With regard to your question, I'm not clear why you're asking it. Not only are you incapable of answering my rhetorical question, but you actually think your question requires an answer. Why do you require me to answer your question? It boggles my mind. Don't you know the answer?

Footnote: you've exhibited the same obtuseness with regard to parsing words related to climate change. It's holding you back, man. And yes, that means you.

Forgive me, but I must say it. You're kind of sad. The reason: we've been through this for probably five pages or so (in the other thread and here). Do you recall our discussion about qualia, conscious experience and so forth? Do you?

There comes a point, when in the course of discussion between two people, that usage of words should be understood. Either go back and review everything, or give up. I'm not going to waste my time defining awareness. I might with a newcomer, but not you.

Qualia, dude. Conscious experience. Get it?

I'll answer that when you tell me if we can do what you proposed with clones. Also, I suggest you send Chalmers an email about philosophical zombies. While you're at it, send Hofstadter an email about teleportation of living organisms.

Oh, and while you're at it, and since you're a fan of Dennett, send him an email about Mary in the black-and-white room.

Actually, your clone example above would likely be more difficult, or at least as difficult. And I'm not claiming that we'd ever be able to teleport human beings. However, I must point out now, for the second time in a row, contrary to what you keep insisting, quantum teleportation does exist.

As for imaginary devices in thought experiments, I consider you to be rather presumptuous and ill informed when you accuse me of not hoping to illustrate something or learn something by engaging in such thought experiments. Please direct your argument instead to those who have benefited from other thought experiments proposed by Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr, Chalmers, Hofstadter, and others.

The purpose of thought experiments is to illustrate the conundrums that exist within a particular domain of study, and by doing so, those who become familiar with said thought experiments can then see the domain of study in a new light, which might allow them to think about the problem differently, and to better understand it.

Generally, the purpose of a thought experiment is not to find a way to build the gadgets in the thought experiment.

Equally important with regard to this particular matter, cloning is irrelevant, and will yield nothing. Clones not only don't have the same molecular structure and memories over time, they never have the same molecular structure from the start, as their growth is a function of the molecules they assimilate, which is different for each individual.

In answer to your question as to it being more fruitful, the answer is no. Plain and simple.

Dude, before you go on, figure out why cloning is not what you think it is.

No.

You're starting to sound like Daniel Dennett. You might want to read him. A good introduction would be his book "Sweet Dreams": http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Dreams-Philosophical-Obstacles-Consciousness/dp/0262541912/

You can find him on Youtube as well.

Cloning has nothing to do with it. That's why.

Furthermore, we can do quantum teleportation in the lab.

Absolutely not. There is nothing pointless about pondering the ramifications of another physical structure that has the exact same molecular content as another. It's an absolutely necessary thing to consider if you wish to understand the ramifications of nature. It's very much worth considering as a mental exercise.

If lots of X give rise to Y (lots of chain reactions give rise to conscious experience), then there must be some fundamental law present in the laws of the Universe that says X (a chain reaction) is the fundamental building block of conscious experience.

What is that particular physical process? Is it related to electricity? Structure? Shape? Oscillation? Frequency? Distance? Calcium? Zinc? Quantum entanglement? Something else?

Or is it something not within the realm of physics? Physics is a set of laws that man has used to describe his observations of the Universe. Consider that last sentence very carefully.

I'll repeat it again: Physics is a set of laws that man has used to describe his observations of the Universe.

The key point in the above sentence is that physics is the result of man explaining something. But in the process of developing physics, man forgot to include within his observations of the Universe his observations of the existence of consciousness. This is not a fault of physics - but it should point out that the science of physics never endeavored to explain everything. Rather, it endeavored to explain everything minus conscious experience.

Now, given that, does that mean that consciousness is an artifact of laws which exist in combination with physics, or within physics that isn't yet developed?

Out of the Big Bang, point to the physical laws, or the physical matter, or the processes, which allowed consciousness to arise.

1. The Big Bang happens.
2. Matter forms into various objects.
3. Physical processes allow for more complex structures.
4. Parts of the Universe become aware of the Universe. How and why would that happen?

Somewhere in the above timeline (perhaps before 1 or between 1 and 2), physical laws came into being. You could almost say it's coincidental with the existence of mathematics. I don't know whether you'd call this step 0, or 1.5, or 0 and 1.5.

Steps 2 and 3 naturally follow.

Step 1 is a bit problematic. Physicists are working on it. It's a pretty interesting problem. Step 4 is problematic as well. Again, a pretty interesting problem. Step 0 and/or 1.5 are problematic and interesting as well.

The problem that neuroscientists are working on does not qualify as one of those 'interesting' problems. Don't get me wrong - it's very interesting relative to tax law, agriculture, etc., but it's just not one of the big problems. When neuroscientists say they're trying to understand consciousness, what they're saying is they're trying to understand what physical brain processes correlate to consciousness. In other words, they're peeling back the layers to discover neural correlates.

That still leaves question 4 unanswered.

Point: if you find the task suggested above difficult, and the resulting ideas you might come up with unsatisfying and maybe absurd, then consider that Chalmers' ideas are no more outlandish.

Given scientists' incomplete understanding of physics (something I agree with), tell me, can you imagine some additions to physics which would allow for the emergent phenomenon of conscious experience? In other words, submit a theory, even if half baked and fanciful, which would show how physical processes can explain conscious experience.

Key words: half baked, fanciful.

Go for it.

I think everyone missed that memo. Short answer as to who takes it seriously: nobody, because nobody knows about it - not management, not the cashiers, and not the paying public. And if they did know about it, nobody would care.

No. I'm claiming that your method of filtering what you read is counter productive and detrimental to your learning.


No. But I have recommended some books for you.

This is funny. What I mean is, it's funny how your belief of what it's like to pay for stuff in the U.S. is skewed by forum threads like this. For your information, the reality is, paying for stuff in the U.S. is exactly as you have just described it in the UK.