Re: computationalism and supervenience

From: 1Z <>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:27:57 -0700

Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >
> >
> > Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >> Q. What is it like to be a human? It is like being a mind. There is
> >> information delivered into the mind by the action of brain material
> >> which
> >> bestows on the human intrinsic knowledge about the natural world outside
> >> the the form of phenomenal consciousness. This knowledge is
> >> not a model/abstraction, but a literal mapping of what's there (no
> >> matter
> >> how mysterious its generation may seem).
> >
> > What is the difference between a "model" and a "literal mapping" ?
> Real physics C(.) does something (goes through certain states).
> Real physics f(C(.)) does something (directly tracks the states of C(.).
> A state machine S that abstracts the states of C(.) is a model.

That's no help at all. What is the difference between tracking the
and abstracting the states ?

> f(.) is a literal mapping.
> Humans to f(.), computers do S.
> >
> >> The zombie does not have this.
> >
> > Why not ?
> Because the physics of f(.) above is not there.

Zombies have the same physics as people, by definition.

> >
> >> Nor does the Turing machine.
> >
> >
> >> No matter how good the a-priori abstraction given by the human the UM
> >> will
> >> do science on its sensory feeds until it can no longer distinguish any
> >> effect because the senses cannot discriminate it
> >
> > Don't humans have sensory limits?
> Yes, but the sensory fields are NOT what is used in intelligence.

What -- not at all ?

> The
> sensory fields are used to generate the phenomenal fields.

So they are involved indirectly.

> The phenomenal
> fields are used to be intelligent. Human phenomenal fields to not include
> a representation of neutrino flux.

Because human sensory fields don't.

> A zombie could never know of neutrinos!

It is pretty hard for anyone to.

> ...because they are incapable of observation of their causal descendants
> (no phenomenal fields). Our sensory data did not deliver evidence of
> neurtrinos...our phenomenal fields did!


Well, at least I wa able to come to a conlusion on the basis of what
you said...

> In terms of the symbols above....
> The zombie can construct an S from sensory fields predictive of the impact
> of C(.) on its own sensory data. But the relationship of this S to the
> outside world C(.)? It can never know. C(.) could put 5 billion other
> states in between all the states detected by the zombie sensory data and
> the zombie would have no clue. Zombie science is the science of zombie
> senory data, not science of the natural world outside the zombie.
> Of course you can mentally increase the amount of dta and the
> computational intellect of teh zombie to arbitrary levels.... all you are
> doing is moving the abstractions around. The zombie still has no internal
> life, no awareness there is a natural world at all.
> cheers
> colin hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sat Sep 16 2006 - 20:28:56 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST