining that they are thinking beings?" These are separate issues.
I'm interested in that. What "comfort" do you get from Materialism or Determinism?
Decline. You'd interpret it your way.
The JWs actually forbid thinking about it for exactly that reason. It is a sin to be rational.
Good thing I'm not a JW.
I wouldn't cotton to that.
I hear ya there. That's the way to get them not to come back when they visit. Start making them think.
Why does it have a "where"? Between what and what? 