For Goblinite Half-Wits: Onus of Proof 101

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Thu, 2012-02-16 11:12

SOLOists: you will have noticed a Goblian onslaught recently—ill-mannered Goblians disrespecting a site paid for by someone else (me) on which they're cordially invited to dissent, by simply posting their rubbish ad nauseam. The most prominent among these Appalachians—Barren Darren, Baade and Burnsinhell—have made an issue of the onus of proof. In an effort to coalesce rational responses to their superstitionist bullshit onto one thread, I here quote what I said on one of their mindless threads:

... they're having problems with elementary logic. I'm not sure if it's on this thread or some other of their many, but I've recently seen them arguing here that the onus of proof, when they posit the existence of goblins, is on everyone else to prove that goblins don't exist.

I'd ask that all future posts on this matter be posted on this thread, so that the debate doesn't resemble a pomogoblian's brain-scan.

And I look forward to the pomogoblians' proof that goblins do exist. They're the ones saying it. They're the ones who must prove it.


x-ray I should make the distinction

seymourblogger's picture

between "read and learnt by heart" that Nietzsche makes. If you had learned from any of these people you would not ask the kind of questions you ask, you would not argue the way you argue, and you would not generalize the way you do. So while you may have read them, you do not know them.

x-ray just go to Nietzsche

seymourblogger's picture

Genealogy of Morals. It's not a long essay. Then read Babich's essay on it.

You are just a bee bringing honey back to your hive every day. First 2 pages of Genealogy.

Janet groping in the dark as usual

Xray's picture

Groping in the dark as usual you are, Janet. You cannot know what I have or have not read. Laughing out loud

If you would please provide direct quotes from Chomsky, Helmholtz, Wittgenstein, Gaddis, Foster Wallace that "say it better" than Ghs who wrote in Why Atheism, p. 33:

[George H. Smith] "The onus probandi is about as clear and uncontestable as any philosophical procedure could possibly be. Indeed, it is indespensable to any intellectual exchange in which the participants are seriously committed to the pursuit of truth."
(end quote)

yes x-ray it can be said

seymourblogger's picture

better than Smith. Much better. How about Chomsky for starters. Or Hemholtz. Or Wittgenstein. Or or or....... Ah but you haven't read any of them have you?

There's real gold and then there's counterfeit. If you haven't experienced the real - get that! - then you can't evaluate counterfeit can you!

Read Gaddis's Recognitions. He explains it to you in this novel.

Try anything by David Foster Wallace.

George Smith. Fool's gold.

Why would theists post at all on an Objectivist site?

Xray's picture

It would interest me how many of the theists posting (or who posted) here are ex-Objectivists.

much much better x-ray

seymourblogger's picture

How To Read Lacan - Slavoj Zizek p. 92

"Janet in Pomoland"

Xray's picture

Submitted by Peter (on Mon, 2012-03-12 12:40):

"Ach Angela, es ist doch klar daß die pomo Garnele nicht alle beisammen hat..." (end quote)

Das is sehr direkt ausgedrückt. Smiling
Irgendwie tut die mir auch leid, wie sie da herumkurvt in Foucaultschen/Baudrillardschen Welten und den Ausgang nicht mehr findet ...

Ach Angela, es ist doch klar

Peter's picture

Ach Angela, es ist doch klar daß die pomo Garnele nicht alle beisammen hat...

dead man

Brant Gaede's picture

Xray. Trying to reason with SM is as effective as giving medicine to a dead man.

--Brant

Submitted by seymourblogger

Xray's picture

Submitted by seymourblogger on Sat, 2012-03-10 22:10
"WTF didn't you say that in the beginning." (end quote)

I thought you knew what is meant by circular reasoning.

Submitted by seymourblogger on Fri, 2012-03-09 02:01.
"Considering whom you hang around with on objectivist living you are catching stupidity from them." (end quote)

You don't believe that yourself do you, that the posters on OL are "stupid".

You could actually learn a lot, for example by studying how conclusively George H. Smith conducts his argumentation in epistemological issues.

Here is an example that fits this thread title - it is about the burden of proof:
From his book Why Atheism, p. 33:

[George H. Smith] "The onus probandi is about as clear and uncontestable as any philosophical procedure could possibly be. Indeed, it is indespensable to any intellectual exchange in which the participants are seriously committed to the pursuit of truth."
(end quote)

Can one say it better, Janet?

x-ray Oh a tautology

seymourblogger's picture

WTF didn't you say that in the beginning.
daunce is dancer in case you thought you were being funny.

When someone is consistently nasty it behooves them to lock their facebook. Look at d-a-u-n-c-e's facebook page and you being a European will see exactly what I mean. If indeed you really are.

She's skanky looking.

Not anyone I would sit down and have a cuppa with.

Submitted by seymourblogger

Xray's picture

Submitted by seymourblogger on Fri, 2012-03-09 01:57.

"What's your point?" (end quote)

Circular reasoning is a fairly frequent fallacy in discussions with ideologists and those holding onto cherished beliefs (both non-secular and secular).
If for example you ask a devout believer "What can you provide as evidence that your "holy scripture" is the word of God?" , and the believer replies: "In the first chapter of the holy scripture, it says verbatim: "All that is written here is the word of God", it is circular reasoning because that which the questioner wanted to subject to critical examination (the alleged "truths" in the scripture) is fallaciously presented by the believer as the truth.

gregster and.......

seymourblogger's picture

Your point is.......?

Another product of state education

gregster's picture

That last post was due dilligence; and I felt justified in posting it because if my views are challenged, then I have a right to speak my peace to defend them. Due dilligence done.

well x-ray

seymourblogger's picture

Considering whom you hang around with on objectivist living you are catching stupidity from them

Hang around with crows and you don't get to hear the nightengales. - sufi saying

x-ray so

seymourblogger's picture

What's your point?

Submitted by seymourblogger

Xray's picture

Submitted by seymourblogger on Mon, 2012-03-05 04:59.

"It is not likely she has read the Bible in Aramaic or Greek or Latin, and all the translations it has gone through contribute to Biblical scholarship. This is the difficulty arguing points here as few are that skilled in the subject they are arguing about." (end quote)

I'm afraid Biblical scholarship is of no help because it will only land any 'onus of proof' discussion in the blind alley of circular reasoning.
In other words: one cannot 'prove' the existence of a 'god' by referring to elaborate translations of a book (written by humans) about this 'god'.

Check your premises

Xray's picture

Submitted by Richard Goode on Mon, 2012-03-05 03:03.
"We're all born Goblinites." (end quote)

We're all born Agnostics. Smiling

Janet's World

Xray's picture

Submitted by seymourblogger on Mon, 2012-03-05 00:20.
"Xray here is the truth.
There are 5, 634 angels that can dance on the head of a pin! I counted every one. It took me all might, but I did it just for you."

(end quote)

And as usual, you can't meet the burden of proof. Tsk, tsk. Laughing out loud

Submitted by seymourblogger on Sun, 2012-03-04 21:46.

"x-ray is going to have a hard time with all this information." (end quote)
Permananent transformation is a cosmic principle, so to speak, therefore to speculate that artificial intelligence may one day reach the level as described in the article is far more likely to upset those who claim that this is never going to happen.

"Of course Baudrillard explains why artificial intelligence will never reach the human level." (end quote)
See above. If that was really Baudrillard's position, and were he still alive to absorb what it says in the article, it would have given him something to chew over. Smiling

"Knowledge is not for knowing. Knowledge is for CUTTING. - Foucault (end quote)

One might as well answer with similar bla bla like e. g. "Knowledge is not for knowing. Knowledge is for BUILDING".
And I bet if your guru Foucault had declared: "Knowledge is not for knowing. Knowledge is for STEAMCOOKING" (or SHOCKFROSTING, take your pick, anything sounding postmodernly absurd will do), his adherents would thought of such 'messages' as gospel too. Laughing out loud

Your point is taken

Cornell's picture

And with all due respect to the owner of this site (and if he asks me, in person, to remove the post, I will), I would like to point out, that I didn't come here Bible-thumping out of the blue. I was called out. I responded. That's all this is.

Not mad at you

Jules Troy's picture

I was just pointing out that the owner of this site would prefer that god/mystical stuff be addressed on this thread.  He pays for the site, his house, his rules.  That is all I was pointing out.

Jules

Cornell's picture

I'd be happy to read it (a Dawkins book?), although I would point out that my two favorite thinkers -- Rand and Nietszche -- are both avowed atheists; my point being that most arguments against the existence of God don't even address my concepts; they are not conventional. I'm not here to make you be like me. That last post was due dilligence; and I felt justified in posting it because if my views are challenged, then I have a right to speak my peace to defend them. Due dilligence done. If it doesn't speak to you, then just move on. I certainly don't hold it against you.

No cornell

Jules Troy's picture

The idea of a universal intelligence does not offend me..exactly.  It is just that as an atheist  I gave up long ago cluttering up my head with useless thought processes that are self destructive.  Go read atheism the case against god for starters if you have not already.

 

How about...

Marcus's picture

Closing down sale! Eternal Salvation at crazy knock-off prices. (Hurry, everyone must go!)

marcus goode needs to read

seymourblogger's picture

Nietzsche's genealogy. Looks like you could use a little smoothing in your tongue too. Try it again.

What does that remind me of?

Marcus's picture

For a limited time only whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

(Offer ends soon.)

Oh yes, the Catholic church.

Eternal salvation. Two for the price of one!

goode indulge angela

seymourblogger's picture

She has a penchant for wiki definitions of metaphysics and epistemology so she needs your forebearance. It is not likely she has read the Bible in Aramaic or Greek or Latin, and all the translations it has gone through contribute to Biblical scholarship. This is the difficulty arguing points here as few are that skilled in the subject they are arguing about.

I am a good example.

goode Houellebecq flirts with it

seymourblogger's picture

in his The Possibility of An Island and with his hardware and software background before writing, I would say it is probably correct.

DeLillo has Eric Packer consider being on disc and so not dying in Cosmopolis.

It is definitely in the air, e.

I don't see any point in endlessly discussing and arguing pros and cons about it, but if it amuses certain nit pickers, and you want to indulge them, why not.

For a limited time only

Richard Goode's picture

whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

(Offer ends soon.)

End of the World sale

Richard Goode's picture

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish

(While stocks last.)

Angela

Richard Goode's picture

From 1 Corinthians 15:

"44 it [= the body] is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." (end quote)

Some early manuscripts have

it is sown a natural body, it is raised a body of silicon and steel.

Janet

Richard Goode's picture

if consciousness is substrate independent then how come brain damage results in a loss, lack, changed consciousness?

Substrate independence is the claim that consciousness is independent of any particular substrate, not the claim that consciousness is independent of any substrate.

Substrate independence is the claim that

conscious minds could in principle be implemented not only on carbon-based biological neurons (such as those inside your head) but also on some other computational substrate such as silicon-based processors.

In other words

what allows you to have conscious experiences is not the fact that your brain is made of squishy, biological matter but rather that it implements a certain computational architecture.

Do you accept or reject this claim?

goode if consciousness is substrate independent

seymourblogger's picture

then how come brain damage results in a loss, lack, changed consciousness? Jes' sayin'.

perigo when everything

seymourblogger's picture

not simplistically written seems to be in Polish, I would say there is a lack of intelligence in the world. Wouldn't you?

How can you repent ...

Richard Goode's picture

... when you haven't even adressed the argument?

The end is nigh! (Conclusion.)

Consciousness is substrate independent. (Premise.)

I forgot ...

Richard Goode's picture

As I've had occasion to say previously: ... 3) There's no threat to the world from "the Singularity" or any kind of "artificial intelligence."

Dare I say.. Amen!!

... to link to 25 Things You Need to Know About Brainwashing and Mind-Control.

Well, I would imagine that

Cornell's picture

Well, I would imagine that creating an effective piece of tech has the same difficulties that devising a coherent philosophy does -- the difficulty is not in making do something in particular, but making not conflict with itself and its environment.

I'm not going to say that reliable, human-level AI is impossible (because I don't know enough about it), but I will say that I'm sure it is utterly difficult.

You forgot ...

Richard Goode's picture

2) There's a Goblinite born every minute.

We're all born Goblinites.

Fallacies

Cornell's picture

"1) Goblinites are gullible. If you believe there's a goblin, you'll believe anything."

Strawman

'3) There's no threat to the world from "the Singularity" or any kind of "artificial intelligence."'

Ip se Dixit

"There is a huge threat to the world from the singular lack of, and hostility to, real intelligence, displayed by Goblinites."

Strawman. Again.

"We know they've not been trained in how to behave in another's house, but there's only so much one can blame on lack of breeding."

Contradiction. Objectivism is about truth and logic being invincible in the face of fallacy. With an ethical system based on this idea, how can you take offense at intellectual challenges to your interpretation of it, when you haven't even adressed the argument?

human all too human

Brant Gaede's picture

Machine all too machine.

--Brant
replacing real worries with pseudo worries

Lol Linz

Jules Troy's picture

Dare I say.. Amen!!  Lol

perigo you have to admit

seymourblogger's picture

it's very very funny!

Just enjoy.

x-ray here is the truth

seymourblogger's picture

There are 5, 634 angels that can dance on the head of a pin! I counted every one. It took me all might, but I did it just for you.

As I've had occasion ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to say previously:

Three things this thread demonstrates:

1) Goblinites are gullible. If you believe there's a goblin, you'll believe anything.

2) There's a Goblinite born every minute. Still.

3) There's no threat to the world from "the Singularity" or any kind of "artificial intelligence."

There is a huge threat to the world from the singular lack of, and hostility to, real intelligence, displayed by Goblinites. Why these silly creatures wish to flaunt their retarded intellectual status on a site like SOLO is beyond me. We know they've not been trained in how to behave in another's house, but there's only so much one can blame on lack of breeding.

Spiritual resurrection?

Xray's picture

Submitted by Richard Goode on Sun, 2012-03-04 13:57.

[question by Xray] What evidence to you have to support your claim [that the Singularity will occur before the end of the present century?]

When will the Singularity happen? http://singinst.org/singularit...
Thanks for the link, Richard. There's a lot of food for thought in there.

Re the second claim you made:

Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2012-03-02 06:04.
" 2) There will be a future (physical) Resurrection of the Dead as described in 1 Corinthians 15." (end quote RG)

I asked you:
"What evidence do you have to support your claim about physical resurrection of the dead?" (end quote Xray)

From 1 Corinthians 15:

"44 it [= the body] is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." (end quote)

So the resurrection is not physical then, but spiritual?

cornell yes yes yes yes

seymourblogger's picture

So can you imagine an artificial human being? Well we will probably end of like Asimov's Robot.

glad I'm old.

My analogy

Cornell's picture

According to Hawkings, you can't travel through time via a wormhole because it's impossible to keep one big enough for a human being open long enough without it collapsing because of temporal static, caused by irreconcilable complexities.

As for your example, it reminds me of my quest to find a paint sprayer that I don't have to cajole into working, take apart and scrub and declog every five seconds, and ultimately return to the store in utter frustration. I could have paint rolled several rooms in the house I'm remodelling with the time I've wasted trying to get sprayers to work.

cornell I don't know

seymourblogger's picture

about your analogy.

A story:

In Seymour MO 60 divided highway from Willow springs to Springfield has been spending lots of simulus funds giving us what we don't want. But if seen as Deterrence (a Baudrilladian term) all this highway construction is seen my hundreds of thousands and now millions of cars with people in them. When you drive by all the time and see this construction, your lying eyes are telling you that the economy can't be that bad or all these billions wouldn't be being spent.

DETERRENCE!

So they put a traffic light in Seymour. This stops truck traffic. This light wastes gas. But McDonald's is on this corner so you can bet they lobbied for it. Meanwhile cars in Seymour waiting to cross the highway to go to Springfield to work are forced to wait while the road is clear just because the light is read.

Now this happens to people every day a hundred times so they don't notice it. But when you have lived in a town as long as before automobiles and could look both ways and cross the highway with a very low accident rate at that intersection. Now you have to wait and fume. Add to that we have a rural like railroad crossing that lines cars up to get out of Dodge.

So you see how this creates a traffic blockage that technology has induced. A breakdown.

Now when they wee putting in the traffic light for months and months I was studying at McDonald's over endless cups of senior 46 cents coffee with free refills. And one day as I was looking out the window thinking over something I saw the men with their shovels digging the red Missouri clay soil out of the treads of the steam shovel. the stem shovel dirt lifter had ground to a halt. It couldn't move its treads because they were so clogged with red Missouri clay soil and it stopped when it accumulated under the body of the machine and stalled it.

So all that had to be dug out for hours and hours. I was hysterical with laughing. It was Baudrillard in action. And I wanted to cry because I couldn't video it and put it up on you tube. Such a perfect example.

A machine designed to make digging and lifting dirt so men and shovels wouldn't have to do it!

The more complex technology gets, the more it breaks down.

Cornell's picture

So human-level AI is unattainable for the same reason time-travel via wormholes is?

cornell the Japanese

seymourblogger's picture

believe every piece of technology has a demon inside. Sort of like the Gremlins in the planes in War II.

The more complex technology gets, the more it breaks down.

Duke who was head of the FDA and is an expert on herbs and organic growing has reverted and said that being excessively concerned with the purity of what you eat weakens your immune system and leaves you more vulnerable not less.

Of course Baudrillard explains why artificial intelligence will

Cornell's picture

Go on.

goode O good

seymourblogger's picture

x-ray is going to have a hard time with all this information.

Information is not knowing. - Baudrillard

The Information Bomb - Virilio

Knowledge is not for knowing. Knowledge is for CUTTING. - Foucault

Of course Baudrillard explains why artificial intelligence will never reach the human level.

Goode human level ai or other kinds

Jules Troy's picture

It definitely isn't happening on this frigging thread.

Repeat often

Richard Goode's picture

That's a lot of smart people predicting the end of the world as we know it.

Huh? Does the end of the world as we know it not appeal? No problem.

There's no threat to the world from "the Singularity" or any kind of "artificial intelligence."

Repeat often.

huh

Cornell's picture

That's a lot of smart people predicting the end of the world as we know it.

Angela

Richard Goode's picture

What evidence to you have to support your claim [that the Singularity will occur before the end of the present century]?

When will the Singularity happen?

Predicting the future is risky business. There are many philosophical, scientific, technological, and social uncertainties relevant to the arrival of the Singularity. Because of this, experts disagree on when the Singularity will occur. Here are some of their predictions:

  • Futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts that machines will reach human-level intelligence by 2030 and that we will reach "a profound and disruptive transformation in human capability" by 2045.[26]
  • Intel's chief technology officer, Justin Rattner, expects "a point when human and artificial intelligence merges to create something bigger than itself" by 2048.
  • AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky expects the intelligence explosion by 2060.
  • Philosopher David Chalmers has over 1/2 credence in the intelligence explosion occurring by 2100.[27]
  • Quantum computing expert Michael Nielsen estimates that the probability of the intelligence explosion occurring by 2100 is between 0.2% and about 70%.
  • In 2009, at the AGI-09 conference, experts were asked when AI might reach superintelligence with massive new funding. The median estimates were that machine superintelligence could be achieved by 2045 (with 50% confidence) or by 2100 (with 90% confidence). Of course, attendees to this conference were self-selected to think that near-term artificial general intelligence is plausible.[28]
  • iRobot CEO Rodney Brooks and cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter allow that the intelligence explosion may occur in the future, but probably not in the 21st century.
  • Roboticist Hans Moravec predicts that AI will surpass human intelligence "well before 2050."
  • In a 2005 survey of 26 contributors to a series of reports on emerging technologies, the median estimate for machines reaching human-level intelligence was 2085.[61]
  • Participants in a 2011 intelligence conference at Oxford gave a median estimate of 2050 for when there will be a 50% of human-level machine intelligence, and a median estimate of 2150 for when there will be a 90% chance of human-level machine intelligence.[62]
  • On the other hand, 41% of the participants in the AI@50 conference (in 2006) stated that machine intelligence would never reach the human level.

See also:

x-ray

seymourblogger's picture

You are so busy examining every vein in every leaf that you can't see the tree, much less the forest it is living in.

Submitted by seymourblogger

Xray's picture

Submitted by seymourblogger on Sat, 2012-03-03 23:23.

"goode x-ray sounds like a simulacrum of Rand." (end quote)

Janet,

All I'm asking of poster R. Goode (who claims X to be true) is to present evidence supporting his case.
After that, what he the presents as evidence will be scrutinized.
Your contribution to the examination of the presented evidence is welcome just as everyone else's posting here.

goode x-ray sounds like

seymourblogger's picture

a simulacrum of Rand.

Submitted by Richard Goode on

Xray's picture

Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2012-03-02 06:04.
"Let's restrict the discussion to physical substrates.

I make the following two (not necessarily unrelated) claims.

(1) The Singularity will occur before the end of the present century." (end quote)

What evidence to you have to support your claim?

Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2012-03-02 06:04.
" 2) There will be a future (physical) Resurrection of the Dead as described in 1 Corinthians 15." (end quote)

What evidence do you have to support your claim about physical resurrection of the dead?

Oh, not at all.

Cornell's picture

The Monolith is the other one. We all have to deal with -- especially these days. I choose to deal with him by speaking to him directly.

Hi, Mike, from the NSA!

The Monolith is the god we deserve.

Monolitheism

Richard Goode's picture

You're a monolitheist?

:)

Cornell's picture

Go here:

http://www.reverbnation.com/co...

and check out:

"Monolith" under "Songs"

Should be the first song there.

I.e., the electric guitar

Richard Goode's picture

I myself have said that interacting with God may be just a matter of developing the right technologies.

Baudrillard is an atheist

seymourblogger's picture

And he writes of evil:

The Intelligence of Evil

The Transnparency of Evil

more Baudrillard cornell

seymourblogger's picture

various "bad guy" characters refer to human beings as "collections of chemicals," and here she makes the point of saying that the character went from more than a "collection of chemicals" to "genuinely just a collection of chemicals."

brant that was Nietzsche

seymourblogger's picture

"willing" himself through her.

careful cornell

seymourblogger's picture

you are getting very very close to Baudrillardian thinking. Beware.

we have free will, but since we are complex machines made up of chemical matter, our will would be predictable if we were omniscient.

Ah Yes

Cornell's picture

That is the "guy" I'm talking about. And I did not know that about that character. How about that.

The "guy"

Brant Gaede's picture

The "guy" was the Wet Nurse, the only character in her novels Rand didn't force create as an act of will. He simply flowed out of her growing as he came.

--Brant

Well, I don't remember the

Cornell's picture

Well, I don't remember the exact page number, but it's the part where Rearden watched the guy sent from Washington die in his arms. I think it was near the end. Throughout the book, various "bad guy" characters refer to human beings as "collections of chemicals," and here she makes the point of saying that the character went from more than a "collection of chemicals" to "genuinely just a collection of chemicals." Now, it's true that we're more than just chemicals, in the same way that a computer is more than just a collection of silicone parts, but it is not literally false to say that.

Also, she is very much a "free will" philosopher; explicitly so. The idea that everything is made of chemical matter undermines that idea. Here's what I think -- we have free will, but since we are complex machines made up of chemical matter, our will would be predictable if we were omniscient.

What is the Objectivist position?

Xray's picture

Submitted by Cornell on Fri, 2012-03-02 04:59.
"I would posit that it is inconsistent with an objectivist outlook to say that consciousness, or anything for that matter, is matter-independent. " (end quote)
Indeed, positioning a "self" as matter-independent sounds more like Zen-Buddhism than Objectivism. Smiling

"(side note: Atlas Shrugged seems to suggest that Rand believes that the self is not material dependent, which I find strange)?"
(end quote)

Cornell,
If possible, could you provide some direct quotes from AS which suggest to you that Rand believed this. TIA.

Consciousness without material substrate?

Xray's picture

Submitted by Peter on Fri, 2012-03-02 00:00.

Or do you perhaps mean "can it [consciousness] exist without matter"? (end quote)

My question to R. Goode was about whether consciousness can exist without material (physical) substrate.

Completely fucking

Richard Goode's picture

I never would have guessed you were just as "nuts" as I am.

"nuts"? Sure.

...Huh

Cornell's picture

I never would have guessed you were just as "nuts" as I am.

I'm not sure the singularity is what will bring this about, but I myself have said that interacting with God may be just a matter of developing the right technologies.

Please

Richard Goode's picture

I would posit that it is inconsistent with an objectivist outlook to say that consciousness, or anything for that matter, is matter-independent.

Let's restrict the discussion to physical substrates.

I make the following two (not necessarily unrelated) claims.

(1) The Singularity will occur before the end of the present century.
(2) There will be a future (physical) Resurrection of the Dead as described in 1 Corinthians 15.

I hope I'm not going to regret stepping in here, but:

Cornell's picture

I would posit that it is inconsistent with an objectivist outlook to say that consciousness, or anything for that matter, is matter-independent. That would seem to violate the law of identity. After all, assuming, as Objectivists do, that the physical world is self-sufficient, how can something simultaneously exist within it, and yet not be answerable to physical and chemical cause and effect (side note: Atlas Shrugged seems to suggest that Rand believes that the self is not material dependent, which I find strange)?

The only thing I can conclude is that we are extremely complex bio-mechanisms which have identity by virtue of the power of cohesive-self-reference.

Of course, I would stop FAR short of the now popular Dennett ideology of anti-selfhood.

peter it's just spinning words

seymourblogger's picture

neither means anything at all.

What's the difference between

Peter's picture

What's the difference between "matter independent" and "substrate independent"? Or do you perhaps mean "can it exist without matter"? That isn't the same thing, just as "substrate independent" doesn't mean that it can exist without substrate.

Angela

Richard Goode's picture

The key question is whether consciousness is matter independent.

Do you also believe that consciousness is matter independent?

In principle, yes. (Whether or not consciousness is matter independent is not a key question.)

Can an immaterial substance implement the computational architecture necessary for consciousness? I don't know the answer to that question, and neither do you, so let's restrict the discussion to physical substrates.

Submitted by Cornell on Thu,

Xray's picture

Submitted by Cornell on Thu, 2012-03-01 08:29.

"I take this is actually a broader, epistemological debate?" (end quote)

All debates about onus of proof are always also epistemological debates.

Submitted by Richard Goode on

Xray's picture

Submitted by Richard Goode on Mon, 2012-02-27 01:07.
"I believe that consciousness is substrate independent. Do you?" (end quote)

The key question is whether consciousness is matter independent.

Do you also believe that consciousness is matter independent?

Submitted by seymourblogger

Xray's picture

Submitted by seymourblogger on Thu, 2012-03-01 03:33.

"Her [Lou Salomé's] books are languishing for a creative translater. There is money for you there. No need? for love?
(end quote)

Janet,

Translations are normally done by native speakers from the foreign language into their native language.
That is, you would have to ask a native speaker of English to do the job of translating Lou Salomé's unpublished work.
Aside from being no native speaker of English, doing translations in general does not give me a feeling of pleasure.
So if I do it, it is nearly always out of necessity for a specific reason, like e. g. explaining a German phrase in an English-speaking forum for clarification purposes.

I take this is actually a

Cornell's picture

I take this is actually a broader, epistemological debate?

Cornell

gregster's picture

Hi.

He means it.

No

Richard Goode's picture

...Is this for real?

No.

cornell I have no idea

seymourblogger's picture

but the confabulation around here is not to be believed.

"I'm not sure if it's on this

Cornell's picture

"I'm not sure if it's on this thread or some other of their many, but I've recently seen them arguing here that the onus of proof, when they posit the existence of goblins, is on everyone else to prove that goblins don't exist."

...Is this for real?

x-ray can we get back to Lou Salome

seymourblogger's picture

Her books are languishing for a creative translater. There is money for you there. No need? for love?

"philosophical" truth?

Xray's picture

Submitted by seymourblogger on Mon, 2012-02-27 21:49.

"You keep using "truth" in this literal sense of the "truth" on a thread. When discussing philosophy "truth" is something entirely different. You just keep getting categories mixed up and that causes all these ping-pong games." (end quote)

You are sorely mistaken. Epistemology is a key section of philosophy dealing with knowledge; truth plays an essenttial role there.

Submitted by seymourblogger on Mon, 2012-02-27 21:51.
"but information is not knowing." (end quote)

Knowledge cannot exist without information having been proceeded first.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.