The subjective observer is a fictional character

[GrahamH]

I've tried to scan throough the thread but must have missed it.

what are being reffered to by NN?

NN = Neural Network (in the brain)

[jamest]

Of course the brain only has access to its own internal states - EVEN IF THERE IS AN EXTERNAL WORLD. "Rejecting causality"? That's just a giant red herring. Even if I allow you to assume that the brain's internal states are caused by the external environment - which I have - the claim that the brain is only privy to its own internal states is still a true statement. Man, you must be getting desperate.

It seems it is you who is desperate to avoid reason. If brain states are caused by exterior events then obviously the brain has access to data about the external world. That is has this access via neural states does not invalidate the external data.

Graham, whether the internal state of an entity is caused by something external to itself, is not the issue, since I've already agreed to accept such a scenario. The issue is how that entity could know that its internal states were caused by something external to itself.

So, how could a brain KNOW these things, Graham? Your 'model' is one of brain states being responses to an external world, but have failed to understand that the brain cannot know this. That is, the brain only has access to its own internal states, so any extrapolation of this 'reality' of itself to something beyond that self, requires an assumption and the application of external meaning to its own internal states.

This wouldn't be a problem for your model if the effected behaviour of an organism was an 'automatic' response to brain states [that themselves were responses to the external realm]; but, I've given sufficient reason within this thread to show that the response to any given brain states is [often] dependent upon the objectives of that brain. Therefore, the brain itself must [often] 'decide' which response will be appropriate... which means that responses to those brain states are not [always] automatic. That is, there is evidence that the brain 'processes' vast chunks of information prior to deciding the appropriate response for itself. Therefore, we cannot accept any model of the brain that states that human behaviour is just an automatic consequence of brain states [that themselves were responses to the external realm].

[jamest]

I doubt you will understand anything I've written in this post.

I understood it all. The problem was that none of it addressed my rational thrust within this thread. If I was what you accused me of being, then perhaps I could be arsed responding to you. End of post.

[SpeedOfSound]

I doubt you will understand anything I've written in this post.

I understood it all. The problem was that none of it addressed my rational thrust within this thread. If I was what you accused me of being, then perhaps I could be arsed responding to you. End of post.

Yup. As I expected. Ya don't get it.

[SpeedOfSound]

The issue is how that entity could know that its internal states were caused by something external to itself.

So, how could a brain KNOW these things, Graham? Your 'model' is one of brain states being responses to an external world, but have failed to understand that the brain cannot know this. That is, the brain only has access to its own internal states, so any extrapolation of this 'reality' of itself to something beyond that self, requires an assumption and the application of external meaning to its own internal states.

This proves that you don't get it intellectually. I posted a specific mechanism for this days ago and I bet you don't even know where it is.

You are not up to having this conversation are you?

[SpeedOfSound]

This wouldn't be a problem for your model if the effected behaviour of an organism was an 'automatic' response to brain states [that themselves were responses to the external realm]; but, I've given sufficient reason within this thread to show that the response to any given brain states is [often] dependent upon the objectives of that brain. Therefore, the brain itself must [often] 'decide' which response will be appropriate... which means that responses to those brain states are not [always] automatic. That is, there is evidence that the brain 'processes' vast chunks of information prior to deciding the appropriate response for itself. Therefore, we cannot accept any model of the brain that states that human behaviour is just an automatic consequence of brain states [that themselves were responses to the external realm].

More simpleism. Read a biology book and some of this behavior stuff will just jump right out at you.

[jamest]

The issue is how that entity could know that its internal states were caused by something external to itself.

So, how could a brain KNOW these things, Graham? Your 'model' is one of brain states being responses to an external world, but have failed to understand that the brain cannot know this. That is, the brain only has access to its own internal states, so any extrapolation of this 'reality' of itself to something beyond that self, requires an assumption and the application of external meaning to its own internal states.

This proves that you don't get it intellectually. I posted a specific mechanism for this days ago and I bet you don't even know where it is.

You are not up to having this conversation are you?

Less than 36 hours ago, I specifically asked you to cut & paste the relevant parts of those posts (into a new post) that [you thought] actually addressed the [current] thrust of my reasoning. I assured you that I would respond to the relevant parts of that post, in detail. You never did it. So, spare me the lecture.

[SpeedOfSound]

The issue is how that entity could know that its internal states were caused by something external to itself.

So, how could a brain KNOW these things, Graham? Your 'model' is one of brain states being responses to an external world, but have failed to understand that the brain cannot know this. That is, the brain only has access to its own internal states, so any extrapolation of this 'reality' of itself to something beyond that self, requires an assumption and the application of external meaning to its own internal states.

This proves that you don't get it intellectually. I posted a specific mechanism for this days ago and I bet you don't even know where it is.

You are not up to having this conversation are you?

Less than 36 hours ago, I specifically asked you to cut & paste the relevant parts of those posts (into a new post) that [you thought] actually addressed the [current] thrust of my reasoning. I assured you that I would respond to the relevant parts of that post, in detail. You never did it. So, spare me the lecture.

It's kind of a whole. The posts are a series. You never understood them and this is becoming quite clear. I'm not here to do your homework for you. Go take a look and impress me with your own ability to find the relevance.

Or else just quit faking and ask us nicely for some simpler explanations.

[jamest]

It's kind of a whole. The posts are a series. You never understood them and this is becoming quite clear.

Correction: I never read them. Hence the request to repeat the relevant parts of them.

I'm not here to do your homework for you. Go take a look and impress me with your own ability to find the relevance.

You have a golden opportunity to present material that will make me look like a fool in the eyes of our audience, since I've told you that I will address any material that specifically confronts the problems that I have recently presented about any materialistic models of the brain. And yet, you sit there on your arse, doing nothing?

You're doing the chasing here. Not me.

[SpeedOfSound]

It's kind of a whole. The posts are a series. You never understood them and this is becoming quite clear.

Correction: I never read them. Hence the request to repeat the relevant parts of them.

I'm not here to do your homework for you. Go take a look and impress me with your own ability to find the relevance.

You have a golden opportunity to present material that will make me look like a fool in the eyes of our audience, since I've told you that I will address any material that specifically confronts the problems that I have recently presented about any materialistic models of the brain. And yet, you sit there on your arse, doing nothing?

You're doing the chasing here. Not me.

We have already posted the material that makes you look like a fool. (actually it's your own repetition of failed arguments that looks foolish) I knew that you don't read any of the counters to your raving. Everyone knows by the way you keep missing the fact that your ravings have been refuted.

Now it's time to shape up here and read the posts of others and quit preaching. Time to learn. Okay? Go read the fucking material.

Or

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Cool it guys. You know what happens when you start throwing insults instead of arguments.

[Surendra Darathy]

I specifically asked you to cut & paste the relevant parts of those posts (into a new post) that [you thought] actually addressed the [current] thrust of my reasoning...

The model is that there is a brain, and it responds to objects separate from it. The model more or less insists that if the brain was only responding to itself, awareness would be something like what happens when you aim a video camera at the monitor that is displaying its signal. If you don't know about these experiments, and what happens to people in sensory deprivation experiments, I suggest you have a look.

If your "model" is that the "perceived external world" is entirely an illusion, it ought to address these observations. If you say those experimental results are an illusion, within what reality are they an illusion? What could be the foundation of such persistent illusions? Your brand of idealism is a couple of bricks shy of a load.

[jamest]

I've already posted the material that makes you look like a fool. I knew that you don't read any of the counters to your raving. Everyone knows by the way you keep missing the fact that your ravings have been refuted.

Now it's time to shape up here and read the posts of others and quit preaching. Time to learn. Okay? Go read the fucking material.

Or

Put it this way, pal: if some relativist bozo was imploring me to repeat posts of mine that he hadn't read, that were significant enough to render his relativism as a corpse, then I would do so. Especially if all I needed to do was cut & paste.

Stop fannying around and wasting my/our time. The gauntlet has been thrown. Either pick it up or fuck off, with your tail between your legs.

[SpeedOfSound]

Cool it guys. You know what happens when you start throwing insults instead of arguments.

He has admitted to not reading counterarguments and yet he is just droning on. What is that called when someone does that?

I'm just applying some pressure to get us on a track that actually goes somewhere.

[Surendra Darathy]

Put it this way, pal: if some relativist bozo was imploring me to repeat posts of mine that he hadn't read, that were significant enough to render his relativism as a corpse, then I would do so. Especially if all I needed to do was cut & paste.

Stop fannying around and wasting my/our time. The gauntlet has been thrown. Either pick it up or fuck off, with your tail between your legs.

\

The posts are there, and you openly admit you haven't read them, on top of requests to summarize them for you.

I specifically asked you to cut & paste the relevant parts of those posts (into a new post) that [you thought] actually addressed the [current] thrust of my reasoning.

Yes, James. You can keep modifying the "thrust" of your reasoning, in order to claim that people are not responding to you. That's one we've seen before.