OlivierK wrote:I went away for a few days and stopped thinking about pl0bs and eveshi, and it seems everyone else here has forgotten about them, too.

Do you think they're all right?

I think they know what's at stake. So we can be reasonably sure that they're thinking of eaxh other. Hard.

OlivierK wrote:I went away for a few days and stopped thinking about pl0bs and eveshi ...

Who?

Onyx8 wrote:

angelo wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Still thinking about you. Oh what a restless night. You still there?

Whatever you do, do not stop thinking about any of us. Would hate to disappear without a trace.

You wouldn't notice.

I wouldn't notice, what about my three girlfriends?

OlivierK wrote:I went away for a few days and stopped thinking about pl0bs and eveshi, and it seems everyone else here has forgotten about them, too.

Do you think they're all right?

Why not ask them, after all, they're in limbo. You need to seek out your local catholic priest to get hold of them though!

angelo wrote:

OlivierK wrote:I went away for a few days and stopped thinking about pl0bs and eveshi, and it seems everyone else here has forgotten about them, too.

Do you think they're all right?

Why not ask them, after all, they're in limbo. You need to seek out your local catholic priest to get hold of them though!

Eveshi must be in self-imposed limbo, then. Perhaps he's nervous about continuing without his "mentor"!

EDIT: Alternatively, maybe he's on holiday, so we might not have to wait months for more entertainment after all.

Hi, eveshi here.

Some of you might remember me from the discussions about consciousness, emergence, panpsychism, etc. on this forum.

I get currently stalked and impersonated on various websites by a notorious internet troll calling himself "MU!!". You can read about it here.

As a consequence, I decided to no longer post as "eveshi" on the internet, as this constant fakery gets really annoying.

This, together with my post here, will be definitely my last post under the name "eveshi" on the internet.

You can be sure that anyone posting under this nick on the internet (or under similar nicks like "_eveshi_", "eveshi.", etc.) in the future will not be me (even if he claims to be me and to have changed his opinion on this, or something like that). I will also not use any email accounts (or ICQ, MSN, Twitter, etc.) with that name.

The same is true for the name "rammaq", which I also used occasionally in the past, and which got also abused several times by now.

I'd also like to distance myself from the "eveshi" accounts on the following websites:

Spiritcharms.co.uk, Spiritualismlink.com, Spiritoday.com, z9.invisionfree.com/KEYBOARD_FRIENDS/, whitecrowbooks.com/michaeltymn/, groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/, groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/, AboveTopSecret.com, echonyc.com/~horn/unbelievable/, linkedin.com, droid-life.com, Paranormalia.com, DailyGrail.com, physicalmediumship4u.ning.com, reflight.blogspot.de, theastralwoman.wordpress.com, nucambiguous.wordpress.com, after-death.com, (possibly) jlaforums.com (I cannot access this site, but I know that MU!! was posting there, so he might have faked me there as well)

The email addresses eveshi @ tormail . org and eveshi @ gmx . com, as well as the twitter account twitter.com/eveshirammac , aren't from me either.

All of these have most probably been created by MU!! (yes, this guy has a lot of free time! ) with the intention to "blacklist" my name (as he mostly posted offensive stuff). They are definitely not from me.

It is possible that he has impersonated me on further websites that I haven't found yet. So if you notice any offensive or "odd" comment by someone calling himself "eveshi" elsewhere, it isn't from me either (I'm aware that my posts about consciousness and panpsychism may also appear odd to some people , but I guess you know what I mean...).

Btw, something similar is currently happening to a RationalWiki.org member named "Forests" (see here). He got also faked a lot by MU!! in the last weeks, and the offensive stuff written under his name on various websites isn't from him.

If anyone here has an idea who this MU!! guy is: You can contact me on the above linked RationalWiki page (here is the link again).

@ Mods: Please don't delete this post. It is important for me that people know that I'm not the person writing all these abusive things. If you think that something is not ok about this post, please write me a PM, so that I can edit it out. (I'm aware that my post is off-topic in this thread, but I didn't know where else to put it.)

Best wishes,
eveshi

(It is possible that I will edit this post a few times, but apart from that, I won't be posting anywhere as "eveshi" anymore.)

edit: Please don't discuss this post. Thanks.

pl0bs wrote:The proof:
(in below statements, C stands for "consciousness")
________________________________________________
P1: The only things reductionism reduces, are our own misconceptions.
P2: Misconceptions require C.
C: To say that C is reducible, is to say that C is a misconception that requires C.
________________________________________________

As you see, the conclusion doesnt get rid of C. The statement "C is reducible" can be compared with the statement "C is dreamable". Even if C is dreamable, there is still a C that is dreaming it. That is why C is not reducible to non-C things.

This is the definition of consciousness that im using

What definition of logical argument im u using?

sequitur ex conclusione?

GrahamH wrote:...
So, consciousness is required to experience thoughts (conceptions), but is consciousness required to for opinions, to make errors of understanding? Computers can misclassify without experiencing thinking. It seems entirely feasible that physical entities (local configurations fundamental forces - blah, blah) could misclassify, could fit together in ways that lead to linguistic labelling that is inconsistent. I think what looks like a misconception may not require C.

...

Your argument isn't valid, because computers are not people, and don't "think" in the way that people think, in any case.

GrahamH wrote:P1 is false. Reductionsim accounts for complex systems in terms of their parts. This does not mean that higher-level accounts are 'misconceptions', merely that more detailed accounts in terms of the fined grained fundamentals is possible. It doesn't say chemistry is a misconception that is reduced to nothing by QM. It says that chemistry is accounted for by QM, but the higher level account may be more useful to us than the more complex QM account. Chemistry is a level of explanation we could say is built over QM.

The higher level descriptions are incomplete and thus do not describe the phenomenon as it is physically.

So, consciousness is required to experience thoughts (conceptions), but is consciousness required to for opinions, to make errors of understanding? Computers can misclassify without experiencing thinking. It seems entirely feasible that physical entities (local configurations fundamental forces - blah, blah) could misclassify, could fit together in ways that lead to linguistic labelling that is inconsistent. I think what looks like a misconception may not require C.

So your conclusion is false. The argument is unsound.

Computers do not "misclassify". That is your human interpretation of what the physical computer does, which is just moving electrons around.

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:P1 is false. Reductionsim accounts for complex systems in terms of their parts. This does not mean that higher-level accounts are 'misconceptions', merely that more detailed accounts in terms of the fined grained fundamentals is possible. It doesn't say chemistry is a misconception that is reduced to nothing by QM. It says that chemistry is accounted for by QM, but the higher level account may be more useful to us than the more complex QM account. Chemistry is a level of explanation we could say is built over QM.

The higher level descriptions are incomplete and thus do not describe the phenomenon as it is physically.

That doesn't make them misconceptions. A misconception is an error in reasoning, a sort of failure of understanding. The fact that higher order descriptions, or labels on phenomena (such as "a river") do not detail the phenomena at the fundamental physical level does not mean they are misconceived.

The only thing reductionism does is to add more detail to an account of the phenomenon. It's actually a sort of strange name the principle has, because nothing is being reduced. Detail is added to the account, nothing is taken away.

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:So, consciousness is required to experience thoughts (conceptions), but is consciousness required to for opinions, to make errors of understanding? Computers can misclassify without experiencing thinking. It seems entirely feasible that physical entities (local configurations fundamental forces - blah, blah) could misclassify, could fit together in ways that lead to linguistic labelling that is inconsistent. I think what looks like a misconception may not require C.

So your conclusion is false. The argument is unsound.

Computers do not "misclassify". That is your human interpretation of what the physical computer does, which is just moving electrons around.

But you're the one who seems to think every physical thing is actually conscious, that would seem to entail that you have to agree that computers can in fact misclassify.

Regardless, it is a label we put on a particular set of behaviors of the physical system. In so far as that behavior corresponds to what we mean when we use the label, computers do in fact misclassify. It's just a word we use for what the computer does in particular situations. The aggregate pattern of behavior of the particles, forces and spacetime of the computer is what we would call a "misclassification".

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote: Computers do not "misclassify".

You are wrong. See " autocorrect fail", "sat nav mistake" or watch a DARPA Challenge robot fall over.

Oh then i have proof that thermostats are conscious. They SENSE the temperature.

No. They react to temperature.

Rumraket wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:P1 is false. Reductionsim accounts for complex systems in terms of their parts. This does not mean that higher-level accounts are 'misconceptions', merely that more detailed accounts in terms of the fined grained fundamentals is possible. It doesn't say chemistry is a misconception that is reduced to nothing by QM. It says that chemistry is accounted for by QM, but the higher level account may be more useful to us than the more complex QM account. Chemistry is a level of explanation we could say is built over QM.

The higher level descriptions are incomplete and thus do not describe the phenomenon as it is physically.

That doesn't make them misconceptions. A misconception is an error in reasoning, a sort of failure of understanding. The fact that higher order descriptions, or labels on phenomena (such as "a river") do not detail the phenomena at the fundamental physical level does not mean they are misconceived.

The only thing reductionism does is to add more detail to an account of the phenomenon. It's actually a sort of strange name the principle has, because nothing is being reduced. Detail is added to the account, nothing is taken away.

A misconception isnt an error in reasoning, its simply a concept that isnt correct. You speak of adding detail to an account. That means that the prior account did not contain those details.

As for the river, people probably have all kinds of misconceptions about those things, but at least scientifically it is reducible to basic physical ingredients.

But you're the one who seems to think every physical thing is actually conscious, that would seem to entail that you have to agree that computers can in fact misclassify.

Regardless, it is a label we put on a particular set of behaviors of the physical system. In so far as that behavior corresponds to what we mean when we use the label, computers do in fact misclassify. It's just a word we use for what the computer does in particular situations. The aggregate pattern of behavior of the particles, forces and spacetime of the computer is what we would call a "misclassification".

By that same logic, god exists and jesus walked on water, because i labeled my toilet god and the toiletpaper jesus.

pl0bs wrote:By that same logic, god exists and jesus walked on water, because i labeled my toilet god and the toiletpaper jesus.

Does not compute.

Animavore wrote:No. They react to temperature.

That too, and that is also proof that they are conscious. Because humans "react" to emotions. Look, its the same word, that means its the same phenomenon! [/grahams logic]

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:By that same logic, god exists and jesus walked on water, because i labeled my toilet god and the toiletpaper jesus.

Does not compute.

yubs sure does

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:No. They react to temperature.

That too, and that is also proof that they are conscious. Because humans "react" to emotions. Look, its the same word, that means its the same phenomenon! [/grahams logic]

This is the best example of equivocation I have ever seen in my life.