Not sure why you’ve been repeatedly ignoring the main points of my posts. Try going back over everything that I wrote in my previous post.
I really think that if you were to gain a just a basic understanding of how chemical bonds are formed and broken, it would help you to understand the reality of how cells synthesize proteins.
I know nothing about information theory. 
@gertie That’s a clear position. 
I understand these things. I just disagree with you.
Based on what you’ve written thus far, it would seem that the Dunning-Kruger effect is at play here.
Right. If someone disagrees with you, it is because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I’ve read my last post of yours. Bye
Actually it was “based on what you’ve written thus far…”. Yet another instance of you gnoring what I actually write.
But you aren’t one to allow facts to get in the way of what you believe which is also " based on what you’ve written thus far…".
Speaking of which, is anyone around familiar with Marcus Abundis and his paper, “Intelligence and the Hard Problem of Consciousness—With ‘Dual-Aspect Theory’ Notes.” { https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/126/1/4 (2025)
I’ve read it numerous times yesterday. At one point experiencing a funny little western movie vision of the Cavalry riding through the canyon because his critique provides some substantive academic backbone to my intuitive convictions.
From Abundis’s paper:
“assesses the Hard Problem’s claim contra one scientific role: Evolution via Natural Selection (EvNS).”He uses quotes from Chalmers’s 1996 “The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory” [1] along with, his 1997 “Moving forward on the problem of consciousness” [2] to build his case upon.
Abundis: “Chalmers holds to a line of thought that is, by his own words: “not defined in terms of deducibility in any system of formal logic” ([1], p. 35);
an odd self-disavowal we can hardly ignore. His fictional–functional zombie claim is also an odd gambit for one wanting to abide by accepted science and natural laws, as noted earlier. Lastly, his zombies present a catalog of other issues.”
—-
Abundis: “As Chalmers never firmly defines consciousness, intelligence, or zombies, clarifying this debate is hopeless. He can make whatever ‘zombie claim’ he wishes with impunity, since it is an argument impossible to refute, having no firm bounds or logic—it is an untestable and unfalsifiable proposition”.
—-
Abundis: “Chalmers sees the risk in this conceptual claim, noting that the: “way in which conceivability arguments go wrong is by subtle conceptual confusion: if we are insufficiently reflective we can overlook an incoherence in a purported possibility…[revealing] that the concepts are being incorrectly applied” ([1], pp. 98–99).
But (Chalmers) ignores his own imprecision in using zombies to oppose EvNS. Instead, he makes statements that at first sound thoughtful, but ultimately prove to be a smoke-screen for a further implausible logically possible fictional function.”
It promises fascinating reading for any one with doubts about the veracity Chalmers’s opinions.
Plenty of philosophers disagree with Chalmers, it’s not just scientists. This forum and it’s predecessors have plenty of anti hard problem guys. It used to be most of them. But now it does look like the hard problem is increasingly taken seriously.
What I can’t understand is why you think hard problem mongers don’t take science seriously. It’s pretty universally acknowledged tha science beats philosophy on those questions where the science is settled.
I think you are missing the point, my point was the substance of his argument and the flaws that he defines.
That’s what matters.
Read the paper, tell me why he’s wrong.
I’m doubtful you understand his arguments against Chalmers. If you do, can you put them in your words? I’m talking to you, not him.
I thought we already established I’m a dummy. I offered up three quotes that resonate with me. I was curious to see how folks would respond.
I am diligently working on that.
Unfortunately I have a crowded life, with a good many obligations and constant distractions - so I can only work in fits and starts. And the path to an improved Take#4 has been amazingly circuitous, now that I have a thing that responded to my questions with information and citations, rather than deflections and dismissals.
So I continue to do the best I can with what I have, hoping I can write up my essay to meet my own expectations and then to see it hopefully resonate enough, with some, to deserve their time of day.
As the Casa Bonita bad guy says before being sent on another plunge, “I’ll be back”
(of course, the good universe willing ;-} )
No probs, I’ve downloaded the paper and will have a look as I am interested
Cool. I’d be interested in hearing about the issue you find with it. I admit he’s singing to the chorus when I’m reading it, impacting my criticality
For what it’s worth I’ve exchanges a couple emails with Abundis, he doesn’t think much of my essay either, though I think his impression was that I had dreams of “publishing” my essay and was looking for a review. Which I was not. Though he offered a Zoom session so we could talk. I’ve taken a raincheck, figuring I need to finish the essay first. No matter how long that monster is going to take me, still I need to take a break from that and get caught up on my reality of choirs around here, we are in transition into winter and wood stove season, and I have some catching up to do.
I understand the outlines fairly well, gosh I’ve been familiarizing myself with his ideas since they made the headlines in the late '90s - Sure I do not understand all the linguistic gymnastics that Chalmers is a world class player at. But I don’t see where I need to read every excruciating detail of his imagination - to appreciate that it is fundamentally disconnected from physical reality.
To a non philosopher Chalmers comes across belonging to the mindscape of our imagination and the kingdom of words.
What I do understand a bit better than the philosophy is the science through an evolutionary lens thanks to a life long engaged curiosity. Along with the working principle: “doing the best we can with what we have.”
Consciousness is extra special, mysterious, and hard to nail down. Many fold more difficult than conceptualizing the electricity that is generated when moving a magnet against iron - then dies as soon as we stop the motion. Also still not fully understood - but we’re okay with that gap.
I’m convinced the fundamental starting point for grasping consciousness requires first getting straight on the physical reality - human mind divide. Just as there is a divide between that lightening in the sky or racing through wires, and physical objects. Still in both cases there’s little doubt remaining that those emanations were produced by physical objects.
But we are expecting consciousness to be as accessible as the physical world has been to us. Seems to me an impossible dream. Along with a counter-productive one.
Does that make any sense?
Oh incidentally, for what it’s worth, Abundis paper was originally published in 2012.