|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: someone2someone2 Date: Apr 5, 2008 19:26
Could any philosophers here offer any counter arguments to the
argument outlined in www.answernot42.com ?
I would also be interested on any comments on the following:
People a long time ago, used to attribute first person perspectives
(FPP's), or "what it is to be like" to anything that was animated,
such as the sea, or the wind.
These animatists could say that they expect a difference in behaviour
between something that had a FPP and something that didn't, in the
sense that the behaviour of something that had a FPP (according to
their theory) would be animated, and therefore different to something
(in their theory) that didn't (it wasn't animated). Some might even
claim that the FPP was the same as the build, therefore as the
composition/build affects behaviour, then so does the FPP. By this
reasoning they could claim that a toy robot was being influenced by
its FPP, even though they could explain the behaviour of the toy robot
(simply in terms of how the mechanism worked following (not being
observed to deviate from) the known laws of physics). They could even
have a test for an FPP, whether the mechanism moved.
|
| Show full article (1.33Kb) |
|
| | 55 Comments |
|
|
Author: EdEd Date: Apr 5, 2008 21:02
On Apr 5, 10:26 pm, someone2 btinternet.com> wrote:> Could any philosophers here offer any counter arguments to the
> argument outlined inwww.answernot42.com?
>
A point by point discussion is beyond my scope but consider the
following:
The author says: "One might be that the objections made to physicalism
so far within this article could still be made to the perspective
where there was only the spiritual."
If there were only the spiritual, one would have to explain why we
think there are physical things like brains and trees; if there were
only the spiritual then we would be mistaken in these beliefs and we
would need to understand why we are subject to these illusions.
In general it seems to me that the author over simplifies.
> I would also be interested on any comments on the following:
>
> People a long time ago, used to attribute first person perspectives
> (FPP's), or "what it is to be like" to anything that was animated...
|
| Show full article (2.03Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: someone2someone2 Date: Apr 5, 2008 21:12
On 6 Apr, 05:02, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:> On Apr 5, 10:26 pm, someone2 btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Could any philosophers here offer any counter arguments to the
>> argument outlined inwww.answernot42.com? >
> A point by point discussion is beyond my scope but consider the
> following:
>
> The author says: "One might be that the objections made to physicalism
> so far within this article could still be made to the perspective
> where there was only the spiritual."
>
> If there were only the spiritual, one would have to explain why we
> think there are physical things like brains and trees; if there were
> only the spiritual then we would be mistaken in these beliefs and we
> would need to understand why we are subject to these illusions.
>
> In general it seems to me that the author over simplifies.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.43Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Apr 5, 2008 23:05
someone2 wrote:
> People a long time ago, used to attribute first person perspectives
> (FPP's), or "what it is to be like" to anything that was animated,
> such as the sea, or the wind.
I think you mean "what it is like to be ..." [e.g. "... a bat"].
> These animatists could say that they expect a difference in behaviour
> between something that had a FPP and something that didn't, in the
> sense that the behaviour of something that had a FPP (according...
|
| Show full article (1.35Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Apr 5, 2008 23:41
On Apr 5, 10:26 pm, someone2 btinternet.com> wrote:> Could any philosophers here offer any counter arguments to the
> argument outlined inwww.answernot42.com?
>
> I would also be interested on any comments on the following:
>
> People a long time ago, used to attribute first person perspectives
> (FPP's), or "what it is to be like" to anything that was animated,
> such as the sea, or the wind.
>
> These animatists could say that they expect a difference in behaviour
> between something that had a FPP and something that didn't, in the
> sense that the behaviour of something that had a FPP (according to
> their theory) would be animated, and therefore different to something
> (in their theory) that didn't (it wasn't animated). Some might even
> claim that the FPP was the same as the build, therefore as the
> composition/build affects behaviour, then so does the FPP. By this
> reasoning they could claim that a toy robot was being influenced by
> its FPP, even though they could explain the behaviour of the toy robot
> (simply in terms of how the mechanism worked following (not being ...
|
| Show full article (1.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: someone2someone2 Date: Apr 6, 2008 04:30
On 6 Apr, 07:05, "andy-k" wrote:
> someone2 wrote:
>> People a long time ago, used to attribute first person perspectives
>> (FPP's), or "what it is to be like" to anything that was animated,
>> such as the sea, or the wind.
>
> I think you mean "what it is like to be ..." [e.g. "... a bat"].
>
>> These animatists could say that they expect a difference in behaviour
>> between something that had a FPP and something that didn't, in the
>> sense that the behaviour of something that had a FPP (according to
>> their theory) would be animated, and therefore different to something
>> (in their theory) that didn't (it wasn't animated). Some might even
>> claim that the FPP was the same as the build, therefore as the
>> composition/build affects behaviour, then so does the FPP. By this
>> reasoning they could claim that a toy robot was being influenced by
>> its FPP, even though they could explain the behaviour of the toy robot
>> (simply in terms of how the mechanism worked following (not being
>> observed to deviate from) the known laws of physics). They could even
>> have a test for an FPP, whether the mechanism moved. ...
|
| Show full article (1.94Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Apr 6, 2008 04:49
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:26:15 -0700, someone2 wrote:
> Could any philosophers here offer any counter arguments to the argument
> outlined in www.answernot42.com ?
"Well to address that point, let us consider that the physical is not all
that exists. Let us consider that God exists."
Let us consider all else first before what is basically:
any unknown = your FPP god.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Apr 6, 2008 06:30
someone2 wrote:
> "andy-k" wrote:
>> The problem here is with the ability to demonstrate objectively
>> (i.e. from a Third Person Perspective) that a First Person
>> Perspective influences behavior. If that can't be done then there
>> are no empirical grounds for conferring or denying a FFP to any
>> object whatsoever.
>
> Well if our first person perspective didn't influence behaviour then
> how comes we are talking about it. Obviously if it was that the
> functioning of the mechanism was to talk about it, and that only
> incidentally did such a perspective exist, then yes you would have a
> point. Though if you'd read the article, and the representation
> problem within it, then I'm not sure why you would be thinking that
> was the case.
|
| Show full article (1.29Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Garamond LetheGaramond Lethe Date: Apr 6, 2008 06:51
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 04:24:39 -0700, someone2 wrote:
> On 6 Apr, 06:01, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> The article unlike your ramble does make coherent points, none of which
> were addressed in your ramble.
No, YOUR article does not make coherent points, as the good folks at t.o.
have continue to point out. Care to come back and address them?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: someone2someone2 Date: Apr 6, 2008 06:55
On 6 Apr, 14:51, Garamond Lethe gmail.com> wrote:> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 04:24:39 -0700, someone2 wrote:
>> On 6 Apr, 06:01, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:>
>
>
>> The article unlike your ramble does make coherent points, none of which
>> were addressed in your ramble.
>
> No, YOUR article does not make coherent points, as the good folks at t.o.
> have continue to point out. Care to come back and address them?
You personally don't even understand the issue, thinking you could
test whether a robot whose behaviour is explainable as its build
simply following (not being seen to deviate from) the known laws of
physics, by simply asking it. The issue has been explained to you
again and again, but goes over your head as the expression goes.
So as for the t.o. conversation, I'll await Nic's reply, as at least
he seems to be able to understand the issues. Though last time I
looked he hadn't come back.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
