Atheist Evolutionary Accounts...

[someone]

Posts not getting through so I'm trying to post a new thread to see if that helps. This is a continuation of

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/VJMS6crS9AU/aUXNeEh7lycJ

Burkhard had stated:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/VJMS6crS9AU/z1-rJwbSVY4J
---
If the input is: "I'm conscious" then the robot knows it is not in the zombie universe, as there is at least one thing that has conscience. If
the robot is not conscious, then it can;t know - and neither can my
washing machine, despite its quite amazing computational prowess.
---

My Response: The inputs would just be "on/off" or "1/0" switches. How are you suggesting that the settings of one or more of the switches would reflect a measurement of whether it is a zombie universe or not, and are you suggesting that the NAND gates arrangements behaviour would depend upon whether those settings did reflect a measurement of whether it was a zombie universe or not?

[Burkhard]

Simply look at your own analogy with the mp3 player. It either does or
does not accurately sense the color of the box. So to alternatives:
- your robot is a reliable sensor for its own consciousness, and your
problem disappears
- your robot is not a reliable sensor for its own consciousness, and in
that case your story gets trivial (and as others have pointed out, the
2. universe does not add anything substantial. Of course I could program
my toaster to say it is alive, conscious and a fan of Dan Brown (just to
keep it realistic, one would not expect more form a toaster) but that
has no philosophical implications.

[someone]

With the mp3 player it could play track 1 "I'm in a blue box" if the input was 0, and play track 2 "I'm in a green box" if the input was 1. And if the input had come from a camera which gave out a 0 if the box it was in was blue, and a 1 if the box it was in green you could state that it would play play track 1 "I'm in a blue box" if it was in a blue box. But arguably it wouldn't be playing it *because* it was a blue box but because the input was a 0. The camera could be changed to one which gave a 1 if the box was blue and a 0 if it was green and the mp3 player would still play "I'm in blue box" with an input of 0 even though it was in a green box.

With the NAND gate arrangement you haven't explained how you would go about measuring whether the universe was a zombie one or not to get the correct input. So perhaps if you could explain how you are suggesting that the settings of one or more of the switches would reflect a measurement of whether it is a zombie universe or not before we go onto discuss whether that would imply that the NAND gate arrangement was behaving the way it was *because* of the reality of whether it was a zombie universe or not, or simply because of the input state (which could be set that way for a totally different reason).

If you wish to abandon the idea of it being an input issue, and instead something to do with the arrangement, then since the arrangement could exist in both the zombie universe and the one it parodies, it would be useful if you could explain further.

[Mr. B1ack]

Careful now .... this is an impossibly simplistic scenerio - it's
where Marv Minsky and friends went wrong. "I'm conscious"
requires an immensely complex and detailed analysis before
that yes/no "switch" can be set.

[Dale]

I don't think identity and awareness equate with consciousness

consciousness is like an infinite regression of awareness or identity

for instance

awareness of being aware
awareness of being aware of being aware
awareness of being aware of being aware of being aware
etc.
etc.
etc.

its one of those things like any infinite regression that may exist but
is not culpable logically

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[someone]

I am slightly hesitant about going any deeper into it, as many have already complained they can't follow what I'm trying to say. But with no response to let it evolve from, I've decided to continue for a bit.

Regarding the mp3 player analogy and the situation where it plays "I'm in a blue box" if the input is 0, and "I'm in a green box" if the output is 1; I had mentioned that though if in a blue box and connected to a camera pointed at the box which would output a 0 if the box was blue, the mp3 player would play "I'm in a blue box", it arguably wouldn't be doing so *because* the box was blue, but because the input was 0. It would after all do the same if it had been in a green box and the camera had been one that had output a 1 if the box was blue and a 0 if the box was green. The point is that the input doesn't carry any information about what it represents, whether it indicated a blue box, a green box, or whether I ate potatoes yesterday.

With a slightly more complex example, imagine a NAND gate arrangement which controlled a robot which could pass the Turing Test. Imagine for eyes it had cameras which used 24 bits to encode the colour for each pixel of the cameras' resolution. The first 8 bits could encode the red intensity, the second 8 bits the blue intensity, and the third 8 bits the green intensity. Each having an intensity range from 0 to 255 (00000000 in binary being 0, and 11111111 in binary being 255). Now some might declare that if the robot had passed the Turing Test it would consciously experience, possibly going so far as to say that if it was placed in a white room (the grey scale has equal Red Green Blue (RGB) intensities with white having a value of 255.255.255, and black a value of 0.0.0) with a green box and the robot said that it was in a white room looking at a green box, then it would be consciously experiencing a white room with a green box, the same as you would. Though it would state the same if the cameras had used the first 8 bits to encode the blue intensity, the second 8 bits to encode the red intensity, and the third 8 bits to encode the green intensity, and it was in a white room with a red box. In the first case a green pixel would be 0.255.0 for example, but that would have been encoding a red pixel in the second case. The point being that there would be no logical connection between the conscious experience it was being claimed to have (e.g. "it would consciously experience seeing a green box in a white room) and the processing. No information can be added to the signals to indicate what they represent. To push the issue a bit further imagine the first 8 bits encoded a sound type from a bank of 256 sounds, and the next 8 bits could have encoded a sound pitch and the next 8 bits a duration. In fact it doesn't require much imagination to understand that whatever signals the NAND gate arrangement was receiving, there would be billions of possible scenarios in which it could be receiving them, and that the NAND gate arrangement would receive no information as to which one it actually was. So the question would to the atheists that might claim that the robot would be consciously experiencing a green box in a white room would be why out of the billions of contexts that the inputs could have been received from was that context "special" in the sense that no matter what the context actually was the conscious experience would always be of that one? For simplicity perhaps imagine the robot walking around a park and looking at a tree, touching it etc.. Then imagine the inputs involved in a certain time frame of activity like that happening for a different reason in a different context. It doesn't matter how likely that would be, as it is just being used as a device to examine the story.

If this is too confusing for some of you, perhaps just try reading it over a few times, rather than the usual "I could obviously have answered it if it wasn't that you had written it in such a way that it was impossible to follow". If you have any problems, and were in anyway attempting to have a constructive conversation then perhaps just bring up the first sentence that is giving you a problem, I'll then try to help (assuming there wasn't a deluge of responses that in itself made it ridiculously difficult), and then just repeat until you are satisfied that you understand it and *then* offer a response if you have one.

If any of you that are able to understand and want to offer a solution that is compatible with atheism, for

1) Why one context should be special, or why that would be the wrong way of looking of it.

and/or

2) How the NAND gate arrangement could state that it isn't a zombie universe based upon reality not being a zombie universe.

Then please do.

[Burkhard]

of course it would be "because" the box is blue, that it how you've
constructed the story. If someone asks "why did the robot do what it
did", it would be perfectly OK to answer: because the box is blue - it
does that whenever the box is blue.

>but because the input was 0. It would after all do the same if it had been in a green box and the camera had been one that had output a 1 if the box was blue and a 0 if the box was green.

That is a trivial "if the world were different, it would be different"

[someone]

Do you accept that the mp3 player wasn't given any information that the 0 represented a blue box, and that it would play the track "I'm in a blue box" regardless of whether it was or wasn't in a blue box just as long as it received a 0 input signal?

[Burkhard]

Not the way you constructed the story, no.

[someone]

Could you explain further, I'm not sure which bit you were saying "no" to. Whether you felt that in the scenario the mp3 player was given information as to where the 0 represented a blue box, or whether you felt that it wouldn't play the track "I'm in a blue box" regardless of whether it was or wasn't in a blue box just as long as it received a 0 input signal?

[Burkhard]

yes, that one. The way you constructed the story, given all the relevant
information about the set up the mp3 player telling me it is in the blue
box gives me information, to wit that it is in the blue box

[someone]

Yes you had the information, as I explained the scenario to you. But the question was about what information the mp3 player would have, not what information you had. Did you not realise?

Supposing you were in the box with an LED display which displayed a "0" if it received a "0" signal, and a "1" if it received a "1", and you were told to shout out "I'm in a blue box" if the LED displays a "0" and to shout out "I'm in a green box" if the LED displays a "1". Let's imagine that the LED displays a "0" and you follow the instructions and shout out "I'm in a blue box".

Let's then imagine you are asked for the reason you shouted out "I'm in a blue box".

Are suggesting that you'd think that you didn't know the reason that you shouted it out because you didn't know why the LED displayed a 0, or would you perhaps think that the reason it did was irrelevant to you shouting it out because you'd have shouted it out whatever the reason, because you were just responding to whether the LED displayed a "0" or "1"?

[Burkhard]

Your distinction, not mine - once again you try to smuggle your
conclusions into your scenario.

>
> Supposing you were in the box with an LED display which displayed a "0" if it received a "0" signal, and a "1" if it received a "1", and you were told to shout out "I'm in a blue box" if the LED displays a "0" and to shout out "I'm in a green box" if the LED displays a "1". Let's imagine that the LED displays a "0" and you follow the instructions and shout out "I'm in a blue box".
>

So with other words, hundreds of posts later and numerous reiterations,
you are saying this was all Searle's Chinese room argument? You could
have saved us all lots of hassle if you said so in the beginning

> Let's then imagine you are asked for the reason you shouted out "I'm in a blue box".
>
> Are suggesting that you'd think that you didn't know the reason that you shouted it out because you didn't know why the LED displayed a 0, or would you perhaps think that the reason it did was irrelevant to you shouting it out because you'd have shouted it out whatever the reason, because you were just responding to whether the LED displayed a "0" or "1"?

Neither. The reason why I shouted is simply that I saw a 0. Perfectly
good reason.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in news:mms9bo$l6f$1...@dont-email.me:

Oh, come on. You could at least program it to say it's a Stephen King
fan. Even a toaster deserves better than Dan Brown.
--
S.O.P.

[someone]

You don't consider there to be a distinction between what the thing in the box had information about, and what you the person who had the scenario described to them had information about?

> >
> > Supposing you were in the box with an LED display which displayed a "0" if it received a "0" signal, and a "1" if it received a "1", and you were told to shout out "I'm in a blue box" if the LED displays a "0" and to shout out "I'm in a green box" if the LED displays a "1". Let's imagine that the LED displays a "0" and you follow the instructions and shout out "I'm in a blue box".
> >
>
> So with other words, hundreds of posts later and numerous reiterations,
> you are saying this was all Searle's Chinese room argument? You could
> have saved us all lots of hassle if you said so in the beginning
>
> > Let's then imagine you are asked for the reason you shouted out "I'm in a blue box".
> >
> > Are suggesting that you'd think that you didn't know the reason that you shouted it out because you didn't know why the LED displayed a 0, or would you perhaps think that the reason it did was irrelevant to you shouting it out because you'd have shouted it out whatever the reason, because you were just responding to whether the LED displayed a "0" or "1"?
>
> Neither. The reason why I shouted is simply that I saw a 0. Perfectly
> good reason.
>

And how were you thinking that differed from the second suggestion of you responding to whether the LED displayed a "0" or a "1"?

[Burkhard]

Why does it have to be different?

[someone]

I had given you two options, and you had said neither, and that seemed like the second one to me, though fully written out the option was:

...would you perhaps think that the reason it did was irrelevant to you shouting it out because you'd have shouted it out whatever the reason, because you were just responding to whether the LED displayed a "0" or "1"

Was it perhaps that you didn't feel that the reason the LED displayed "0" wasn't irrelevant, even though there would be no reason that would make any difference to your response?

[someone]

Sorry that should read:

Was it perhaps that you felt that the reason the LED displayed "0" wasn't irrelevant, even though there would be no reason that would make any difference to your response?

Perhaps given the equation x-1 < x you don't feel that the value of x is irrelevant.

[Burkhard]

could you please remove those negations from your sentence that you
think are redundant, so that I can parse it correctly?

[Burkhard]

Yep

> even though there would be no reason that would make any difference to your response?

don;t know what that sentence tries to say

>
> Perhaps given the equation x-1 < x you don't feel that the value of x is irrelevant.

or that analogy

[someone]

I was just pointing out that there could be lots (billions) of reasons for the "0" signal, and if a trial were done randomly selecting 5 of them, no matter which 5 were selected, on each trial you'd be shouting out "I'm in a blue box". Would you agree that you wouldn't be basing your response on whichever reason it was for a particular trial?

[Burkhard]

I don't need any trials. The way you introduced the story blue reliably
correlates with 1 and not 0, whic correlates reliably with green. That
makes it perfectly sound to shout "blue" when asked if the colour is rd
or blue.

[someone]

I didn't feel with the earlier scenario that you had understood the point I was trying to making. So I changed it to make it harder for you not to understand the point. I'll change it slightly again here.

In this harder to not-understand-the-point scenario, imagine you are in a box with an LED display which not display any symbol initially and then display either a "1" or a "0", go off again, and then display either a "1" or a "0", and then go off again. Imagine this on off cycle will happen several times. Imagine also that you are instructed to shout out "I'm in a blue box" if when the LED comes on it displays a "1" and shout out "I'm in a green box" if the LED comes on and it displays a "0". Imagine you don't know the colour of the box you are in, and that you are able to and do follow the instructions.

Now imagine that unknown to you, what caused the LED to display a "0" or a "1" changed each time. Given that you wouldn't know what caused the LED to display a "0" or "1", would you agree that you weren't basing what you shouted out on what caused the LED to display a "0" or "1" each time?

[Burkhard]

Which sort of is making my point. You start out with an unsuitable
thought experiment - as many others pointed out, it adds nothing to the
p-zombies apart from confusion.

I "understand" broadly what you try to do (though like everybody else, I
have no idea why you think atheism has anything to do with it, or for
that matter evolution)

It is just that your examples are intrinsically unsuitable to make the
argument you hope to make. This is why folks come up with what you call
"misunderstandings", but which are the consequences of the theory "as
stated by you" - an there is no way for you to get rid of these
problems, also not by adding one ad hoc specification on the other, or
by modifying the setting again and again - it was born dead

>
> In this harder to not-understand-the-point scenario, imagine you are in a box with an LED display which not display any symbol initially and then display either a "1" or a "0", go off again, and then display either a "1" or a "0", and then go off again. Imagine this on off cycle will happen several times. Imagine also that you are instructed to shout out "I'm in a blue box" if when the LED comes on it displays a "1" and shout out "I'm in a green box" if the LED comes on and it displays a "0". Imagine you don't know the colour of the box you are in, and that you are able to and do follow the instructions.
>
> Now imagine that unknown to you, what caused the LED to display a "0" or a "1" changed each time. Given that you wouldn't know what caused the LED to display a "0" or "1", would you agree that you weren't basing what you shouted out on what caused the LED to display a "0" or "1" each time?

As I said, nothing but an unnecessarily complicated version of Searle's
Chinese room argument and for that reason alone without bearing on your
alternate universe story that triggered all this.

[someone]

You didn't answer the question.

[SortingItOut]

Yes. Agreed. Now what?

[someone]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:31:26 AM UTC+1, SortingItOut wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-5, someone wrote:

[snip]

> >
> >
> > I didn't feel with the earlier scenario that you had understood the point I was trying to making. So I changed it to make it harder for you not to understand the point. I'll change it slightly again here.
> >
> > In this harder to not-understand-the-point scenario, imagine you are in a box with an LED display which not display any symbol initially and then display either a "1" or a "0", go off again, and then display either a "1" or a "0", and then go off again. Imagine this on off cycle will happen several times. Imagine also that you are instructed to shout out "I'm in a blue box" if when the LED comes on it displays a "1" and shout out "I'm in a green box" if the LED comes on and it displays a "0". Imagine you don't know the colour of the box you are in, and that you are able to and do follow the instructions.
> >
> > Now imagine that unknown to you, what caused the LED to display a "0" or a "1" changed each time. Given that you wouldn't know what caused the LED to display a "0" or "1", would you agree that you weren't basing what you shouted out on what caused the LED to display a "0" or "1" each time?
>
> Yes. Agreed. Now what?
>
>

Well just to recap. You had tried to summarise my argument, and made the following attempt:
---
1) There are two universes under consideration. One like ours where consciousness exists, and a zombie universe where consciousness doesn't (and can't) exist.

2) The two universes are not physically identical, but they follow the same laws of physics. I assume that at the very least, this means that in both universes, a NAND gate will function the same way.

3) Robot R10 lives in the "normal" universe and has a certain arrangement of NAND gates.

4) Robot R10Z lives in the zombie universe and also has a certain arrangement of NAND gates.

5) R10 and R10Z have identical arrangements of NAND gates, but are not physically identical, due to having different physical substrates. So, while the robots are not physically identical, their identical arrangements of NAND gates implies that their resulting processing of logic and sensory inputs is identical.

6) A conscious being can determine that it is NOT in a zombie universe because it experiences consciousness and thus can make that assessment. Humans can do this, as could a conscious robot if one could be constructed.

7) A non-conscious being cannot determine what universe it's in because it completely lacks any comprehension of what consciousness is.

Am I right so far?
---

I pointed out that you weren't quite right
---
Not quite.

Firstly with (1) it is correct to state that there are two universes being considered. The zombie universe, and the physical universe that it parodies. But just to be clear there is no suggestion that what we are experiencing is the type of physical universe that it parodies.

Then in (6) you suggest that if a robot was consciously experiencing, as those believing in the parodied (by the zombie universe) story of reality might think that it could tell it was not in the zombie universe. But the point is, how could it make any response based upon whether it was or wasn't in a zombie universe. Its response would just depend on the NAND gate arrangement and an arrangement where it states that it isn't in a zombie universe, and an arrangement where it states that it is a zombie universe would both be possible in either universe.
---

At which point the poster(s) using the alias Burkhard suggested
---
So? In that case it would give wrong answers in one and right answers in
the other. A badly adjusted thermostat will give you wrong readings.
That doesn't imply anything interesting about the existence of temperature.
---

A bit later I had asked the poster(s) using the alias Burkhard
---
So perhaps you could explain a bit further how you think the NAND gate arrangement can be said to be stating that it was not in a zombie universe *because* it was not in a zombie universe, considering that no matter which universe the NAND gate arrangement had been it it would always behave the same
---

To which the poster(s) using the Burkhard alias replied:
---
If the NANd arrangement responds independently from input, then it is a
crap device. Change in your story "consciousness" to "temperature" or
"height in cm of the nearest object" and you get the same outcomes.

It simply stops doing anything useful.
---

Which takes us pretty much to the beginning of this thread (I was having problems with some of my posts getting through), and the post

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/2r0TBligpfw/WJfMAo-NfzQJ

Where I was asking Burkhard to explain how it would be suggested that the settings of one or more of the switches would reflect a measurement of whether it is a zombie universe or not before going onto discuss whether that would imply that the NAND gate arrangement was behaving the way it was *because* of the reality of whether it was a zombie universe or not, or simply because of the input state (which could be set that way for a totally different reason).

Burkhard didn't reply, and instead when I'd decided to go expand a bit on just how big the problem facing the atheist evolutionary believers was

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/2r0TBligpfw/kJG7kM-_9ykJ

Burkhard then replied to that, skipping out giving any reply as to how it was being suggested that the inputs could be a measurement of whether it was a zombie universe or not, and concentrating on the issue of whether, if it was, the NAND gate arrangement could be said to be basing its behaviour on it being so. And I was using analogies to illustrate that even if the measurement was somehow a measurement of whether it was a zombie universe or not, the arrangement wouldn't be basing its response on that. At this point it would seem that you'd have conceded by analogy that it wouldn't matter whether the inputs to the NAND gate arrangement were a measurement of whether it was a zombie universe or not. The NAND gate arrangement being analogous to you in the box, where you conceded that you wouldn't be basing your behaviour on what caused the input (maybe it was a camera that would cause the LED to display a "0" if the box was blue, and the LED to display a "1" if the box was green). So it seems like a dead-end for you even if you could imagine a way of the input reflecting whether it was a zombie universe or not (maybe get a human being to set it).

So where you want to go from here is up to you. If you wish to abandon the attempt to suggest it would matter whether the inputs to the NAND gate arrangement represented whether it was a zombie universes or not (and given the point that you've just conceded I'm not sure where you'd go), then perhaps you'd care to explain either:

1) How the NAND gate arrangement could make a response based on whether it was or wasn't in a zombie universe, given that its response would just depend on how the NAND gates were arranged and their state and inputs, which could be mirrored in the zombie universe.

or

2) Explain the significant difference between a human being and a NAND gate arrangement which allows us, but not the NAND gate arrangement, to respond to the reality of it not being a zombie universe.

Some have attempted to try to deny the possibility of a zombie universe, presumably with the idea that somehow it makes a difference whether or not a zombie universe could exist or not, though really it is just a device that parodies their story. If you do wish to go down this line though there would be the question of why in your story a different physical thing, in a different universe, which can also function as an arrangement of NAND gates, couldn't differ in its physical properties and not be conscious. This is where the poster under the alias Inez went with it, and I'm still awaiting her response (see https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/VJMS6crS9AU/eK-CRm9YFZ0J)

So up to you where you want to go from here, perhaps answer (1) or (2)?

[snip]

[Burkhard]

There is a poster using "Burkhard"as alias? I'm quite shocked, shocked I
am! Thankfully I never came across a post by this imposter.

> ---
> If the NANd arrangement responds independently from input, then it is a
> crap device. Change in your story "consciousness" to "temperature" or
> "height in cm of the nearest object" and you get the same outcomes.
>
> It simply stops doing anything useful.
> ---
>
> Which takes us pretty much to the beginning of this thread (I was having problems with some of my posts getting through), and the post
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/2r0TBligpfw/WJfMAo-NfzQJ
>
> Where I was asking Burkhard to explain how it would be suggested that the settings of one or more of the switches would reflect a measurement of whether it is a zombie universe or not before going onto discuss whether that would imply that the NAND gate arrangement was behaving the way it was *because* of the reality of whether it was a zombie universe or not, or simply because of the input state (which could be set that way for a totally different reason).
>
> Burkhard didn't reply,

Oh, I did - that you can't see why it was a reply is your problem, not
mine,

and instead when I'd decided to go expand a bit on just how big the
problem facing the atheist evolutionary believers was

As I pointed out a few times, nobody here understands what atheism of
for the matter theory of evolution has to do with your thought experiment.

[Inez]

I suppose the answer is because the non-zombie robot is conscious while the other one isn't.

As I've pointed out before, the problem is in your scenario, not with the "atheist account." You are assuming that it is possible to have two identical NAND gate arrangements and have one be conscious and the other not conscious.

If a conscious robot answers that it isn't in a zombie universe because it has reflected on the matter and determined that it is itself conscious using it's NAND gate brain, then the zombie robot with the identical brain would do the same thing and reach the same conclusion. That you say this zombie robot isn't conscious is a problem for your scenario, not for atheists or anyone else.

[someone]

I've been trying to reply to Inez's post https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/2r0TBligpfw/OaFsARDdTY0J, but it isn't getting through. So trying to reply to this one. Just to point out that Inez has put forward this type of argument before, as was mentioned directly below, but Inez just snipped it and avoided addressing it.