5 ms·

So the answer is yes, you're invoking the existence of a soul. It is not honest to duck a simple but pivotal and explicit question. > We have no more evidence.

So the answer is yes, you're invoking the existence of a soul. It is not honest to duck a simple but pivotal and explicit question. > We have no more evidence...arises from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine than we have for the existence of a soul. Evidence of a soul: 0%. Evidence of atoms: 99.999999999999999999% or higher.

jfk13 6y ago
I'm not invoking the existence (or non-existence) of anything. I'm just noting that we are far from understanding what consciousness is, let alone how it works. (Who said anything about atoms? I didn't.)
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > we are far from understanding what consciousness is, let alone how it works Couldn't agree more, but that wasn't your original assertion, to wit first para of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24962220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24962220 > Who said anything about atoms? I didn't. You: "...from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine" So what's a 'purely mechanistic state machine' going to be made of if not atoms.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Energy
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    A link to the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Note this one in particular: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Also, don't forget: when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      I appreciate the intervention, and I really must learn to let things drop, that said I've been trying to work out what the heck he's saying. I haven't knowingly responded to a weaker argument.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- codethief 6y ago
  > I'm just noting that we are far from understanding what consciousness is, let alone how it works. The fact that we don't know what consciousness is doesn't mean we can't make reasonable guesses. Now, given that we understand both macroscopic and microscopic physics pretty well these days, there is only so much room for guessing and some guesses are much more reasonable than others.
ncmncm 6y ago
Appreciate the attempt at engagement, but precision is not seen as helpful for "that kind" of discussion. Ultimately, "you do you" is as much resolution as can reasonably be expected, down such a rabbithole.

jfk13 6y ago

I'm not invoking the existence (or non-existence) of anything. I'm just noting that we are far from understanding what consciousness is, let alone how it works. (Who said anything about atoms? I didn't.)

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> we are far from understanding what consciousness is, let alone how it works Couldn't agree more, but that wasn't your original assertion, to wit first para of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24962220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24962220 > Who said anything about atoms? I didn't. You: "...from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine" So what's a 'purely mechanistic state machine' going to be made of if not atoms.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Energy
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  A link to the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Note this one in particular: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Also, don't forget: when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    I appreciate the intervention, and I really must learn to let things drop, that said I've been trying to work out what the heck he's saying. I haven't knowingly responded to a weaker argument.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
codethief 6y ago
> I'm just noting that we are far from understanding what consciousness is, let alone how it works. The fact that we don't know what consciousness is doesn't mean we can't make reasonable guesses. Now, given that we understand both macroscopic and microscopic physics pretty well these days, there is only so much room for guessing and some guesses are much more reasonable than others.

ncmncm 6y ago

Appreciate the attempt at engagement, but precision is not seen as helpful for "that kind" of discussion. Ultimately, "you do you" is as much resolution as can reasonably be expected, down such a rabbithole.