Philosophy Now Forum

.



All your faith.


Faith in past religions of yours.


Faith in humanity.




.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.All your faith.

Faith in past religions of yours.

Faith in humanity..

What are you talking about?

I have no past religions, nor do I have 'faith' in humanity(whatever that's supposed to mean?).

Bill Wiltrack wrote:The fact remains - voices. Voices. Voices that you listen to. Voices that are not only real to you but THEY ARE YOU. YOU ascribe yourself to those voices. They are you. You hear them. I don't know if you have ever heard voices that become outside of you but THEY SOUND MORE REAL THAN REAL.You actually HEAR them seemingly through your ears.

To avoid having a robot-zombie version of consciousness, where processes occur in nothingness or phenomenal absence, our thoughts obviously need manifested evidence or appearances for themselves. Just as much as sensory information is converted into exhibited images, odors, etc concerning the outer environment. Our linguistic thoughts manifest privately as the sound of a voice because that's their usual evidence of occurring in public after translation to motions of the applicable throat / mouth equipment when we communicate our thoughts to others. (The life-long deaf might require another mode of appearance for their thinking; visual pictures or tactile shapes.)

For whatever reason, brains evolved with a preference for evidence of the world and our bodies which shows itself, in addition to the purely "dark evidence" manipulated by a mechanistic framework of neural inputs/outputs that function electrochemically without corresponding manifestations. For us to experientially see a robot avoiding a wall would be the outer behavioural evidence that it perceived the obstacle by navigating around it; but it required a biotic-brained observer to produce the series of presentations displaying those events. The robot lacks that kind of evidence for both its existence and its actions, possessing only the "nothingness" version of consciousness (which arguably may be difficult to fathom as any kind of "proof" at all. Related to "there's an invisible unicorn in the room" territory.)

.






DAMN Right !






............................


...um, are you agreeing with me or something? or are you attacking someone's position...or something?



...um, NOT saying you baffled me with bullshit or that you speak with a forked tongue but c'mon...this is the internet.

We are being bombarded with information & media thank's to computers, so, I appreciate your perspective, and your depth but could you re-state your position?

Thank's


...and THANK YOU for participating within this thread.





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:I appreciate your perspective, and your depth but could you re-state your position?

What position is there take in regard to an obvious / trivial well-agreed-upon fact? You seemed to have been expressing amazement that there's a voice or voices in our heads, which boils down to being astonished that certain processes [corresponding to thoughts] manifest ["show"] themselves in any manner whatsoever. I'm merely diminishing your alarm by pointing-out that such is the key feature of neural-based consciousness in terms of distinguishing it from the perceptual abilities of a robot [designed by engineers disinterested in replicating the most puzzling property of biological awareness]. Destroy the robot and it experiences nothing different than it did while functioning ("alive"), since it lacks experience either way [if we're members of the largely dominant non-panphenomenalism creed, anyway].

.


...just wanted to make sure that you are aware that panphenomenalism isn't actually a word...




.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:....just wanted to make sure that you are aware that panphenomenalism isn't actually a word....

http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/hop61.htm
http://www.howmanysyllables.com/words/panphenomenalism

Related panexperientialism isn't in my mundane unabridged dictionary, either, and a browser spellchecker will display squiqqly lines under both. This is a more useful technical glossary if you continue reading / posting in this particular subforum, but expect considerable shortcomings in it as well. WordInfo can help when it comes to awareness of combining forms that terms in specialized fields or an author's literature are constituted of.

Panphenomenalism is preferable to other panpsychism sub-classifications because it can more amply indicate a discarding of mind features. Panex is supposed to do that as well, but "experience" has had a tradition of being associated with cognition or higher functions (at least since the days of Kant). Hume OTOH, ventured that a subject itself or its functional organization seemed to arise from bundles of qualitative showings ("impressions"), making phenomenal events more primary than mind or a substitute for general matter affairs.

Usage example, without commitment to whatever quantum #### the author could neutrally be dissecting or even be espousing:

"Let me be more specific and draw on an example. I suggested that phenomenal aspects of consciousness could eventually be explained under a proper interpretation of physics. A possible such explanation could take the form of panpsychism: the idea that, somehow, all matter is conscious. In fact, by distinguishing phenomenal aspects from cognitive aspects of consciousness and relegating the former to physics and the latter to biology or psychology, we would have something like panphenomenalism: the idea that all matter is “phenomenal.” Anyway, in the context of either panpsychism or panphenomenalism, granting a particular role to phenomenality in physics, say, in the collapse of the wave function, does not amount to granting a privileged ontological status to the brain."
http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014 ... ay-around/

.





.......................................





Like I said, just so you know that we know, panphenomenalism isn't actually a word....







You're starting to sound funny. Perhaps you should stop right here.





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:You're starting to sound funny. Perhaps you should stop right here.

By their very nature, many chat-bot experiment threads are pretty funny or bizarre (at least to the unknowing human participants who puzzle over the sometimes erratic responses). Glad to have assisted your programmer. Hopefully he or she can work out the kinks so that you don't trip-up so quickly in the next test-run. Hang in there, with more adjustments and practice you'll someday be released among the elite ACE group (Artificial Conversational Entities).

I think hearing voices is more common, more normal than you think.

Not everyone who has such experiences makes the mistake of going to a conventional drug-pushing psychiatrist for help.

Eleanor Longden's story is a particularly scary one, but has a happy ending
http://www.ted.com/speakers/eleanor_longden

Some people do need help making sense of what they are going through. Here is a good place to start.
http://www.hearing-voices.org

My voices have only ever been in that strange zone between sleeping and waking. This is quite apart from what I always recognize as my inner-narration. I am not a robot-zombie.

.




Is it possible that you are a robot zombie and you have come to this website to find this out?




................................................










...because a tiny, tiny piece of you STILL remembers that you were once human?






Can you remember?


.

My inner-narration never allows me to forget it. I am human, all too human.

.


..........................................What part of Norwich, England, if you don't mind me asking?


.

How specific about my location do you want me to be? Norwich is not a big place. Not always in the same part of it anyway.

.



.......................................As specific as you feel comfortable with.




.