>Because consiousness is a crucial phenomenon and apparently you can't know of it unless you get to experience it.

Why did you put the word "apparently" in there. Is this really apparent? It's not apparent to me at all.

>I suggest you read the meta-problem by Chalmers. If it doesn't interest you, then I guess it doesn'

Chalmers bores me to tears. His arguments are all just attempts to justify his already held beliefs no different than any christian who is making arguments for god.

>You said as an observer you don't know... so I mentioned cojoined twins as an example that in principle we can know.

I don't get it. How is this applicable?

>An observer who doesn't know pain or subjective experience can just note you are making a lot of noise.

In response to particular stimuli. Also other physiological reactions.

>You can tell them you're in pain - how could they ever understand what thst is?

Same way that you do. Your perception of pain is merely electrochemical reactions happening inside of your body. That being could measure these and conclude you are in pain.

>The point is that it's unclear why the processes in our bodies have to feel like anything since descriptively they perform their function.

Again, what does this even mean?

>And it's conceivable an entity has intelligence but no subjective experience.

I am not sure if that's possible. I don't think you can gain or enhance intelligence without input of any sort and input is experience.

>So you can explain what strawberry tastes like till you're blue in the face. It doesn't grasp the concept of taste.

I think it could. Blind people have concepts of seeing, deaf people have concepts of hearing.

>The point is that it's unclear why the processes in our bodies have to feel like anything since descriptively they perform their function.

Why is that a point worthy of consideration?

I also don't see what the conjoined twins has anything to do with this.

>Neural activity doesn't inform the observer that it feels like anything at all.

Why not? They know you feel pain because you are screaming right?

> here is a correct explanation of our beliefs about conscious-ness that is independent of consciousness

How can that possibly be? How can you have a belief without consciousness?

The p zombie argument is bogus because the p zombie doesn't know it's a zombie. It believes it's a person just like you do. As an observer you also don't know whether or not the subject you are talking to is a zombie. They act as if they are not, and if you ask them they say they are not.

It's a weird and invalid exercise.

I guess it's a double edged sword.

>More accurately, it's an ethno religious group or "people".

Isn't every group of people an ethnoreligious group?

>Ashkenaz issues are a subset of Jews, but all Jewish groups are ethnically distinct and have more in common with one another than with other groups - we all have common DNA from before we were concord and exiled.

You share 99% of your DNA with a banana. Is there some gene that only jews have or something?

How can it be both though? You can convert to be a Jew right?

Also this is just a subset of Jews.

I guess that means there are no real philosophers and certainly Ayn Rand wasn't a real philosopher.

How do you tell the difference between a real philospher and a fake philosopher?

MOND so far has been unable to explain all the phenomena dark matter does. I think most scientists see it as a failed effort.

What do you mean "nowhere to be found". We have found dark matter. We know where it is because it's gravitationally lensing photons. We also know where it's not see the bullet cluster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

We have found it but not by direct observation because it does not emit light but it does interact via gravity. We know it's out there, we just don't know exactly what it is yet.

>Preferring A to B is a philosophical position, is it not?

I don't think so. I mean maybe the word "prefer" makes it a philosophical issue but the core issue is a scientific one. Many people "prefer" a flat earth theory but whether or not the earth is flat is a scientific question.

> Does the emergent phenomenon you are referring you actually justify the value?

It is a description of what value is or means. You have some value or another because some electrochemical reaction is taking place in your brain. That's what I believe. I don't think you have a "choice" in your values because "you" are just an emergent phenomena from from atoms interacting with each other.

I don't believe in "some higher reality" so I don't agree with B.

I believe that what happens in B is merely an emergent phenomena. For example I have a laptop. I call it a laptop. I use the laptop. You understand what I mean when I talk about it. The laptop is a particular arrangement of atoms and an electrochemical reaction that happens in accordance with what's happening inside and outside of it and the laws of nature.

When people refer to consciousness (and values or whatever) they are merely talking about a particular arrangement of atoms undergoing a complex set of electrochemical reactions.

That's it.

>nly that action and inaction are both still choices and the article makes a false distinction between them.

You killed people today because you drove your car to work instead of taking the bus. You killed people today because you ate meat.

if not doing something causes a death and you are responsible for the action you never took then you are responsible for killing people every day.

No philosophical system worth it's salt should hold people responsible for things they are not responsible for.

When you talked about pushing a button in front of you vs giving to a charity.

Yes you did bring it up.

Yes.

It says you may not have any choice but to hold those values and it may not be possible within the laws of physics not hold those values.

>how easy something is and how culpable you are have nothing to do with each other

Then why did you bring it up?

>Not giving to charity so that the charity doesn't have enough money so that one person is ultimately bumped from their services so that they eventually go on to starve is such an insanely far cry from you could have thrown a lever that right then and there would have prevented 5 deaths that they are not equivalent, they aren't even in the same country

I reject this. It's even easier to give to a charity considering they can automatically charge your card on a regular basis.

Same goes for not eating meat. You could do that at any time.

>If you are driving today and someone jumps out in front of you and you could swerve away but you don't are you responsible for that person's death?

Yes. You directly killed somebody using your vehicle.

>That's the real version of the trolley problem.

No the real version of the trolley problem is that you could have voted for gun control but you loved your guns too much.

>You aren't supposed to swerve away from an accident, did you know that?

Who made this rule up?

>If you could avoid hitting another car by swerving away from it, generally, you are supposed to still hit the car because by swerving away you might hit something and then it would be your fault. I

the word "Might" is doing all the heavy lifting in that sentence. Might implies "might not".

>If you, for instance, tried to avoid a deer in the road and thus ended up swinging your car and crossing the yellow line and hitting a car you are liable for the crash where before hitting the deer you might not have been liable and or even if you are liable for that crash you at least didn't hit another car.

I don't think most people have a moral issue with killing a deer.

If all your goals are synaptic action then so are all your values.

> Letting 5 people die because you don't want to personally be responsible by throwing the lever is still you being responsible for killing 5 people in the trolley problem.

I don't think you can justify this conclusion.

Today you could have done at least one thing that would stop at least one person from dying. Are you responsible for their death because you didn't give to a charity, or stop eating meat, or failed to take the bus to work?

This is a self defeating argument. No third party will ever gain traction if the argument against third party voting is that they won't gain traction.