Help needed to understand atheist evolutionary account?

[someone]

I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary evidence and a belief in God. I can think of it all having been designed to have evolved with some of the ancestors of the human form I experience being having been determined to behave the way they did without anyone being given the experience of being given one as a form and being able to influence its behaviour.

However... as I understand it there is an idea that there are multiple universes and that this provides an explanation for how a universe so finely tuned for life could exist if not for design. There is also an idea that once the chemicals had become arranged so as to form a single replicating cell, then the diversity of organisms could be explained using the concepts of genetic mutation and survival. As I understand it some think that together these two ideas indicate that there is no need to think that the universe was designed for a purpose because of any explanatory requirement, and to the question "what are we?" they might give an answer to the effect that we are physical organisms put together by evolution, in a physical reality, in which there are multiple universes, and in which one was bound to have the finely tuned laws which allow it to be suitable for life. They might also support their argument with ideas of robot's passing Turing Tests, which they might take to indicate as a proof that chemical arrangements can produce the type of behaviour that we exhibit, and suggest that it supports their assumption that we are chemical arrangements put together by evolution.

What I don't understand about this story becomes evident when one considers an alternative, zombie universe.

A zombie universe is an imagined universe. It parodies the physical universe idea, with one in which nothing consciously experiences. If you were to imagine that an atheist believed that they would cease to experience when dead, then you could presumably imagine that to that atheist the humans in the zombie universe would be like the walking dead in terms of what they experience, apart from they aren't imagined to have ceased to experience, they are imagined never to of. So the zombie universe would be physically different from the type of physical universe that it parodies, because it would have different physical features. By physical I mean the idea that corresponding to the objects you experience exist physical objects with similar features to those of that you experience, and that some of those features could also be found in a zombie universe, in an imagined reality in which there is no mind.

You can imagine a robot, the R10, being controlled by a computer whose functionality is derived from the state and arrangement of NAND gates. The wiki page on NAND gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_gate) indicated (the last time I checked) that the outcome of *any* computable function can, in principle, be predicted using a suitable arrangement of NAND gates. Anything that can be thought of as receiving two inputs and having one output which can be thought of as "on" unless both its inputs are "on", in which case it's "off", can be thought of as functioning as a NAND gate. How a NAND gate is implemented doesn't matter. It could be people working as team using flags. Though in the R10's case they can be imagined to be implemented as they normally would be in a computer.

The R10 can be imagined to exist both in this universe and the zombie universe, though the zombie universe version will be referred to as the R10-Z to avoid confusion, and to emphasise their difference. The zombie universe is thought to be physically different from the idea that it parodies, so the R10 is not physically identical to the R10-Z. However since the functionality is derived from the state and arrangement of NAND gates any answer it will give in response to whether it is in a zombie universe or not will depend upon the state and arrangement of the NAND gates. One arrangement and state could cause R10 and R10-Z to state that they aren't in a zombie universe, while another could cause R10 and R10-Z to state that they are in a zombie universe. There would be no way for either chemical arrangement to compute which reality (this or the zombie universe one) it was in, as the computation would depend on the state and arrangement of the NAND gates, which might be one that gives the wrong response for the reality.

But I am writing this partly because I can tell that reality is that I'm not in a zombie universe, and that I can't be wrong about this, so I can't, like R10, be simply relying on the state of some physical arrangement to allow a computation on the matter. What my brain state represents experientially is playing a part in my form stating that I know that the statement "reality is a zombie universe" is false. If what represented the experience of pleasure had represented an experience of pain then it would often make a difference to what I counted as a treat. It is that type of reaction to the experience that allows me to state that based upon the experience I'm having I know that reality is not a zombie universe, and I can't be wrong about it. Imagine the R10 was stranded on some moon by itself, there would be no way for the R10's response to reflect whether it is in a zombie universe or not. Its behaviour wouldn't be based upon the fact of reality that it isn't a zombie universe.

Does anyone on talk.origins understand in the story how evolution is supposed to have achieved which couldn't be achieved with a computer controlled robot, which is the ability to be able to base a statement about reality not being a zombie universe on the fact that reality isn't a zombie universe?

[Rodjk #613]

I read this three times.
My best suggestion is:
1. Lay off whatever it is that you are taking.

Now, to you question:
Let's say that you were transported to one of two universes. One is a perfect copy of ours, one is your 'Zombie Universe'. You do not know which you will go to; and like your robot, you are sent to the moon.

How would you distinguish which universe you were in?

Rodjk #613

[someone]

I'm not suggesting that I am simply some physical arrangement of chemicals such that I could exist in a zombie universe.

I can tell I'm not in a zombie universe because my experience is other than how some atheists might imagine death, i.e. an absence of experience.

[Rodjk #613]

Why not? You live in this one...

>
> I can tell I'm not in a zombie universe because my experience is other than how some atheists might imagine death, i.e. an absence of experience.

I dont get your question.
Can you be more consise?

It sounds like you are saying 'I am not dead, so i can tell that I am not dead'.


Rodjk #613

[Ernest Major]

During your previous visits, once you had abandoned your seven-step
proof of God (each step of which had problems - the last was a blatant
non-sequitur) in favour of trying to defend your first step, what you
did was try to prove that assuming monism was true led to a
contradiction, but you kept smuggling dualism into your premises so that
what you were proving was that assuming both monism and dualism were
true leads to a contradiction, which is unsuprising since your premises
were contradictory.

As you were told before, consciousness as an emergent property of the
brain is a perfectly acceptable working hypothesis. (It's also not in
contradiction with the existence of God either, so it's not an atheist
account.) For the future, you might like to eschew the axiom that the
brain is the only possible substrate for consciousness as well, as that
axiom is unproven.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

thusly:
http://consc.net/pics/@@/dinosaurs.png

[Rodjk #613]

Yep. I think that settles it...

Rodjk #613

[someone]

I don't remember the discussions you are referring to, and, if I assume distraction wasn't your motive, then I am surprised you are bringing them since I can't imagine that what I had written prior to it was relevant, since I wasn't considering it relevant who wrote the original post on this thread. If you are just trying to point out that I've made mistakes in the past then while I don't remember the particular one you might be pointing to, what was your point, that most people you discuss things with haven't?

The issues in the original post on this thread are the issues that I would like to discuss on this thread. I'm not assuming that the brain is a substrate for consciousness. And I'm only concerning myself with atheist evolutionary theories.

I presume you agree that given the state and arrangement of NAND gates the behaviour is fixed no matter what the experience, if any, would be like. And I presume you agree that the arrangement could be imagined to be the wrong arrangement for the correct response about whatever reality imagined. If these presumptions are wrong could you please let me know.

Is it that you have an account in mind where how the NAND gates behave depends upon what some overview of their state and arrangement symbolises, or something similar and it is the type of account that would serve as the type of explanation I ask for in the original post, if so how does it work?

Or is it perhaps that you aren't suggesting the R10 would consciously experience, and that there was something special about organic chemistry?

I've made clear what I'm not understanding about the atheist evolutionary story, if you have an answer to clear it up then why don't you mention it, preferably using the R10 as an example if appropriate, or is it that you have the same problem with the atheist evolutionary account that I have, that you aren't clear how a NAND gate structure could be given a method of determining the answer whether the reality it exists within is a zombie universe or not. I considered the R10 stranded on a moon as an example.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Your problem seems to be with the issue of materialism versus dualism. I think we can leave the evidence for evolution aside at the moment. You have been through the materialism/dualism argument many times here in T.O. And yet your argument seems not to have been modified in any significant way since your last appearance here.

You see a clear contradiction in materialism. None of the materialists here see the contradiction. We all think that you smuggle dualist assumptions into your argument and then act shocked when they conflict with materialism. If you have a new argument this time, go ahead and lay it out. But more and more intricate descriptions of your robot don't add anything.

[someone]

The question in the original post was:

[Rodjk #613]

I have to admit, I found your post vaguely interesting the first time I replied. But less and less so each time afterward.

The answer to your question is simple: So what?
Even if no one 'understands' (or understands what you are trying to ask) it doesn't change the facts of evolution in the slightest.
The answer may well be 'beat's me' and it still doesn't change the facts, no matter how many word games you play.

But to play your game, (since you didn't like my putting you on the moon example) lets try it again.
If a human is in a zombie universe, that human is, like your R10-Z robot, unable to determine that he is in a zombie universe.
So again, So what?

What does that have to do with our observation of evolution?
That you don't understand is only your limitation; not that of the theory.

Rodjk #613

[someone]

The point was that it was a question, and the text prior to the question built up the context of my understanding with regards to the question. Are you suggesting that dualist assumptions smuggled into to the text prior to the question, prevented you from answering the questions? If so what dualist assumptions are you referring to, if not then could you answer them please as though the post you replied to had been written to you?

[someone]

I can tell what reality is in regards to whether it is a zombie universe or not. And I'm not assuming that if a human in the zombie universe had the same chemical structure that the humans we experience being have that it would behave the same even without us experiencing being them and guiding them based on that experience. But as I mentioned in the original post on this thread I can imagine the humans still operating without anyone being given the experience of having one as a form.

Were you thinking a NAND gate structure could be organised so as to have a method of determining and providing the answer whether the reality it exists within is a zombie universe or not?

[RSNorman]

Three comments:

1) The universe is nearly 14 billion years old. For more than 99.9%
of that time, the universe WAS (as far as we know) a zombie universe
with no self awareness of experience. Yet towards the end of that
period there were complex ecological communities with all sorts of
plants and animals running around living their lives quite nicely.

2) You are obsessed with that NAND gate representation, especially as
evidenced by later responses in this thread. All you mean by that is
materialism, a.k.a. science. You could say the same by referring to
Turing machines instead of NAND gates. Everything accomplished by
modern "aritificial intelligence" could be reduced to your NAND gates.
Still Siri or Watson do answer an awful lot of our questions with
quite excellent answers. (OK, Watson questioned a lot of our answers
in order to participate in Jeopardy.) It doesn't take an awful lot of
computation to simulate most of our activity. It is quite true,
though, that there are more subtle mental activities we posess that
are not (yet) possible in computers.

3) Your argument about "knowing" reality seems merely to echo
Descartes some 400 years ago.

[someone]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 3:37:41 PM UTC+1, RSNorman wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 23:28:41 -0700 (PDT), someone

Should I assume from your comments that you don't understand how in the atheist evolution story how evolution is supposed to have achieved which couldn't be achieved with a computer controlled robot, which is the ability to be able to base a statement about reality not being a zombie universe on the fact that reality isn't a zombie universe?

[Ymir]

In article <0d6edfbf-8e34-47f6...@googlegroups.com>,

NAND gates are perfectly deterministic so any arrangement of NAND gates
would have a fixed behaviour for a given set of inputs.

I'm a bit unclear, though, on the second part of your question. If it is
possible for a computer to experience consciousness, then that
experience would be by virtue of the particular arrangement of gates and
the particular inputs. If a particular arrangement of gates *can*
produce something analogous to conscious experience with respect to some
set of inputs, then that particular arrangement of gates necessarily
*must* lead to conscious experience with respect to that same set of
inputs. IOW, conscious experience is part of the behaviour of the gates;
not something which can vary independently.

> And
> I presume you agree that the arrangement could be imagined to be the wrong
> arrangement for the correct response about whatever reality imagined. If
> these presumptions are wrong could you please let me know.

I'm not clear on what you are asking here.

Could a non-conscious computer program be constructed which responds to
the question "are you conscious" with "no"? Obviously yes.

Could a particular arrangement of gates lead to conscious experience as
well as a proclivity to lie about it? I would assume so.

Could a particular arrangement of gates lead to conscious experience
without that arrangement being aware that it is experiencing? I'm not
even sure what that would mean, but my gut reaction is no.

> Is it that you have an account in mind where how the NAND gates behave
> depends upon what some overview of their state and arrangement symbolises, or
> something similar and it is the type of account that would serve as the type
> of explanation I ask for in the original post, if so how does it work?
>
> Or is it perhaps that you aren't suggesting the R10 would consciously
> experience, and that there was something special about organic chemistry?
>
> I've made clear what I'm not understanding about the atheist evolutionary
> story,

Actually, I'd say you haven't made it clear at all. You ask:

> Does anyone on talk.origins understand in the story how evolution is
> supposed to have achieved which couldn't be achieved with a computer
> controlled robot, which is the ability to be able to base a statement
> about reality not being a zombie universe on the fact that reality isn't
> a zombie universe?"

For this question to even be meaningful you'd need to establish first
that the idea of a zombie-universe makes some sort of coherent sense
(which to me it does not) and also demonstrate that a "computer-
controlled robot" (I assume you mean a robot with a computer in place of
a brain rather than some sort of remote-control scenario) must
necessarily lack the ability which you seem to be ascribing to humans.

Andre

[Robert Camp]

On 6/7/15 11:28 PM, someone wrote:

<snip>

First, the general idea of a p-zombie (and, by extension, a p-z parallel
universe) would be that it exhibits all the physical qualities and
characteristics of conscious beings, except that it is not conscious.
Obviously, p-zombies are thought experiment tools, and as such have been
defined differently for the purposes of different avenues of inquiry.

Your usual tack is to define p-zombies such that they assume your
conclusion. However, here things are even more confused; you seem to be
contradicting the normal use of a p-zombie by going on to suggest that
there are physical differences between conscious and p-z universes. I
don't think that serves the thought experiment well, but it's your dime.

Second, the robot argument is extraneous. Your simplistic point, which
you take several meandering paragraphs to reach, is merely to wonder if
we have an evolutionary explanation for consciousness. Whether such has
been, or even could be, "achieved with a computer controlled robot" is
irrelevant to that inquiry.

The answer to your question is, no, we don't have a complete
evolutionary explanation for consciousness, but yes, we have begun the
process, discovering a great deal so far about how the brain creates
consciousness.

Seems to me the more important question to consider is, why, with zero
evidence pointing in that direction, anyone would be tempted to
entertain a non-material explanation for consciousness?

[RSNorman]

You may not assume nonsense from my comments.

I do not know what you mean about how the universe could be "achieved
with a computer controlled robot." My only interpretation is that the
universe could be "achieved through the action of the laws of physics"
which I claim is what actually happened.

I do not know what you mean by a "zombie universe" unless you mean a
universe that does not contain conscious self-aware entities. If that
is the case I pointed out that the universe for almost all of its
existence was, in fact, a "zombie universe."

At one time the universe did not have sentient beings. It does now.

At one time the universe did not have living things. It does now.

At one time the universe did not have solar systems and planets. It
does now.

At one time the universe did not have atoms and molecules. It does
now.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/7/15 11:28 PM, someone wrote:
>

> Does anyone on talk.origins understand in the story how evolution
> is supposed to have achieved which couldn't be achieved with a
> computer controlled robot, which is the ability to be able to base
> a statement about reality not being a zombie universe on the fact
> that reality isn't a zombie universe?

Simple. Evolution is not a perfectionistic process. It allows evolved
beings like you to be wrong.

In particular, you are wrong about zombies. They *can* be every bit as
conscious as you are. Also, NAND gates are digital devices; brains are
analog. You only confuse yourself by trying to compare them.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 9:32:40 AM UTC-4, someone wrote:
<snip earlier stuff, only for space, it's all up there in the thread if you need to refer to it>

>
> The point was that it was a question, and the text prior to the question built up the context of my understanding with regards to the question. Are you suggesting that dualist assumptions smuggled into to the text prior to the question, prevented you from answering the questions? If so what dualist assumptions are you referring to, if not then could you answer them please as though the post you replied to had been written to you?

I won't play Socratic dialogue with you. If you have an argument in favor of dualism, go ahead and lay it out.

In the meanwhile, I can tell you what I think is wrong with dualism.

By dualism I mean the idea that there are two separate sorts of stuff in the universe (1) material things, including energy, matter, fields, etc, and (2) immaterial things, like consciousness. If a purely immaterial thing is to cause any material thing to do anything (e.g. if my allegedly immaterial desire for a cup of tea is going to move my body into the kitchen) then it has to interact with material things. But if it's purely non-material, how can it do so?

That's a simple objection. Another is that dualism explains nothing. Specifically, it offers no better explanation of consciousness than materialism. All it does is say, consciousness is non-material. That's not an explanation of anything. Certainly, there's no detailed materialist explanation of consciousness, either, but dualism adds nothing.

You keep asking about robot consciousness or zombie consciousness. That seems to me to go nowhere. If a p-zombie acts in every way like a normal human, how could you tell whether it was conscious or not? I'd be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt, just as I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now with robots, you want to take away the benefit of the doubt, because they are made of different stuff than we are. That's fine. The question still remains, how would you decide whether the robot was conscious or not?

From my point of view, you could approach it this way. Consider the Turing test, or some other functional test based on the response of humans to the robot. Now imagine the robot passes the test. Now you look at the robot. Maybe, you still are not convinced that it is conscious. So you think about what is missing in the testing criteria you used. What about the test failed to measure something that you think is essential for something to be conscious? Then you go back and try to improve the robot and see if it passes a more stringent test.

You just keep going through that iterative cycle learning about how to make the robot do things and how to define what things you think are truly emblematic of consciousness. At some point you may decide that you are unwilling to call anything non-biological conscious. OK. You've learned about how you view consciousness. You may find that you never are able to put your finger on just what criteria you want to use - say you keep tightening the criteria, and the gradually improved robots keep meeting the ever more stringent criteria, but at each point you keep feeling that your criteria have not really captured what you want them to capture in order for them to identify things you want to call conscious. OK, again you've learned about your view of consciousness.

Or maybe at some point you think your criteria really have captured whatever it is you want to call consciousness. And the robot passes the latest test. Then you conclude that there are indeed non-biological things that you are willing to call conscious.

Finally, I don't really see the problem for evolution. You seem to be wondering if consciousness could evolve without something supernatural getting involved. But just postulating something supernatural doesn't give you any better of an explanation than simply saying that consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently complex nervous systems. It's the details that matter. Materialism give you a way to work on the details and improve your understanding. Dualism just waves it all away and shrugs.

[someone]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 4:47:41 PM UTC+1, Ymir wrote:
> In article <0d6edfbf-8e34-47f6...@googlegroups.com>,

You emphasise the word *must* but offer no explanation for why if one physical universe had the physical feature of certain arrangements of NAND gates in certain states would experience what some of those NAND gates represented, that it would mean that all other physical universes *must* also have that feature. Could you explain how you get to the *must* in your story?

[someone]

Do you think there exists a NAND arrangement which would allow a computer to be able to give a correct response to whether it was in a zombie universe or not which would be dependent on the physical facts of the situation, so that it would make a difference which to the response which reality the arrangement was found in?

[someone]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 5:07:39 PM UTC+1, RSNorman wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:53:12 -0700 (PDT), someone

I had assumed you'd been able to follow it.

> I do not know what you mean about how the universe could be "achieved
> with a computer controlled robot." My only interpretation is that the
> universe could be "achieved through the action of the laws of physics"
> which I claim is what actually happened.
>

I didn't state that the universe could be "achieved with a computer controlled robot".

> I do not know what you mean by a "zombie universe" unless you mean a
> universe that does not contain conscious self-aware entities. If that
> is the case I pointed out that the universe for almost all of its
> existence was, in fact, a "zombie universe."
>

If you had read the original post, you would have read it explained there.

[someone]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 5:17:39 PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/7/15 11:28 PM, someone wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone on talk.origins understand in the story how evolution
> > is supposed to have achieved which couldn't be achieved with a
> > computer controlled robot, which is the ability to be able to base
> > a statement about reality not being a zombie universe on the fact
> > that reality isn't a zombie universe?
>
> Simple. Evolution is not a perfectionistic process. It allows evolved
> beings like you to be wrong.
>
> In particular, you are wrong about zombies. They *can* be every bit as
> conscious as you are. Also, NAND gates are digital devices; brains are
> analog. You only confuse yourself by trying to compare them.
>

Zombies are by definition as described in the original post. So if you want to introduce definitions of consciousness which would count a zombie as conscious then it doesn't matter, the difference between the zombie universe and this was made clear in the original post.

Where you thinking of an explanation where it matters whether the NAND gates are analogue or digital or whether there was some randomness thrown in maybe? If so what was it?

[Inez]

Whoosh! It is difficult to penetrate your verbiage and I'm not sure I've done it. I don't actually believe it's possible to have a zombie who doesn't consciously experience but acts like it does.
I think that a computer that can simulate conscious experience and tell a robot how to fake it must itself be consciously experiencing.

[someone]

I'm not a dualist. So any arguments you make against dualism would be strawmen arguments if they were suggested to be against my belief.

I don't mention p-zombies, and have mentioned elsewhere that I am not suggesting that humans in the zombie universe would behave the same. I have made clear that the zombie universe would be imagined to be physically different from the idea of a physical one that it parodies.

You presumably accept that you have the ability to know that reality is not a zombie universe.

Are thinking that there exists an arrangement of NAND gates could give a computer the ability to determine whether the reality the arrangement is found in is a zombie universe or not?

[someone]

I'm not suggesting that humans in the zombie universe would act like humans in this universe, but then I'm not thinking that human beings are reducible to chemical configurations. Configurations of NAND gates would act the same though, and if consciousness was a physical feature why couldn't different physical universes have different physical features? So if a configuration of NAND gates behaved a certain way in this reality, why should the configuration be expected to behave any differently in the imagined zombie universe reality?

[Glenn]

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message news:ml4f1r$o2v$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 6/7/15 11:28 PM, someone wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone on talk.origins understand in the story how evolution
>> is supposed to have achieved which couldn't be achieved with a
>> computer controlled robot, which is the ability to be able to base
>> a statement about reality not being a zombie universe on the fact
>> that reality isn't a zombie universe?
>
> Simple. Evolution is not a perfectionistic process. It allows evolved
> beings like you to be wrong.
>
> In particular, you are wrong about zombies. They *can* be every bit as
> conscious as you are. Also, NAND gates are digital devices; brains are
> analog. You only confuse yourself by trying to compare them.
>

You only confuse yourself when you think you know something, like "brains are analog" in this instance.

[RSNorman]

Virtually all of the "computation" in neuronal integration is analog,
not digital.

[Inez]

I'm still probably confused about what your point is. In your original post you seem to be comparing yourself to a computer that gives a predetermined answer based on a configuration of NAND gates. The reason why you know that you aren't in a zombie universe is presumably because you can tell that you yourself are not a zombie. The computer is just giving a predetermined response.

> Configurations of NAND gates would act the same though, and if consciousness was a physical feature why couldn't different physical universes have different physical features? So if a configuration of NAND gates behaved a certain way in this reality, why should the configuration be expected to behave any differently in the imagined zombie universe reality?

Because the universes have different physical features and physical features affect behavior.

[broger...@gmail.com]

No, if you are assuming that my argument is based on my having the ability to know that reality is not a zombie universe, then you are arguing with a straw man. In fact, I think it is quite impossible for me to determine whether we live in a zombie universe.

Indeed, it is because I do not think it possible to determine whether we live in a "zombie universe" or a "real universe" that I think the whole zombie thought experiment is useless.

>
> Are thinking that there exists an arrangement of NAND gates could give a computer the ability to determine whether the reality the arrangement is found in is a zombie universe or not?

Of course not. I can't decide whether I'm in a zombie universe, and neither can the computer.

[Ernest Major]

On 08/06/2015 18:33, someone wrote:
> I'm not a dualist.

If you're not a dualist you presumably believe that there is a material
explanation for consciousness. If you were to present your material
explanation perhaps you would discover that it is the "atheist
evolutionary" account that you think you don't understand.

--
alias Ernest Major

[someone]

Are suggesting that in this universe the way a NAND gate in a configuration will behave depends upon what the experience of some group of them(?) is like?

[someone]

You think that maybe you have an absence of experience in the same way that some atheists might imagine it will be like for them when the form they experience being dies?

> >
> > Are thinking that there exists an arrangement of NAND gates could give a computer the ability to determine whether the reality the arrangement is found in is a zombie universe or not?
>
> Of course not. I can't decide whether I'm in a zombie universe, and neither can the computer.

I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe, and I cannot be wrong about it.

[erik simpson]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:

>
> I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe, and I cannot be wrong about it.

So why are you asking anybody else? Go in peace.

[Robert Camp]

I cannot parse what you have written here, and judging from what you
previously wrote and the responses of others, I don't think I'm the problem.

To be frank, I don't know enough about logic gates to offer an informed
opinion, but it does seem clear to me that your references to Nand gates
serves only to confuse the issue. You wish to imply, 1) that dualism is
a forced conclusion, and, 2) that dualism refutes evolution. There is no
evidence for either of those assertions, and your zombie scenarios and
robot arguments need a lot of improvement before they provide any
illumination.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I cannot understand your question. Perhaps you should stop attributing convoluted thoughts to me and ask a more straightforward question.

Obviously it seems to me that I am having experiences. But I cannot tell whether they are "real" experiences or "zombie" experiences. To explain more completely, let's say I think that I am experiencing fear. I observe the behavior of my own body, my pounding pulse, my sweating underarms. How do I know that that is real fear, and not simply my body acting mechanically? I introspect and note that I feel afraid, but how do I know that that apparent experience is not simply my brain putting on a mechanical show?

And of course the same problem applies to anything else in the universe.

> >
> > Of course not. I can't decide whether I'm in a zombie universe, and neither can the computer.
>
> I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe, and I cannot be wrong about it.

Prove to me that you cannot be wrong about it.

[Robert Camp]

On 6/8/15 12:15 PM, someone wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 8:02:41 PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 1:37:40 PM UTC-4, someone wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 5:42:39 PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 9:32:40 AM UTC-4, someone wrote:

<snip>

>>> Are thinking that there exists an arrangement of NAND gates could
>>> give a computer the ability to determine whether the reality the
>>> arrangement is found in is a zombie universe or not?
>>
>> Of course not. I can't decide whether I'm in a zombie universe, and
>> neither can the computer.
>
> I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe, and I cannot be
> wrong about it.

Interesting. Let's get down to the details.

List the parameters of your zombie universe (and/or the zombies within),
then tell me how you know that you're not living in one.*


[* Of course I'm suggesting that your ability to "know" must be either,

a) based upon clear and instrumental differences between the two
universes, leaving your inference which "cannot be wrong" a truism, and
irrelevant to the subject of consciousness, or

b) based, despite the existence of zero germane differences between the
two universes, on faith in dualism.]

[Burkhard]

My guess is that he tries to make this type of argument - one of the
more balanced and thoughtful discussions of the topic I know, and also
one that addresses the connection to evolution more explicitly - at
least in the sense of showing what the discussion is or is not about:

http://homepages.uc.edu/~polgertw/Polger-ZombiesJCS.pdf

[someone]

As I've mentioned I'm not a dualist.

[someone]

Can you understand that an atheist might believe that when they die that will be it, they will cease to experience? If you can then presumably you can understand what the zombie universe is imagined to be (it is explained in the original post), or are you seriously claiming that is what reality is like for you, a total lack of any experience?

I don't know what you mean by "zombie" experiences, if what you experience is not indistinguishable from the total lack of experience that could be imagined some atheists to be their fate when they die, then you cannot be in in a zombie universe where nothing would be imagined to experience anything other than a total lack of experience.

> And of course the same problem applies to anything else in the universe.
>
> > >
> > > Of course not. I can't decide whether I'm in a zombie universe, and neither can the computer.
> >
> > I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe, and I cannot be wrong about it.
>
> Prove to me that you cannot be wrong about it.

I don't have to prove to you that I cannot be wrong about it. It is sufficient for me to know that I am correct. Though since you have stated "Obviously it seems to me that I am having experiences..." then I assume you realise that you aren't in a zombie universe where nothing would experience.

[someone]

I've explained what a zombie universe is, and how I know that reality isn't a zombie universe is that I personally am experiencing something other than a total lack of experience.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/8/15 12:15 PM, someone wrote:

> [...]

> I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe,

Dunno about that.

> and I cannot be wrong about it.

I do know you are wrong about that.

[Ernest Major]

On 08/06/2015 21:17, someone wrote:
>
> As I've mentioned I'm not a dualist.
>

Why did you abandon dualism since your previous visit here?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/8/15 10:11 AM, someone wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 5:17:39 PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/7/15 11:28 PM, someone wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone on talk.origins understand in the story how evolution
>>> is supposed to have achieved which couldn't be achieved with a
>>> computer controlled robot, which is the ability to be able to base
>>> a statement about reality not being a zombie universe on the fact
>>> that reality isn't a zombie universe?
>>
>> Simple. Evolution is not a perfectionistic process. It allows evolved
>> beings like you to be wrong.
>>
>> In particular, you are wrong about zombies. They *can* be every bit as
>> conscious as you are. Also, NAND gates are digital devices; brains are
>> analog. You only confuse yourself by trying to compare them.
>
> Zombies are by definition as described in the original post.

Sorry, but all your original post made clear was your inability to write
clearly. The "zombie universe" as you defined it could be the inanimate
lint I washed out of my belly button this morning. I apologize for
assuming you were trying for something more interesting.

> Where you thinking of an explanation where it matters whether
> the NAND gates are analogue or digital or whether there was some
> randomness thrown in maybe? If so what was it?

No, I was thinking you were deliberately trying to imply some sort of
contrast which is not there. But like I say, nothing you said was clear.

[Mark Isaak]

Not to mention the detail of blood circulation, which has a bit of
influence on thinking, too.

I wonder, though. Perhaps Glenn's brain is purely digital. That might
explain some things.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Sure.

>If you can then presumably you can understand what the zombie universe is imagined to be (it is explained in the original post), or are you seriously claiming that is what reality is like for you, a total lack of any experience?

How do I know my experiences are not simply mechanical events?

>
> I don't know what you mean by "zombie" experiences, if what you experience is not indistinguishable from the total lack of experience that could be imagined some atheists to be their fate when they die, then you cannot be in in a zombie universe where nothing would be imagined to experience anything other than a total lack of experience.
>
> > And of course the same problem applies to anything else in the universe.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Of course not. I can't decide whether I'm in a zombie universe, and neither can the computer.
> > >
> > > I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe, and I cannot be wrong about it.
> >
> > Prove to me that you cannot be wrong about it.
>
> I don't have to prove to you that I cannot be wrong about it. It is sufficient for me to know that I am correct.

Well, that's fine. Nothing more to discuss.

>Though since you have stated "Obviously it seems to me that I am having experiences..." then I assume you realise that you aren't in a zombie universe where nothing would experience.

Not at all. I do not know whether I am in a zombie universe or not. I do not know what a real experience is. If I look at you I cannot tell whether you are having real experiences or are simply a zombie. Likewise, if I introspect, I cannot tell whether I am having real experiences or am only acting as if I am. It seems to me that I am having real experiences in exactly the same way that it seems to me that my wife and kids are having real experiences (and are not zombies). But I have no way to know.

You take it for granted that your being convinced that you are having real experiences makes it so. I do not take that for granted. What I think are real experiences might simply be mechanical events. [And indeed, I think that real experiences ARE mechanical events. But you do not think that, as far as I can tell.] You trust your own introspection more than I do.

[Robert Camp]

On 6/8/15 1:17 PM, someone wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 8:27:39 PM UTC+1, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 6/8/15 10:01 AM, someone wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 4:52:39 PM UTC+1, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/15 11:28 PM, someone wrote:

<snip>

>>>> Seems to me the more important question to consider is, why, with
>>>> zero evidence pointing in that direction, anyone would be tempted
>>>> to entertain a non-material explanation for consciousness?
>>>
>>> Do you think there exists a NAND arrangement which would allow a
>>> computer to be able to give a correct response to whether it was in a
>>> zombie universe or not which would be dependent on the physical facts
>>> of the situation, so that it would make a difference which to the
>>> response which reality the arrangement was found in?
>>
>> I cannot parse what you have written here, and judging from what you
>> previously wrote and the responses of others, I don't think I'm the problem.
>>
>> To be frank, I don't know enough about logic gates to offer an informed
>> opinion, but it does seem clear to me that your references to Nand gates
>> serves only to confuse the issue. You wish to imply, 1) that dualism is
>> a forced conclusion, and, 2) that dualism refutes evolution. There is no
>> evidence for either of those assertions, and your zombie scenarios and
>> robot arguments need a lot of improvement before they provide any
>> illumination.
>
> As I've mentioned I'm not a dualist.

Are you a monist?

[Robert Camp]

Okay, so it "a)" then.

That's fine, as long as we both agree that in this case your "knowing"
that this reality is not a zombie universe sheds no light on the subject.

[Burkhard]

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/8/15 12:15 PM, someone wrote:
>> [...]
>> I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe,
>
> Dunno about that.
>
>> and I cannot be wrong about it.
>
> I do know you are wrong about that.
>

So you don;t think he has subjective experiences?

[someone]

You didn't answer the question

> >
> > I don't know what you mean by "zombie" experiences, if what you experience is not indistinguishable from the total lack of experience that could be imagined some atheists to be their fate when they die, then you cannot be in in a zombie universe where nothing would be imagined to experience anything other than a total lack of experience.
> >
> > > And of course the same problem applies to anything else in the universe.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course not. I can't decide whether I'm in a zombie universe, and neither can the computer.
> > > >
> > > > I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe, and I cannot be wrong about it.
> > >
> > > Prove to me that you cannot be wrong about it.
> >
> > I don't have to prove to you that I cannot be wrong about it. It is sufficient for me to know that I am correct.
>
> Well, that's fine. Nothing more to discuss.
>

The discussion wasn't about whether we are in a zombie universe, it is obvious we aren't.

[Inez]

I'm pretty sure that neither of us mentioned experiences in this phase of the discussion. If R10 has 5 foot legs and R10-z has 10 foot legs R10-z might run faster even with the same signal sent to it. Different physical features, different behavior. Or perhaps the universes are different in more fundamental ways and electricity behaves differently, leading to a different effect of the circuits. You aren't specific about that these physical differences might be.

[someone]

Well if in(a) by instrumental you weren't suggesting it was based upon any difference to any instrument or tool, and meant instrumental to mean useful, then sure it could be said to be (a).

My ability to know that this universe is not a zombie universe sheds light on the fact that I am something that has the ability to tell whether it is a zombie universe. Are thinking that there exists an arrangement of NAND gates
that could give a computer the ability to determine whether the reality the arrangement is found in is a zombie universe or not?

[Ymir]

In article <02725021-d69c-45e1...@googlegroups.com>,
someone <glenn....@googlemail.com> wrote:

<snippage>

> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 4:47:41 PM UTC+1, Ymir wrote:

> > I'm a bit unclear, though, on the second part of your question. If it is
> > possible for a computer to experience consciousness, then that
> > experience would be by virtue of the particular arrangement of gates and
> > the particular inputs. If a particular arrangement of gates *can*
> > produce something analogous to conscious experience with respect to some
> > set of inputs, then that particular arrangement of gates necessarily
> > *must* lead to conscious experience with respect to that same set of
> > inputs. IOW, conscious experience is part of the behaviour of the gates;
> > not something which can vary independently.
> >
>
> You emphasise the word *must* but offer no explanation for why if one
> physical universe had the physical feature of certain arrangements of NAND
> gates in certain states would experience what some of those NAND gates
> represented, that it would mean that all other physical universes *must* also
> have that feature. Could you explain how you get to the *must* in your story?

I'm talking specifically about this universe since we have no actual
evidence for any other universe.

However, were we to posit the existence of other universes, then unless
those universes obey different laws of physics from this one, I'd expect
the exact same behaviour to arise from the same configuration of NAND
gates. If we allow that other universe to obey some entirely different
set of physical laws, then pretty much anything goes which makes such an
exercise rather pointless since it tells us nothing about this universe.

Note that in your original post you tie the existence of other universes
to the problem of fine tuning. I'm not convinced that such a problem
even exists, but if it does it really has nothing to do with
evolutionary theory.

Those who have invoked alternate universes to address the notion of
'fine-tuning' have, to the best of my knowledge, proposed variations in
universal constants rather than in the laws of physics themselves. Any
variation in those constants is going to result in a universe
sufficiently different from our own that I'd want to establish that
normal matter was even possible before I even started to think about
NAND gates.

We can imagine all sorts of things about alternate universes, but any
conclusions drawn from such imaginings remain equally imaginary unless
we can demonstrate not only the existence of other universes, but
specifically of other universes which conform to our imaginings.

Andre

[someone]

We mentioned a zombie universe, so we have mentioned experiences. The difference between the zombie universe idea and the idea that this is a physical universe is that in the zombie universe nothing is consciously experienced. Though in both the zombie universe and this universe, a NAND gate will still give a "on" output unless both its inputs are "on" in which case the output will be "off".

[Inez]

Well then! If you are suggesting that the computer in our universe is sentient then I reject the notion that the computer in the zombie universe can have the same configuration and not also be sentient. Unless, that is, you are proposing that the physical laws are different in the zombie universe so that the same circuit does a different thing, in which case I don't see how you can make a point about anything using it as an example.

[someone]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 10:57:39 PM UTC+1, Ymir wrote:
> In article <02725021-d69c-45e1...@googlegroups.com>,

I don't know what "fine-tuning" issue you are talking about, I don't remember ever using the phrase on this thread.

It doesn't matter whether the zombie universe exists. What matters is that I can tell that this universe isn't a zombie universe, and if it is going to be suggested that an arrangement of NAND gates could tell the same thing then it seems reasonable to ask how given that whatever response the arrangement gives in this universe the same arrangement of NAND gates would give in a zombie universe.

You can assume in both universes the NAND gates give an "on" output unless both inputs are "on" in which case they give an "off" output.

[someone]

I'm not suggesting a computer in our universe is sentient, but if it was suggested that this was a physical reality, and we were analogous to biological computers and that some NAND gate arrangements in this universe were experienced, then presumably it would also be being suggested that the experience of such arrangements would be a physical feature of the universe. Would you insist that a different physical universe couldn't differ with regards to this physical feature, if so on what basis?

[RSNorman]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 12:09:48 -0700 (PDT), someone
<glenn....@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
>Are suggesting that in this universe the way a NAND gate in a configuration will behave depends upon what the experience of some group of them(?) is like?

You have no idea whatsoever about the capabilities of a set of NAND
gates. And the way you throw about that notion tries to suggest a
simple reflexive immediate response to stimuli, the way that a boolean
algebraic network responds to inputs.

The simple fact is that a pair of NAND gates forms a flip-flop, a
memory unit storing one bit of information. You can build a
supercomputer completely from NAND gates with terabytes of memory
programmed with complex artificial intelligence capable of modifying
its behavior with experience and preloaded with all the information we
can gather about the universe, about human behavior, about linguistic
and language, with all the texts ever scanned into digital form. What
you call "NAND gates" represents the totalitly of what is possible
using a computer including machine learning and adaptive neural
networks and the like.

So yes, the way a NAND gate in a configuration will behave absolutely
can depend upon the experience of some group of them.

[Ymir]

In article <a84a3bd2-5bff-44c2...@googlegroups.com>,

To quote from your original post: "However... as I understand it there

is an idea that there are multiple universes and that this provides an
explanation for how a universe so finely tuned for life could exist if
not for design."

If you don't know what the (alleged) issue is, why did you bring it up?

> It doesn't matter whether the zombie universe exists. What matters is that I

> can tell that this universe isn't a zombie universe.

So really all you're trying to claim is that you're conscious. So why
bring up the zombie universe at all?

> and if it is going to be
> suggested that an arrangement of NAND gates could tell the same thing then it
> seems reasonable to ask how given that whatever response the arrangement
> gives in this universe the same arrangement of NAND gates would give in a
> zombie universe.

> You can assume in both universes the NAND gates give an "on" output unless
> both inputs are "on" in which case they give an "off" output.

So in other words, your NAND gates do exactly the same thing in both
universes. Unless you are presupposing that experience is not the result
of what the gates are actually doing, then it would seem to follow that
if the nand gates generate conscious experience in this world, they're
going to generate conscious experience in any other world. And if they
don't generate consciousness in this world, they won't generate
consciousness in any other world.

Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly why you think this has some
relevance to the question of evolution. You obviously believe that
consciousness is not something for which an evolutionary explanation is
possible, but you've never explained your underlying objection. Your
robots and NAND gates don't relate whatever it is that you're trying to
say back to the issue of evolution.

Andre

[Inez]

As nearly as I can tell, the whole computer business is making things less clear rather than more clear.

As far as humans, aka biological computers go, I'd say that experience *determines* the arrangement of "NAND Circuits" or whatever the biological equivalent is for the purposes of this discussion. Imaginary universes may have any properties whatever.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Well, I did, by implication, at the bottom of my post; perhaps you did not read so far. But in case it was not clear enough... I am claiming that I do not know whether what I think are experiences are really experiences.

I answer this way because you seem to imply that it would be possible for everything observable and material to be identical in two hypothetical universes and yet for there to be experiences in one, but not in the other. Now, I cannot reconcile that claim of yours with the claim that you are not a dualist, but that's another issue. I am a monist, so I hold that if the material, observable aspects of any two hypothetical universes are identical, then everything about them is identical. If the experiences I have in one of them count as *real* experiences, then they count that way in the other. But if they do not count as *real* experiences in one of them, then they do not count as *real* experiences in either. I have no way of deciding whether my experiences are *real* experiences or not, though they certainly feel real to me.

I ask again, why are you so sure that you are not a zombie? Why are you so sure that when you think you are having experiences, you really are?

>
> > >
> > > I don't know what you mean by "zombie" experiences, if what you experience is not indistinguishable from the total lack of experience that could be imagined some atheists to be their fate when they die, then you cannot be in in a zombie universe where nothing would be imagined to experience anything other than a total lack of experience.
> > >
> > > > And of course the same problem applies to anything else in the universe.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course not. I can't decide whether I'm in a zombie universe, and neither can the computer.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe, and I cannot be wrong about it.
> > > >
> > > > Prove to me that you cannot be wrong about it.
> > >
> > > I don't have to prove to you that I cannot be wrong about it. It is sufficient for me to know that I am correct.
> >
> > Well, that's fine. Nothing more to discuss.
> >
>
> The discussion wasn't about whether we are in a zombie universe, it is obvious we aren't.

It is obvious to you that we are not in a zombie universe. It is obvious to me that the question as to whether we are or not is meaningless.

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:32:43 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:
> I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary evidence and a belief in God.
>

The concept of evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies. The concept of God, on the other hand, presupposes Intelligence. Neither Intelligence or unintelligence can be used to infer the existence of the other. So unintelligence and Intelligence are antonyms that contradict one another. Existence of one falsifies existence of the other.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 6/8/15 4:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:32:43 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:
>> I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary
>> evidence and a belief in God.
>>
>
> The concept of evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies.

The "concept" of evolution presupposes whatever elements one proposes
contribute to one's particular view of evolution.

The "theory" of evolution posits that undirected, natural
("unintelligent" if you must) processes ("agencies" is sloppy) are
sufficient to explain the descent and distribution of life on earth.

> The
> concept of God, on the other hand, presupposes Intelligence.

*Your* concept of god presupposes *your* concept of intelligence. Try
and think a little bigger, Horatio.

> Neither
> Intelligence or unintelligence can be used to infer the existence of
> the other.

That statement is either unintelligible or just flat wrong (depending
upon your often idiosyncratic usage).

> So unintelligence and Intelligence are antonyms that
> contradict one another.

A truism, sure.

Existence of one falsifies existence of the
> other.

Another obviously wrong invocation of word magic. The existence of up
does not falsify the existence of down. The existence of right doesn't
falsify the existence of wrong.

[Robert Camp]

Sure you are - because you have defined that as a feature of this
universe, i.e., it is a universe in which you can *know* (and cannot be
wrong) that you are not a zombie in a zombie universe. What you're
missing about the philosophical zombie concept is the ambiguity that
forces one to consider difficult questions about consciousness.

> Are thinking that there exists an
> arrangement of NAND gates that could give a computer the ability to
> determine whether the reality the arrangement is found in is a zombie
> universe or not?

I'm thinking that if the universes are identical, then the arrangements
of identical material components in each universe will produce identical
outcomes. If there are material differences between the universes, that
may well result in different outcomes.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:17:38 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 6/8/15 4:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:32:43 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:
> >> I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary
> >> evidence and a belief in God.
> >>
> >
> > The concept of evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies.
>
> The "concept" of evolution presupposes whatever elements one proposes
> contribute to one's particular view of evolution.

Decent conveyance of "the subjective."

>
> The "theory" of evolution posits that undirected, natural
> ("unintelligent" if you must) processes ("agencies" is sloppy) are
> sufficient to explain the descent and distribution of life on earth.

Minus the second parenthesis, "the objective" is conveyed.

>
> > The
> > concept of God, on the other hand, presupposes Intelligence.
>
> *Your* concept of god presupposes *your* concept of intelligence. Try
> and think a little bigger, Horatio.

Non-sequitur.

>
> > Neither
> > Intelligence or unintelligence can be used to infer the existence of
> > the other.
>
> That statement is either unintelligible or just flat wrong (depending
> upon your often idiosyncratic usage).

Implies that Intelligence can be inferred from unintelligence; and unintelligence can be inferred from Intelligence; neither proposition is logical and therefore impossible.

>
> > So unintelligence and Intelligence are antonyms that
> > contradict one another.
>
> A truism, sure.

Yet Robert can't ascertain that the previous point is dependent on the same logic?

>
> Existence of one falsifies existence of the
> > other.
>
> Another obviously wrong invocation of word magic. The existence of up
> does not falsify the existence of down. The existence of right doesn't
> falsify the existence of wrong.

Without any rhyme or reason Robert departs context: topic and nature.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 6/8/15 6:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:17:38 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 6/8/15 4:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:32:43 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:
>>>> I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary
>>>> evidence and a belief in God.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The concept of evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies.
>>
>> The "concept" of evolution presupposes whatever elements one
>> proposes contribute to one's particular view of evolution.
>
> Decent conveyance of "the subjective."
>
>>
>> The "theory" of evolution posits that undirected, natural
>> ("unintelligent" if you must) processes ("agencies" is sloppy) are
>> sufficient to explain the descent and distribution of life on
>> earth.
>
> Minus the second parenthesis, "the objective" is conveyed.

I'm beginning to think English is not your first language.

>>> The concept of God, on the other hand, presupposes Intelligence.
>>
>> *Your* concept of god presupposes *your* concept of intelligence.
>> Try and think a little bigger, Horatio.
>
> Non-sequitur.

You have never understood what that means. This is further evidence.

>>> Neither Intelligence or unintelligence can be used to infer the
>>> existence of the other.
>>
>> That statement is either unintelligible or just flat wrong
>> (depending upon your often idiosyncratic usage).
>
> Implies that Intelligence can be inferred from unintelligence; and
> unintelligence can be inferred from Intelligence; neither proposition
> is logical and therefore impossible.

For everyone's sake, just stop using the word "logical."

>>> So unintelligence and Intelligence are antonyms that contradict
>>> one another.
>>
>> A truism, sure.
>
> Yet Robert can't ascertain that the previous point is dependent on
> the same logic?

It simply is not.

>> Existence of one falsifies existence of the
>>> other.
>>
>> Another obviously wrong invocation of word magic. The existence of
>> up does not falsify the existence of down. The existence of right
>> doesn't falsify the existence of wrong.
>
> Without any rhyme or reason Robert departs context: topic and
> nature.

This is another example of your misuse of both language and rhetoric,
and it's why your reasoning (such as it is) ends up being little more
than word magic. Let me explain.

You base many of your arguments on pseudo-axioms, e.g.,

- appearance of design = existence of design
- concept presupposes existence
- existence of (x) falsifies the existence of its antonym

For such arguments to be compelling, or even meaningful, these dictums
of yours must apply broadly. If they don't, then you cannot argue from
principle or axiom, you must argue the details of each individual case.

So what do people do when you argue from your personal axioms? They take
the obvious tack and produce counterexamples intended to demonstrate
that these principles do not apply across the board, leaving them
impotent in forcing any conclusions you might prefer.

The only rational recourses for you in this case are to either retract
your arguments, or offer reasonable refutations of the counterexamples.
What you do, however, is restrict the focus of your axiom, i.e., "Well,
I'm not talking about *fictional* concepts," or "I'm only talking about
design as it applies to biology."

Taking the latter example, this means you no longer can argue from a
broad principle. If you're going to narrow the focus to biology, then
you assume the obligation of explaining why the principle apples in
biology but not everywhere else. In other words, your axiom has lost its
power, and you're reduced to arguing individuals cases as I suggested above.

I know you likely won't understand any of this. You seem capable of
comprehending and sustaining an argument only as far as it comports with
what you already believe. This is truly unfortunate for you because it
means you cannot conceive of being wrong, and that's a huge disability
when it comes to trying to construct and present a persuasive argument.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 4:32:39 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/8/15 12:15 PM, someone wrote:
> > [...]
> > I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe,

...because, presumably, "someone" has conscious experience and he
thus knows that he is not a zombie. It takes only one counterexample
to make the claim "We live in a zombie universe" false.

> Dunno about that.
>
> > and I cannot be wrong about it.

> I do know you are wrong about that.

IOW, you claim to know that Descartes was wrong when he said, "`I am, I exist'
is true every time I think it [or anything else]".

Could you tell us how you arrived at this earth-shaking [or should I
say reality-shaking?] knowledge?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 9:52:38 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:17:38 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> > On 6/8/15 4:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > > So unintelligence and Intelligence are antonyms that
> > > contradict one another.
> >
> > A truism, sure.
>
> Yet Robert can't ascertain that the previous point is dependent on the same logic?

Can you show that it is?

> > Existence of one falsifies existence of the
> > > other.
> >
> > Another obviously wrong invocation of word magic. The existence of up
> > does not falsify the existence of down. The existence of right doesn't
> > falsify the existence of wrong.
>
> Without any rhyme or reason Robert departs context: topic and nature.
>
> Ray

Without any rhyme or reason, Ray claims that this context makes HIS
allegation about falsification of existence somehow true.

I've seen this time and again, Ray: your posts keep introducing new
allegations about all kinds of things, and when people try to extend your
logic straightforwardly to other contexts, you allege, without any rhyme
or reason, that the context of your statement magically makes it true.

And so, you lead people down one rabbit hole after another, without
ever explaining what makes YOUR use of your logic correct.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Math -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[Glenn]

"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:85c1c5de-4c36-4e7d...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 4:32:39 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/8/15 12:15 PM, someone wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe,
>
> ...because, presumably, "someone" has conscious experience and he
> thus knows that he is not a zombie. It takes only one counterexample
> to make the claim "We live in a zombie universe" false.
>
>> Dunno about that.
>>
>> > and I cannot be wrong about it.
>
>> I do know you are wrong about that.
>
> IOW, you claim to know that Descartes was wrong when he said, "`I am, I exist'
> is true every time I think it [or anything else]".
>
> Could you tell us how you arrived at this earth-shaking [or should I
> say reality-shaking?] knowledge?
>

Mark may have meant that he knows that "cannot be wrong" is wrong. Still, how would he know that?

[SortingItOut]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 1:32:43 AM UTC-5, someone wrote:
> I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary evidence and a belief in God.

That's a common view.

> I can think of it all having been designed to have evolved with some of the ancestors of the human form I experience being having been determined to behave the way they did without anyone being given the experience of being given one as a form and being able to influence its behaviour.
>
> However... as I understand it there is an idea that there are multiple universes and that this provides an explanation for how a universe so finely tuned for life could exist if not for design. There is also an idea that once the chemicals had become arranged so as to form a single replicating cell, then the diversity of organisms could be explained using the concepts of genetic mutation and survival. As I understand it some think that together these two ideas indicate that there is no need to think that the universe was designed for a purpose because of any explanatory requirement, and to the question "what are we?" they might give an answer to the effect that we are physical organisms put together by evolution, in a physical reality, in which there are multiple universes, and in which one was bound to have the finely tuned laws which allow it to be suitable for life. They might also support their argument with ideas of robot's passing Turing Tests, which they might take to indicate as a proof that chemical arrangements can produce the type of behaviour that we exhibit, and suggest that it supports their assumption that we are chemical arrangements put together by evolution.

Other universes and robots passing Turing tests are not required to support the idea that we are "chemical arrangements put together by evolution". There is strong evidence that we evolved from other species. As to just being chemicals, there's no evidence that there is anything other than chemicals involved...and lots of evidence that if you interfere with those chemicals in a few different ways, consciousness ceases.

>
> What I don't understand about this story becomes evident when one considers an alternative, zombie universe.
>
> A zombie universe is an imagined universe. It parodies the physical universe idea, with one in which nothing consciously experiences. If you were to imagine that an atheist believed that they would cease to experience when dead, then you could presumably imagine that to that atheist the humans in the zombie universe would be like the walking dead in terms of what they experience, apart from they aren't imagined to have ceased to experience, they are imagined never to of. So the zombie universe would be physically different from the type of physical universe that it parodies, because it would have different physical features. By physical I mean the idea that corresponding to the objects you experience exist physical objects with similar features to those of that you experience, and that some of those features could also be found in a zombie universe, in an imagined reality in which there is no mind.

That's really hard to follow. I'm not sure what you mean about the zombie universe being physically different than our universe.

>
> You can imagine a robot, the R10, being controlled by a computer whose functionality is derived from the state and arrangement of NAND gates. The wiki page on NAND gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_gate) indicated (the last time I checked) that the outcome of *any* computable function can, in principle, be predicted using a suitable arrangement of NAND gates. Anything that can be thought of as receiving two inputs and having one output which can be thought of as "on" unless both its inputs are "on", in which case it's "off", can be thought of as functioning as a NAND gate. How a NAND gate is implemented doesn't matter. It could be people working as team using flags. Though in the R10's case they can be imagined to be implemented as they normally would be in a computer.
>
> The R10 can be imagined to exist both in this universe and the zombie universe, though the zombie universe version will be referred to as the R10-Z to avoid confusion, and to emphasise their difference. The zombie universe is thought to be physically different from the idea that it parodies, so the R10 is not physically identical to the R10-Z. However since the functionality is derived from the state and arrangement of NAND gates any answer it will give in response to whether it is in a zombie universe or not will depend upon the state and arrangement of the NAND gates. One arrangement and state could cause R10 and R10-Z to state that they aren't in a zombie universe, while another could cause R10 and R10-Z to state that they are in a zombie universe. There would be no way for either chemical arrangement to compute which reality (this or the zombie universe one) it was in, as the computation would depend on the state and arrangement of the NAND gates, which might be one that gives the wrong response for the reality.
>
> But I am writing this partly because I can tell that reality is that I'm not in a zombie universe, and that I can't be wrong about this, so I can't, like R10, be simply relying on the state of some physical arrangement to allow a computation on the matter. What my brain state represents experientially is playing a part in my form stating that I know that the statement "reality is a zombie universe" is false. If what represented the experience of pleasure had represented an experience of pain then it would often make a difference to what I counted as a treat. It is that type of reaction to the experience that allows me to state that based upon the experience I'm having I know that reality is not a zombie universe, and I can't be wrong about it. Imagine the R10 was stranded on some moon by itself, there would be no way for the R10's response to reflect whether it is in a zombie universe or not. Its behaviour wouldn't be based upon the fact of reality that it isn't a zombie universe.

Sounds like you're rigging the game with your contrived zombie universe.

>
> Does anyone on talk.origins understand in the story how evolution is supposed to have achieved which couldn't be achieved with a computer controlled robot, which is the ability to be able to base a statement about reality not being a zombie universe on the fact that reality isn't a zombie universe?

You have no idea what computer controlled robots might ultimately be capable of, and neither does anyone else. Consciousness is still a mystery. The "minimum requirements" for consciousness are not known. It's conceivable to me that a conscious robot might be constructed from logic gates. It's also conceivable to me that it's impossible to create consciousness from logic gates because neurons are the key ingredient and possess some property that makes consciousness possible.

The imagined zombie universe presents to barrier to the evolutionary development of consciousness. You only think it does because of your erroneous rigging of the game by declaring that the exact same physical substrate can in some cases produce consciousness and other cases not be able to. That's your fabrication...no one else's. And only you are limited by it.

[Peter Nyikos]

If he thinks that is a saving clause, then he has a case of
TwoPlusTwoEqualsTwoPlusTwoIsm,
which is the seeming inability to draw the most elementary logical
conclusions from what is written -- being "unable to put two and
two together" as the popular formula has it.

The archetype of this affliction is the claim that

2+2 = 4

is an illegitimate inference, and that the best that one can say along
these lines is

2+2 = 2+2.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics

[SortingItOut]

From your OP:

"However... as I understand it there is an idea that there are multiple universes and that this provides an explanation for how a universe so finely tuned for life could exist if not for design."

It wasn't that long ago...

>
> It doesn't matter whether the zombie universe exists. What matters is that I can tell that this universe isn't a zombie universe, and if it is going to be suggested that an arrangement of NAND gates could tell the same thing then it seems reasonable to ask how given that whatever response the arrangement gives in this universe the same arrangement of NAND gates would give in a zombie universe.

No, it's not reasonable to ask that. You're apparently defining a zombie universe as one where conscious entities can't exist. So why would you compare entities in that universe to conscious entities in this universe. That's nonsense.

[someone]

You are misrepresenting the argument. You were told the zombie universe is physically different from the physical universe it parodies, you read it and even mentioned that you weren't sure what the difference and before claiming that I was claiming there was no physical difference between the zombie universe and the physical one that it parodies. Pretty poor, but I've seen lots of responses, too many for me to keep responding to, and none which I could see making any point that needed addressing. I chose this one just to point out this obvious error, and comment that I won't reply to all the posts otherwise it would be hard for the conversation to be followed, and I'd eventually hit the posting limit. At the moment a reader could read lots of posts that would be unnecessary to read if they'd understood the original post, as none of them addressed the problem. I will still monitor the posts, and occasionally point out misunderstandings, and look out for any more serious replies which I feel require a response, but sorry I won't reply to all.

The physical difference between the zombie universe and the type of physical universe it parodies, is that nothing in the zombie universe consciously experiences, and in the physical universe parodies consciousness is imagined to be a physical feature, so they wouldn't have all the same physical features, and thus would imagined to be physically different.

[someone]

Might I ask you for your thoughts on the original post of this thread?

[Ernest Major]

I fail to understand how postulating that one set of hypothetical laws
of physics allows consciousness and another set of hypothetical laws of
physics doesn't allow consciousness has anything to do with an "atheist
evolutionary account".

--
alias Ernest Major

[Nick Roberts]

In message <a7dfed7a-8634-4214...@googlegroups.com>

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:17:38 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> > On 6/8/15 4:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:32:43 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:
> > >> I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary
> > >> evidence and a belief in God.
> > >>
> > >
> > > The concept of evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies.
> >
> > The "concept" of evolution presupposes whatever elements one proposes
> > contribute to one's particular view of evolution.
>
> Decent conveyance of "the subjective."

As I have mentioned many times before, Ray, "subjective" is one of
those words you habitually misuse.

> > The "theory" of evolution posits that undirected, natural
> > ("unintelligent" if you must) processes ("agencies" is sloppy) are
> > sufficient to explain the descent and distribution of life on earth.
>
> Minus the second parenthesis, "the objective" is conveyed.

And "objective" is another.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <dd5cna598q13d9ngp...@4ax.com>

And of course, there is nothing about reality that requires that
physical NAND gates (when a new other primitives) can't behave in
unpredicatable ways, as discussions this NG highlighted some time ago:

http://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

i.e. a bunch of nand gates that not only don't behave in predictable
ways, but are acting in a way that just shouldn't work at all.

[Inez]

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:32:43 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:

> I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary evidence and a belief in God. I can think of it all having been designed to have evolved with some of the ancestors of the human form I experience being having been determined to behave the way they did without anyone being given the experience of being given one as a form and being able to influence its behaviour.
>
> However... as I understand it there is an idea that there are multiple universes and that this provides an explanation for how a universe so finely tuned for life could exist if not for design. There is also an idea that once the chemicals had become arranged so as to form a single replicating cell, then the diversity of organisms could be explained using the concepts of genetic mutation and survival. As I understand it some think that together these two ideas indicate that there is no need to think that the universe was designed for a purpose because of any explanatory requirement, and to the question "what are we?" they might give an answer to the effect that we are physical organisms put together by evolution, in a physical reality, in which there are multiple universes, and in which one was bound to have the finely tuned laws which allow it to be suitable for life. They might also support their argument with ideas of robot's passing Turing Tests, which they might take to indicate as a proof that chemical arrangements can produce the type of behaviour that we exhibit, and suggest that it supports their assumption that we are chemical arrangements put together by evolution.

>
> What I don't understand about this story becomes evident when one considers an alternative, zombie universe.
>
> A zombie universe is an imagined universe. It parodies the physical universe idea, with one in which nothing consciously experiences. If you were to imagine that an atheist believed that they would cease to experience when dead, then you could presumably imagine that to that atheist the humans in the zombie universe would be like the walking dead in terms of what they experience, apart from they aren't imagined to have ceased to experience, they are imagined never to of. So the zombie universe would be physically different from the type of physical universe that it parodies, because it would have different physical features. By physical I mean the idea that corresponding to the objects you experience exist physical objects with similar features to those of that you experience, and that some of those features could also be found in a zombie universe, in an imagined reality in which there is no mind.
>

> You can imagine a robot, the R10, being controlled by a computer whose functionality is derived from the state and arrangement of NAND gates. The wiki page on NAND gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_gate) indicated (the last time I checked) that the outcome of *any* computable function can, in principle, be predicted using a suitable arrangement of NAND gates. Anything that can be thought of as receiving two inputs and having one output which can be thought of as "on" unless both its inputs are "on", in which case it's "off", can be thought of as functioning as a NAND gate. How a NAND gate is implemented doesn't matter. It could be people working as team using flags. Though in the R10's case they can be imagined to be implemented as they normally would be in a computer.
>

> The R10 can be imagined to exist both in this universe and the zombie universe, though the zombie universe version will be referred to as the R10-Z to avoid confusion, and to emphasise their difference. The zombie universe is thought to be physically different from the idea that it parodies, so the R10 is not physically identical to the R10-Z. However since the functionality is derived from the state and arrangement of NAND gates any answer it will give in response to whether it is in a zombie universe or not will depend upon the state and arrangement of the NAND gates. One arrangement and state could cause R10 and R10-Z to state that they aren't in a zombie universe, while another could cause R10 and R10-Z to state that they are in a zombie universe. There would be no way for either chemical arrangement to compute which reality (this or the zombie universe one) it was in, as the computation would depend on the state and arrangement of the NAND gates, which might be one that gives the wrong response for the reality.
>
> But I am writing this partly because I can tell that reality is that I'm not in a zombie universe, and that I can't be wrong about this, so I can't, like R10, be simply relying on the state of some physical arrangement to allow a computation on the matter. What my brain state represents experientially is playing a part in my form stating that I know that the statement "reality is a zombie universe" is false. If what represented the experience of pleasure had represented an experience of pain then it would often make a difference to what I counted as a treat. It is that type of reaction to the experience that allows me to state that based upon the experience I'm having I know that reality is not a zombie universe, and I can't be wrong about it. Imagine the R10 was stranded on some moon by itself, there would be no way for the R10's response to reflect whether it is in a zombie universe or not. Its behaviour wouldn't be based upon the fact of reality that it isn't a zombie universe.

>
> Does anyone on talk.origins understand in the story how evolution is supposed to have achieved which couldn't be achieved with a computer controlled robot, which is the ability to be able to base a statement about reality not being a zombie universe on the fact that reality isn't a zombie universe?

Re-reading your question, it seems to me you're making a lot of leaps and assumptions. For example here:

"There would be no way for either chemical arrangement to compute which reality (this or the zombie universe one) it was in, as the computation would depend on the state and arrangement of the NAND gates, which might be one that gives the wrong response for the reality."

There actually is a way for the chemical arrangement to compute which reality it was in. It would use the same method you do: if the robot was sentient and capable of experiencing things then it would know that it wasn't in a zombie universe. If it wasn't sentient then it couldn't know, but only because you can't tell a zombie from a non-zombie from the outside.

The thing is, the whole notion of a "zombie" that acted like a person but without experiencing anything is just hogwash.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 9:17:36 AM UTC-7, Nick Roberts wrote:
> In message <a7dfed7a-8634-4214...@googlegroups.com>
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:17:38 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> > > On 6/8/15 4:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:32:43 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:
> > > >> I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary
> > > >> evidence and a belief in God.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > The concept of evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies.
> > >
> > > The "concept" of evolution presupposes whatever elements one proposes
> > > contribute to one's particular view of evolution.
> >
> > Decent conveyance of "the subjective."
>
> As I have mentioned many times before, Ray, "subjective" is one of
> those words you habitually misuse.

How is it misused in this instance?

>
> > > The "theory" of evolution posits that undirected, natural
> > > ("unintelligent" if you must) processes ("agencies" is sloppy) are
> > > sufficient to explain the descent and distribution of life on earth.
> >
> > Minus the second parenthesis, "the objective" is conveyed.
>
> And "objective" is another.

How is it misused in this instance?

Ray

[someone]

Why would you expect a NAND gate arrangement to behave differently in a zombie universe than it would in this universe?

[Inez]

If we assume that R10 is capable of experiencing then the NAND gate arrangement has to behave differently according to the conditions of your story. Right? Because R10-Z has to have the same NAND gate arrangement but not be capable of experiencing.

If R10 isn't capable of experiencing then the whole question is pointless, as the only reason it is unable to tell if it's in a zombie universe or not is because it is itself a zombie.

[someone]

When you stated:

"If we assume that R10 is capable of experiencing then the NAND gate arrangement has to behave differently according to the conditions of your story. Right?"

What are you suggesting the NAND gate arrangement behave differently to, an identical NAND gate arrangement (not identical NAND gates) in the zombie universe? How could it unless the NAND gates weren't NAND gates?

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 7:37:38 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 6/8/15 6:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:17:38 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 6/8/15 4:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:32:43 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:
> >>>> I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary
> >>>> evidence and a belief in God.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The concept of evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies.
> >>
> >> The "concept" of evolution presupposes whatever elements one
> >> proposes contribute to one's particular view of evolution.
> >
> > Decent conveyance of "the subjective."
> >
> >>
> >> The "theory" of evolution posits that undirected, natural
> >> ("unintelligent" if you must) processes ("agencies" is sloppy) are
> >> sufficient to explain the descent and distribution of life on
> >> earth.
> >
> > Minus the second parenthesis, "the objective" is conveyed.
>
> I'm beginning to think English is not your first language.

Either that is true or Evolutionists are stupid. In Creationist circles the stupidity of Evolutionists, Darwin to Dawkins, is legendary, getting lotsa laughs.

It's simply IMPOSSIBLE for nature/living things and the degree of organization seen to have been produced by laws tethered to a genuine element of chance.

>
> >>> The concept of God, on the other hand, presupposes Intelligence.
> >>
> >> *Your* concept of god presupposes *your* concept of intelligence.
> >> Try and think a little bigger, Horatio.
> >
> > Non-sequitur.
>
> You have never understood what that means. This is further evidence.

See previous answer.

>
> >>> Neither Intelligence or unintelligence can be used to infer the
> >>> existence of the other.
> >>
> >> That statement is either unintelligible or just flat wrong
> >> (depending upon your often idiosyncratic usage).
> >
> > Implies that Intelligence can be inferred from unintelligence; and
> > unintelligence can be inferred from Intelligence; neither proposition
> > is logical and therefore impossible.
>
> For everyone's sake, just stop using the word "logical."

That's the point: Evolutionists don't know what logic is and they're almost completely ignorant about the importance of logic. They think words strung in a sentence by them are automatically logical because of their alleged educational credentials. They don't have any awareness of how stupid they actually are or how stupid they sound. This is how we know the delusion is working on them, and not us. If a contradiction exists in their sentences then the thought is automatically false, cannot exist in reality.

In this case your INABILITY to see the contradiction between Intelligence and unintelligence is excellent evidence that you haven't the faintest idea as to what logic is! Again, a delusion is at work and it's working on believers in evolution, not God. Everyone else INSTANTLY SEES that unintelligence and Intelligence contradict: both cannot exist in nature at the same time. It's either one or the other, not both. Creationism doesn't allow the concept of unintelligence any role in biological production. Conversely Darwinism doesn't allow Intelligence any role in biological production. These are objective facts. Your attempt to continually **allow** for both is propaganda aimed at stupid "Christian" Evolutionists who don't understand the objective facts of mutual exclusivity.

>
> >>> So unintelligence and Intelligence are antonyms that contradict
> >>> one another.
> >>
> >> A truism, sure.
> >
> > Yet Robert can't ascertain that the previous point is dependent on
> > the same logic?
>
> It simply is not.

Intelligence and unintelligence are the subject and objects; neither can be inferred from the other because both contradict one another. Again, I've explained WHY you can't see the self-evident point (delusion or deliberate propaganda aimed at "Christian" Evolutionists who might be reading these exchanges).

These paragraphs and their argument seek to defend a departure from context: topic and nature.

I deliberately refrained from answering each point so as not to dilute the gravity of said argument. But all the argument above attempts to do is justify a departure from topic. All this means is that the Evolutionist, in this case, Robert Camp, cannot harm or refute anything I said by remaining within context. Robert readily admits that he must depart context to harm or refute what I say and argue.

That said, I'm well pleased and satisfied.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Robert Camp]

On 6/9/15 12:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 7:37:38 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 6/8/15 6:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:17:38 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/15 4:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:32:43 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:
>>>>>> I can see no contradiction between a belief in
>>>>>> evolutionary evidence and a belief in God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept of evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies.
>>>>
>>>> The "concept" of evolution presupposes whatever elements one
>>>> proposes contribute to one's particular view of evolution.
>>>
>>> Decent conveyance of "the subjective."
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "theory" of evolution posits that undirected, natural
>>>> ("unintelligent" if you must) processes ("agencies" is sloppy)
>>>> are sufficient to explain the descent and distribution of life
>>>> on earth.
>>>
>>> Minus the second parenthesis, "the objective" is conveyed.
>>
>> I'm beginning to think English is not your first language.
>
> Either that is true or Evolutionists are stupid. In Creationist
> circles the stupidity of Evolutionists, Darwin to Dawkins, is
> legendary, getting lotsa laughs.
>
> It's simply IMPOSSIBLE for nature/living things and the degree of
> organization seen to have been produced by laws tethered to a genuine
> element of chance.

You know, as obviously presumptuous and just plain counterfactual as the
above comment is, it has the rare virtue of being a clear statement
about reality using language upon which we can all agree. You spend so
much time trying to work word magic that this kind of remark is like a
breath of fresh air.

I hope this move away from painful twisting of language signals a trend
and applaud your decision to begin addressing the reality we all share.
Of course you see it from a clearly uneducated perspective, but that can
be remedied with a little interest on your part. Belief in word magic
means you have lost any interest in genuine interaction.

>>>>> The concept of God, on the other hand, presupposes
>>>>> Intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> *Your* concept of god presupposes *your* concept of
>>>> intelligence. Try and think a little bigger, Horatio.
>>>
>>> Non-sequitur.
>>
>> You have never understood what that means. This is further
>> evidence.
>
> See previous answer.
>
>>
>>>>> Neither Intelligence or unintelligence can be used to infer
>>>>> the existence of the other.
>>>>
>>>> That statement is either unintelligible or just flat wrong
>>>> (depending upon your often idiosyncratic usage).
>>>
>>> Implies that Intelligence can be inferred from unintelligence;
>>> and unintelligence can be inferred from Intelligence; neither
>>> proposition is logical and therefore impossible.
>>
>> For everyone's sake, just stop using the word "logical."
>
> That's the point: Evolutionists don't know what logic is and they're
> almost completely ignorant about the importance of logic. They think
> words strung in a sentence by them are automatically logical because
> of their alleged educational credentials. They don't have any
> awareness of how stupid they actually are or how stupid they sound.
> This is how we know the delusion is working on them, and not us. If a
> contradiction exists in their sentences then the thought is
> automatically false, cannot exist in reality.

I said "please," after all. You're in a very deep hole, stop digging.

You are taking the colloquial use of "logical" and attempting to apply
it in the kind of argument where that use is entirely inappropriate.

> In this case your INABILITY to see the contradiction between
> Intelligence and unintelligence is excellent evidence that you
> haven't the faintest idea as to what logic is! Again, a delusion is
> at work and it's working on believers in evolution, not God. Everyone
> else INSTANTLY SEES that unintelligence and Intelligence contradict:
> both cannot exist in nature at the same time.

No one else sees that, Ray. No one.

> It's either one or the
> other, not both. Creationism doesn't allow the concept of
> unintelligence any role in biological production. Conversely
> Darwinism doesn't allow Intelligence any role in biological
> production. These are objective facts. Your attempt to continually
> **allow** for both is propaganda aimed at stupid "Christian"
> Evolutionists who don't understand the objective facts of mutual
> exclusivity.

You are drifting into the deep end, and it's very clear you cannot swim.

>>>>> So unintelligence and Intelligence are antonyms that
>>>>> contradict one another.
>>>>
>>>> A truism, sure.
>>>
>>> Yet Robert can't ascertain that the previous point is dependent
>>> on the same logic?
>>
>> It simply is not.
>
> Intelligence and unintelligence are the subject and objects; neither
> can be inferred from the other because both contradict one another.
> Again, I've explained WHY you can't see the self-evident point
> (delusion or deliberate propaganda aimed at "Christian" Evolutionists
> who might be reading these exchanges).

The fact that you think *that* qualifies as an actual explanation is
evidence of your cognitive problems. Anyone who so consistently assumes
the inviolate truth of their personal pronouncements simply does not
think very clearly.

"The" topic, Ray, "the" topic. Is there some reason you write like this?
Do you think it makes you sound scholarly?

> All this means is
> that the Evolutionist, in this case, Robert Camp, cannot harm or
> refute anything I said by remaining within context.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means you were, as I predicted,
incapable of understanding the point.

what I offered was a direct analysis of your ability to craft and
present a coherent argument. Instead of engaging the argument, however,
you indulged in shallow evasion.

> Robert readily
> admits that he must depart context to harm or refute what I say and
> argue.
>
> That said, I'm well pleased and satisfied.

Once again, Ray, this is the resort of an unhinged mind. Ignore the
argument, declare victory and depart. You realize you do this quite
often, right? Do you also see how ineffectual it makes you look?

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/8/15 2:09 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/8/15 12:15 PM, someone wrote:
>>> [...]

>>> I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe,

>>
>> Dunno about that.
>>
>>> and I cannot be wrong about it.
>>
>> I do know you are wrong about that.
>>

> So you don;t think he has subjective experiences?

I think he only *thinks* he has subjective experiences.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/8/15 8:00 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 4:32:39 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/8/15 12:15 PM, someone wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe,
>
> ...because, presumably, "someone" has conscious experience and he
> thus knows that he is not a zombie. It takes only one counterexample
> to make the claim "We live in a zombie universe" false.
>
>> Dunno about that.
>>
>>> and I cannot be wrong about it.
>
>> I do know you are wrong about that.
>
> IOW, you claim to know that Descartes was wrong when he said, "`I am, I exist'
> is true every time I think it [or anything else]".

Irrelevant. It is far from clear (to me) that someone's zombie universe
has anything to do with philosophical zombies or conscious experience.

That said, Descartes did make assumptions about what "I" means which
further neurological research calls into question.

[Mark Isaak]

Given elsewhere.

[Inez]

I'm afraid I am having a very hard time parsing the above words. I'm going to assume you meant "behave differently than" rather than "behave differently to," and by "the NAND gate arrangement" you mean the R10's specifically.

Given these assumptions, my response is that the difficulty is in the inherent absurdity of your thought experiment. If we state that the R10 is capable of experiencing then it is your thought experiment that demands that the NAND gate arrangements act differently in different universes since the R10-Z is defined as not experiencing. That's a given in your premise.

As far as I can see the p-zombie argument assumes its premise. If you assume that one entity may be conscious while a physically identical one is not, you are assuming that consciousness is not physical. Wrong-O.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/9/15 1:07 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 9:17:36 AM UTC-7, Nick Roberts wrote:
>> In message <a7dfed7a-8634-4214...@googlegroups.com>
>> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 6:17:38 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/15 4:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:32:43 PM UTC-7, someone wrote:
>>>>>> I can see no contradiction between a belief in evolutionary
>>>>>> evidence and a belief in God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept of evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies.
>>>>
>>>> The "concept" of evolution presupposes whatever elements one proposes
>>>> contribute to one's particular view of evolution.
>>>
>>> Decent conveyance of "the subjective."
>>
>> As I have mentioned many times before, Ray, "subjective" is one of
>> those words you habitually misuse.
>
> How is it misused in this instance?

It would help if you would please tell your audience which meaning of
"subjective" you intended. You usage doesn't seem to fit any of these
accepted meanings.

Subjective:

adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to
the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions,
etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in
the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as
distinguished from general or universal experience.
6.
pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere;
essential.
7.
Grammar.

pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence.
(in English and certain other languages) noting a case specialized
for that use, as He in He hit the ball.
similar to such a case in meaning.
Compare nominative.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective


It looks like you are mixing meanings 1,2, and 4 into an incoherent
mess.

>
>>
>>>> The "theory" of evolution posits that undirected, natural
>>>> ("unintelligent" if you must) processes ("agencies" is sloppy) are
>>>> sufficient to explain the descent and distribution of life on earth.
>>>
>>> Minus the second parenthesis, "the objective" is conveyed.
>>
>> And "objective" is another.
>
> How is it misused in this instance?

Again, please select which meaning you intended.

Objective

adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice;
based on facts; unbiased:
an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with
thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of
thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8.
of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is
an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an
observer as part of reality.
9.
Grammar.

pertaining to the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb
or of a preposition.
(in English and some other languages) noting the objective case.
similar to such a case in meaning.
(in case grammar) pertaining to the semantic role of a noun phrase
that denotes something undergoing a change of state or bearing a neutral
relation to the verb, as the rock in The rock moved or in The child
threw the rock.

10.
being part of or pertaining to an object to be drawn:
an objective plane.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective?s=t

Again, you seem to be mixing definitions 5, 7 and 8. Which one did you
mean?


snip the rest


DJT

[someone]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 11:02:36 PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/9/15 12:31 AM, someone wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:02:38 AM UTC+1, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 4:32:39 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>> On 6/8/15 12:15 PM, someone wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> I can tell that reality is not a zombie universe,
> >>
> >> ...because, presumably, "someone" has conscious experience and he
> >> thus knows that he is not a zombie. It takes only one counterexample
> >> to make the claim "We live in a zombie universe" false.
> >>
> >>> Dunno about that.
> >>>
> >>>> and I cannot be wrong about it.
> >>
> >>> I do know you are wrong about that.
> >>
> >> IOW, you claim to know that Descartes was wrong when he said, "`I am, I exist'
> >> is true every time I think it [or anything else]".
> >>
> >> Could you tell us how you arrived at this earth-shaking [or should I
> >> say reality-shaking?] knowledge?
> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >> University of South Carolina
> >> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
> >
> > Might I ask you for your thoughts on the original post of this thread?
>
> Given elsewhere.
>

I was asking for Peter Nyikos's opinion of the original post because I can't see it on this thread.

[someone]

1) I have repeatedly stated that I do not assume the R10 is conscious. Let me be clear, I don't believe it would be, but that is not an assumption that it isn't, you are free to assume that it would be.
2) The R10 is imagined to have the same NAND gate arrangement as the R10-Z.
3) All identical arrangments of NAND gates in identical states regarding the NAND gate settings behave the same regardless of how they are implemented. Which is why I asked you about how you were thinking identical NAND gate arrangements would act differently given the same settings unless the NAND gates weren't NAND gates. You avoided answering.

[someone]

Actually it wasn't repeatedly just once as far as I could see checking back over the posts.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/VJMS6crS9AU/DtFnKHIf-fkJ

[broger...@gmail.com]

As far as I can tell, everyone answering you has said that identical NAND gate arrangements would act identically given identical settings.

[someone]

I had asked Inez the question:

"Why would you expect a NAND gate arrangement to behave differently in a zombie universe than it would in this universe?"

and got as part of the response:

"If we assume that R10 is capable of experiencing then the NAND gate arrangement has to behave differently according to the conditions of your story. Right? Because R10-Z has to have the same NAND gate arrangement but not be capable of experiencing"

Why do you think it is wrong to interpret that as indicating Inez thinking that a NAND gate arrangement in the zombie could act differently to an identical NAND gate arrangement with identical settings in this universe?

[broger...@gmail.com]

Because Inez noted "according to the conditions of your story." Your story tries to force the conclusion that the same NAND gate arrangement could act differently under identical conditions. I am quite sure that Inez would agree with me that the same arrangement under the same conditions will act in the same way. And that your zombie story is incoherent.

[someone]

Why do you believe that the imagined zombie universe is incoherent when presumably you believe the imagined physical universe that it parodies isn't?

[broger...@gmail.com]

Because the existence of the "zombie universe" presupposes that identical physical arrangements in identical conditions can behave differently.

[someone]

Are you suggesting that the zombie universe presupposes identical arrangements of NAND with identical settings would behave differently? If so how do you come to that conclusion?

[broger...@gmail.com]

Ah, I see the problem. I said behave differently. And that's the rub, right, because the zombie universe behaves exactly the same. What I should have said is that the zombie universe presupposes that two systems can be completely identical physically, in their arrangement, in their behaviour, in the laws that govern them, and yet be different with regard to something. Well, if that something is non-physical, then you have to presuppose dualism to make sense of the zombie universe, and if the something is physical, then the two systems are not really identical.

Short answer: if you have two physically identical universes, you have no basis on which to call one of them a zombie universe and the other a non-zombie universe.