> Le 25-nov.-06, ࠰2:38, Colin Geoffrey Hales a 飲it :
>
>> [A zombie] doesn't even know there is a world to do science on.
>
>
> *we* don't *know* either. (Even if it is highly dubious there is no
world at all, but that is resting on a pure, strictly speaking not third
person communicable, first person experience).
>
As I commented elsewhere - to Stathis I think - It is irrelevant what we
think about 'existence'. Whatever is outside us, it is behaving regularly
enough for "science of appearances" to be possible. We scientifically
acquire abstractions that predict how the world appears to us. We
communicate these to each other. I think that is what you mean.
>> All it can do is correlate measurements with each other,
>> measurements that could have come from anywhere and the
>> zombie can never tell from where.
>
> Nor do I. I can build a theory, which at the informal (usual)
> level is a "view" on a possible world/realm. In general we
> care mainly on the "for all practical purpose" working of
> the theory, but fundamentally and globally theories are always
> hypothetical. And also ambiguous at some level.
By '...zombie can never tell from where..' I mean literally. You are
informed by phenomenal consciousness. The zombie is not. At the sensory
interface the transduction could have come from the planet venus or across
the room. You can tell. The zombie can't. This is not a philosopical
position. This is a measurement reality.
The 'where' you speak of is not this 'where'.
>
> It would make the conversation easier if you could list your
> assumptions. Clearly, you have assumptions.
>
> Bruno
>
Assumptions? hmmmm....
1) That there is at least 1 universe (or that assuming there are others is
interesting but ultimately a waste of time)
2) We are inside it (or that arguing that not to be the case is a similar
waste of time)
3) That whatever the universe is made of, we are made of it (that to argue
to the contrary is to elevate youself to god-hood, contradicts all
empirical knoewledge and is also a waste of time).
4) Through mystery mechanism X in our brains the universe has an
appearance. This appearance is also made of the same stuff that the rest
of the universe is made of.
5) That the universe is NOT made of the behavioural models made apparent
to us by the behaviour of the stuff that gives it the appearance it has.
6) We correlate appearances and use them to construct abstractions
predictive of appearances (subject to the nuances listed above).
That's about it.
Note: 4),5) and 6) are the real issues. My assumptions are the reverse of
the norm. I don;t assume what science assumes, which is basically the
reverse (or complete ignorance of the fact of the reversal, implicit in
scientific behaviour) of 4), 5) 6).
I think I may have less assumptions than the norm, not more.
cheers,
colin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Nov 25 2006 - 23:54:37 PST