[H]

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/reflections-on-the-skeptic-and-atheist-movements/

I read the "exchange" between Harris and Chomsky.  I imagine this is the intellectual equivalent with what would happen if I were to show up at the Lakers practice facility and hop on the court, clearly challenging Lebron James to a pick up game of basketball, after having empiricism his "basketball sense" and "understanding the fundamental question of basketball."  After Lebron thoroughly embarrassed me, complete with okiedokes, dipsey-doodles, Harlem-Globetrotter-style bouncing the ball off my head, and enough fakes that I send more time on prone than on my feet, I decry, "that was hardly a charitable exchange!"

[sciborg2]

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/reflections-on-the-skeptic-and-atheist-movements/

I read the "exchange" between Harris and Chomsky.  I imagine this is the intellectual equivalent with what would happen if I were to show up at the Lakers practice facility and hop on the court, clearly challenging Lebron James to a pick up game of basketball, after having empiricism his "basketball sense" and "understanding the fundamental question of basketball."  After Lebron thoroughly embarrassed me, complete with okiedokes, dipsey-doodles, Harlem-Globetrotter-style bouncing the ball off my head, and enough fakes that I send more time on prone than on my feet, I decry, "that was hardly a charitable exchange!"

Chomsky is Lebron?

[H]

Chomsky is Lebron?

Most definitely, yes.

[themerchant]

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/reflections-on-the-skeptic-and-atheist-movements/

I read the "exchange" between Harris and Chomsky.  I imagine this is the intellectual equivalent with what would happen if I were to show up at the Lakers practice facility and hop on the court, clearly challenging Lebron James to a pick up game of basketball, after having empiricism his "basketball sense" and "understanding the fundamental question of basketball."  After Lebron thoroughly embarrassed me, complete with okiedokes, dipsey-doodles, Harlem-Globetrotter-style bouncing the ball off my head, and enough fakes that I send more time on prone than on my feet, I decry, "that was hardly a charitable exchange!"

Be glad it was Lebron , rather than Larry Bird or MJ as they would have trash talked you down to size at the same time. I knew my 80's basketball knowledge would prove a boon at one time!

[Callan S.]

IIRC Sam is a Neuroscience PhD, as such I doubt he's telling people in his own field to just give up researching the brain. Rather he's asking how you can go from matter that lacks consciousness to something that has consciousness - his object[ion], AFAICTell, is that there's a Something from Nothing problem.

I think Nagel said something similar, how describing the arrangement of atoms* that bring about consciousness wouldn't give you the answer as to why that arrangement works

They don't seem to be thinking about looking at an arrangement that would result them saying 'wouldn't give you the answer as to to why that arrangement works'.

Their critique is being done at a recursive level and absent a third recursive level to see the second, they don't consider seeing an arrangement that not only shows their critical responce, but makes sense that it would result in those critical words being uttered.

I don't understand this reply at all.

Yeah, fair enough. I'll just break down the first part - they are not trying to think of how an arrangement of atoms could result in a creature that cannot report how it works.

[sciborg2]

Yeah, fair enough. I'll just break down the first part - they are not trying to think of how an arrangement of atoms could result in a creature that cannot report how it works.

Doesn't "report" imply a relationship between a set of data and its observer? Where is the "I"-ness identity of the creature coming from that it precedes the subjective PoV?

Or is the I-ness divorced from the "for-ness" of consciousness? -> By "for-ness" I mean how all the varied qualia are for a someone.

[Callan S.]

Yeah, fair enough. I'll just break down the first part - they are not trying to think of how an arrangement of atoms could result in a creature that cannot report how it works.

Doesn't "report" imply a relationship between a set of data and its observer?

Well I did say a creature that cannot report how it works.

[sciborg2]

Well I did say a creature that cannot report how it works.

But even the attempt suggests two entities, the reporter and the one given the report?

[Callan S.]

Well I did say a creature that cannot report how it works.

But even the attempt suggests two entities, the reporter and the one given the report?

That arrangement 'A: A reporter and B: One who gives the report', why would that have to be the case? Why would there even be two 'entities'

A creature that cannot report how it works can just as much be 'A: A mechanism and B: A verbal system with limited access to the prior mechanism it runs on - much like software running on hardware and the software's code can't access all the hardware because there isn't hardware for accessing the other hardware (also the software isn't even code to show this absence, in much the same way as we all have a blindspot in out sight but it is smudged over and hidden from us, without native documentation)

Otherwise I don't know what you're saying - my computer is going to give the server the SA forums a report. Are these two entities?

[sciborg2]

Well I did say a creature that cannot report how it works.

But even the attempt suggests two entities, the reporter and the one given the report?

That arrangement 'A: A reporter and B: One who gives the report', why would that have to be the case? Why would there even be two 'entities'

A creature that cannot report how it works can just as much be 'A: A mechanism and B: A verbal system with limited access to the prior mechanism it runs on - much like software running on hardware and )

Otherwise I don't know what you're saying - my computer is going to give the server the SA forums a report. Are these two entities?

I don't understand this part ->

" the software's code can't access all the hardware because there isn't hardware for accessing the other hardware (also the software isn't even code to show this absence, in much the same way as we all have a blindspot in out sight but it is smudged over and hidden from us, without native documentation"

Could give an example of software and hardware? I don't see how the software/hardware lack of access is at all like the blindspot that is smudged over?

[H]

So, while I never bothered to actually read Harris, because I found his theory so laughable out of hand, this video is pretty funny, funny in the sense of pointing out that Harris' point really doesn't stand to any sort of concerted thinking.  Mostly because, as he does at the end of his book, but throughout it as well, he basically, in not so few words, says that moral philosophy is boring and he won't bother with it...

[Callan S.]

Well I did say a creature that cannot report how it works.

But even the attempt suggests two entities, the reporter and the one given the report?

That arrangement 'A: A reporter and B: One who gives the report', why would that have to be the case? Why would there even be two 'entities'

A creature that cannot report how it works can just as much be 'A: A mechanism and B: A verbal system with limited access to the prior mechanism it runs on - much like software running on hardware and )

Otherwise I don't know what you're saying - my computer is going to give the server the SA forums a report. Are these two entities?

I don't understand this part ->

" the software's code can't access all the hardware because there isn't hardware for accessing the other hardware (also the software isn't even code to show this absence, in much the same way as we all have a blindspot in out sight but it is smudged over and hidden from us, without native documentation"

Could give an example of software and hardware? I don't see how the software/hardware lack of access is at all like the blindspot that is smudged over?

I don't understand where your position is - does your brain tell you it's smudging over part of your vision or does it just do so without telling you, whether you like it or not? You don't have any part of your brain telling you its doing that trick - there's no hardware or software there to do that. You're left numb to it. How much else are you left numb to? The edges of your vision just kind of run out as well, rather than have any kind of sign of where they end.

Or I don't know, what is your position on the matter? I know your eye is basically smudging over info in part of your eye. That's a fact. Basically it fools your brain/it fools you - or would you put it another way. And your reaction to that fact/your position in regards to that fact, what is it?

[sciborg2]

Well I did say a creature that cannot report how it works.

But even the attempt suggests two entities, the reporter and the one given the report?

That arrangement 'A: A reporter and B: One who gives the report', why would that have to be the case? Why would there even be two 'entities'

A creature that cannot report how it works can just as much be 'A: A mechanism and B: A verbal system with limited access to the prior mechanism it runs on - much like software running on hardware and )

Otherwise I don't know what you're saying - my computer is going to give the server the SA forums a report. Are these two entities?

I don't understand this part ->

" the software's code can't access all the hardware because there isn't hardware for accessing the other hardware (also the software isn't even code to show this absence, in much the same way as we all have a blindspot in out sight but it is smudged over and hidden from us, without native documentation"

Could give an example of software and hardware? I don't see how the software/hardware lack of access is at all like the blindspot that is smudged over?

I don't understand where your position is - does your brain tell you it's smudging over part of your vision or does it just do so without telling you, whether you like it or not? You don't have any part of your brain telling you its doing that trick - there's no hardware or software there to do that. You're left numb to it. How much else are you left numb to? The edges of your vision just kind of run out as well, rather than have any kind of sign of where they end.

Or I don't know, what is your position on the matter? I know your eye is basically smudging over info in part of your eye. That's a fact. Basically it fools your brain/it fools you - or would you put it another way. And your reaction to that fact/your position in regards to that fact, what is it?

So you don't think there is hardware/software? I admit I'm not really sure I understand this post either...

[Callan S.]

Well I was asking for your reaction on that fact.

On hardware and software I don't think there's a difference and indeed it's actually indicative of the hard problem that general culture describes them that way. If I've used software/hardware in one of my posts then that's my gaff, it wasn't good communication on my part.