Zombies

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

r6r6r posted a lot of nonsense comments about zombies and !?!?! - and then took them of ?!?!

Not very fair r6r6r to take away your spam comments out of your post. My previous post has no validity out of your context.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by Gem

Well, it has a particular definition to serve a particular purpose, so it's 'assumed true'.

Let me foster that concept by giving some Hegel* quotes about the Absolute Idea in relation with the Notion (the ultimate idea for which the idea is - the truth in things):
Here some quotes on Absolute Idea and the Notion.

Originally Posted by Gem

The subject might think the idea, or the idea may occur to the subject. I'm not sure if there's a 'thinker' thinking thoughts, or if there's thoughts being noticed in a collective consciousness. Apon noticing the thoughts, we might merely assume there's a thinker thinking... in which case, the thinker is also a thought.

The idea occurs to the subject, because it has been uploaded as Notion from the collective consciousness. But the idea is not yet substantialised. It has to go through the process of substantialization to reach the concrete subjectivity.

Originally Posted by Gem

Well, the reason that zombies were defined was to portray 'the hard problem of consciousness'... they are imaginary, yet purposeful... like a metaphor.

Zombies are much more objective than we think. It is almost as this world is full of them, so to speak. :)

Originally Posted by Gem

I agree that the philosophers of mind were much more profound than, say, Chalmers, but I became a Chalmers fan for the sole reason that he made zombies into a serious academic topic... that's funny.

Chalmers is "the" philosopher of the 21st century. The most profound and knowledgable. Definitely the most interesting of them all. Yet, as Hegel and the rest, the old & new philosophers of Mind have not yet reached the depth (notion) of Indian philosophy; as far as this philosophy of mind is concerned. They have not yet understood that matter breeds consciousness and consciousness breeds matter, like in Buddhism. The evolutionary constructs of Samkhya has its validation in the M-branes cosmology of Steinhardt & Turok (wikiped: cyclic model). Phenomenalism is goddamn Buddhistic. Etc.

Cordially.

* The best (and mostly simplest) way to start with the deep and wide Hegel (whose wife used to do her own mushroom picking,) is here (philosophy of religion - magic) ("oldie but goodie"). Lots of nonsense, but a good way to grasp his system. If you don't want to spend four years studying the system of Aristotle (full of nonsense also), you might as well learn the second best. A system in philosophy is like a skeleton in men. You can't escape it, if you want to make sense out of the crisscrossed concepts and terminology of the different schools. Yet it does not have to be perfect.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by cathutch

Let me foster that concept by giving some Hegel* quotes about the Absolute Idea in relation with the Notion (the ultimate idea for which the idea is - the truth in things):
Here some quotes on Absolute Idea and the Notion.

I looked up Hegel via a book called A History of Western Philosophy, which said that Hegel is perhaps the most difficult to understand.

The idea occurs to the subject, because it has been uploaded as Notion from the collective consciousness. But the idea is not yet substantialised. It has to go through the process of substantialization to reach the concrete subjectivity.

I'd argue that collective consciousness doesn't have ideas, as ideas occur to the perception of the mind, whereas collective consciousness could only reasonably refer to 'that which perceives' and not 'that which is perceived'.

[/quote]Zombies are much more objective than we think. It is almost as this world is full of them, so to speak. :)[quote]

True enough to say that there are things which people are not conscious of, The subconscious or the unconscious.

Chalmers is "the" philosopher of the 21st century. The most profound and knowledgable. Definitely the most interesting of them all. Yet, as Hegel and the rest, the old & new philosophers of Mind have not yet reached the depth (notion) of Indian philosophy; as far as this philosophy of mind is concerned. They have not yet understood that matter breeds consciousness and consciousness breeds matter, like in Buddhism. The evolutionary constructs of Samkhya has its validation in the M-branes cosmology of Steinhardt & Turok (wikiped: cyclic model). Phenomenalism is goddamn Buddhistic. Etc.

Yes, Indian philosophy is a deep examination of self and the mind. To quite a large degree, their philosophy is regarded as discovery, and to a lesser degree based on the notion of creating an argument... it's almost a whole different process of thought. I like both sorts.

Cordially.

* The best (and mostly simplest) way to start with the deep and wide Hegel (whose wife used to do her own mushroom picking,) is here (philosophy of religion - magic) ("oldie but goodie"). Lots of nonsense, but a good way to grasp his system. If you don't want to spend four years studying the system of Aristotle (full of nonsense also), you might as well learn the second best. A system in philosophy is like a skeleton in men. You can't escape it, if you want to make sense out of the crisscrossed concepts and terminology of the different schools. Yet it does not have to be perfect.

Well u-tube has the talking book A History of Western Phlosophy, so I'll finish with that as I'm really interested on the 'evolution' of philosophical thought, mostly.

[r6r6]

To Cat, it appears to me one of my messages have been removed from this thread. I not only did not remove that message, I do not if there is manual mechanism that allows me to do that.

There may be various possibilities within a finite set of cosmic laws/principles;

1) internet or SForums malfunction,

2} owner of this thread deleted my message,

3) moderator removed message with no posting notification in thread or too me personally.

There may be other possibliites that I'm not familiar with that may or may not involved the walking comatose.

[quote=r6r6r]

To best of my knowledge the only direct evidence of evolution is with some bacteria studies.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

.....And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events."...
r6

Evolution is typically/traditionally/conventionally thought of as simple > complex, however, evolution may also be considered as complex > simple.
Which way the bacteria were going in those studies may not ever have had a conclusive answer/resultant for the observers of data involved. I dunno.
1 + 1 geometrically can synergistically = 4 but based on the above, we can also go the other direction i.e. 4 can subdivided to become two, whole ones and that for whatever reason may seem-- if only superficiall so --- easier to intuit, or grasp, or whatever.

Biological life is synergistic anti-entropic ego syntropy.
Zombies--- walking comatose ---are entropic, disintegrating, decaying etc...if only slowly so.

[Gem]

The OP can't remove posts.

Options 1 or 3 may apply.

[cathutch]

Nice article by Scott Aaronson:
“Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”