In what sense is Descartes's dualism wrong?

[Gary Childress]

Because I know I am.

HOW do you know, Gary?

What method/measurement/experiment did you perform to obtain this knowledge?

You don't know what I know.

Correct. But I do know what you don't know. I know that you don't know that you are conscious.

Worry about what you know.

I worry about what I know AND I worry about what you know.

I know that I don't know that I am conscious, which is why I am worried that you think you know it.

Are you a solipsist or something?

Far from it.

I am human. That's the only label I care to attach to myself.

Did you turn your computer off last night and therefore murder it? If you kill another human being did you simply erase their hard drive?

[Skepdick]

Did you turn your computer off last night and therefore murder it? If you kill another human being did you simply erase their hard drive?

Why are you trivializing my argument, Gary? You are (at the very least) your experiences and all of your memories. Your memories are encoded in the physical state of your brain.

If I was to lobotomize you and you forgot everything about your childhood, growing up and you became unable to recognize your family. Would you still be "Gary Childress"?

The shell (body) would be the same shell Gary Childress used to inhabit...

[Gary Childress]

If I was to lobotomize you and you forgot everything about your childhood, growing up and you became unable to recognize your family. Would you still be "Gary Childress"?

The shell (body) would be the same shell Gary Childress used to inhabit...

I don't know but I would presumably still be conscious and only I would know it.

[Gary Childress]

Did you turn your computer off last night and therefore murder it? If you kill another human being did you simply erase their hard drive?

Why are you trivializing my argument,

Because it's a trivial argument.

[Skepdick]

I don't know but I would presumably still be conscious and only I would know it.

It seems to me "being conscious" is way more important to you than being yourself.

Suit yourself.

I am OK not being conscious. It's not like I can change it - so I don't worry about it.

[Skepdick]

Because it's a trivial argument.

What is a non-trivial argument then?

Gary Childress values himself more than he values an iPad?

Well done. Every human does the same.

[Gary Childress]

Gary Childress values himself more than he values an iPad?

Well done. Every human does the same.

And you think an iPad is equally valuable as a human? You don't think an iPad is less valuable than a human? I'm not understanding your point unless it's simply to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Gary Childress]

I am OK not being conscious. It's not like I can change it - so I don't worry about it.

If you're not conscious, then you don't feel pain and you would have no moral value outside of instrumental value. I assume you are just being facetious, though.

[Skepdick]

And you think an iPad is equally valuable as a human? You don't think an iPad is less valuable than a human?

Where have I said that, Gary? Nowhere. You are projecting your (mis)understanding onto me.

The similarities and differences I am pointing our are strictly ontological. I am not many any value-based arguments.

I'm not understanding your point unless it's simply to argue for the sake of arguing.

My point is that ontologically (and theoretically) speaking humans are computers, ergo humans and computers share properties and features.

It's not at all surprising since we are inventing computers in the likes of our own image. We manipulate symbols (language) so we invented machines to do the same.

[Gary Childress]

And you think an iPad is equally valuable as a human? You don't think an iPad is less valuable than a human?

Where have I said that, Gary?

Nowhere. You are projecting your (mis)understanding onto me.

I'm not understanding your point unless it's simply to argue for the sake of arguing.

My point is that ontologically (and theoretically) speaking humans are computers, ergo humans and computers share properties and features.

It's not at all surprising since we are inventing computers and the concept of computation in the likes of our own image. We manipulate symbols (language) so we invented machines to do the same.

As I asked before, if you kill another human being, are you simply erasing their hard drive?

[Skepdick]

If you're not conscious, then you don't feel pain and you would have no moral value outside of instrumental value.

Correct. I don't "feel pain". What I "feel" is a survival procedure in my brain which triggers a reflex response aimed at self-preservation.

It's just a description, Garry. Do you get it or not?

I assume you are just being facetious, though.

I am trying to get you to understand. that whether you call it "pain" or "a "survival procedure" is immaterial.

I can never know whether you experience pain in the same way I experience pain.
i can never know whether you see the color red the same way I see the color red.

It's just language! We have agreed on the jargon - so we use the words.

[Gary Childress]

Or conversely, did you murder your computer last night if you turned it off?

[Skepdick]

As I asked before, if you kill another human being, are you simply erasing their hard drive?

That's a loaded question. No point in answering it.

As I explained to you. if I "erased your hard drive" (lobotomy) - that would be harmful to you also!

[Skepdick]

Or conversely, did you murder your computer last night if you turned it off?

No! I just put it to sleep. All of its memories are in tact.

You know that data on your hard drive survives reboots, right?

[Gary Childress]

As I asked before, if you kill another human being, are you simply erasing their hard drive?

That's a loaded question. No point in answering it.

As I explained to you. if I "erased your hard drive" (lobotomy) - that would be harmful to you also!

If you kill a human, are you simply erasing their hard drive? Why not answer it?