What it was like? What relevance is that? Different people have different tolerance level to pain - so intrinsically - I cannot perceive what level of pain you feel if and when you burn your hand. There are people who do not feel any pain. We are similar, but not identical beings.
you miss the point: even if you knew every single last physical fact about another person, you wouldn’t know one thing: what it is like to have their conscious experiences.
look, if you build a computer and put a camera on it, what experience is the computer having when it trains the camera on a red ball? is it having any experience at all? if so, is it the same one that we have when we look at the ball?
the point is that knowing all the physical facts about the world and about the computer in particular, will not allow you to know the answer to these questions.
ergo, there are some
non-physical facts about consciousness.
ateista:
And what is the relevance of this? If you never heard a violin, your consciousness is different from someone else’s who has. Consciousness is not independent of brain-states.
see above: i can know every physical fact about the world and about the violin player’s consciousness, and still not know what middle-c
sounds like. which, again, means that there must be some non-physical facts about consciousness.
ateista:
Same as above. You assume that consciousness is independent of brain-states. Why?
i make no such assumption: i am simply pointing out that it is logically possible for there to be a world physically identical to our world, but which is disparate with regards the facts about consciousness.
ateista:
There are no such propositions. Propositions have no true / false / meaningful / meaningless attributes outside a mind.
you’re confusing sentences with propositions…whether or not anyone is around to think it or write it, 2+2=4. which is the same thing as saying the proposition “2+2=4” is true.
ateista:
A totally sensible proposition may have no meaning to you, if uttered in a language which you do not understand. Some primitive tribes never got beyond the level of: one, two, many. For them the sentence: “the number 3 is the smallest odd prime” - is simply meaningless.
again, you’re talking about sentences, not propositions.
ateista:
If there is a free will, which cannot be proven.
perhaps not, but so what? if there are other minds, it cannot be proven. if there is a past, it cannot be proven. if our senses are reliable, it cannot be proven…
ateista:
But even if there is one, the laws of nature are not all deterministic and that allows naturalistic explanation of free will.
i’ve already explained why this cannot be true (even on
your terms). check a few posts back.