Re: UDA revisited

From: Colin Geoffrey Hales <c.hales.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:13:25 +1100 (EST)

>
> What the zombie argument says (and I repeat it again) is that you SHOULD
> (if you are an honest rational person) accept ONE (and only
> one as they are contradictory proposition) of the following propositions:
>
> 1) Consciousness is not tied to a given behavior nor to a given physical
> attribute, replicating these does not give consciousness. (This permit
> existence of so called 'zombie' being). Also the "special(s)" attribute(s)
> that discriminate conscious/non conscious being is in no way
> emulable/simulable/replicable/copiable (if it was, it would not be
> dualistic).
>
> 2) Zombies are IMPOSSIBLE (non sensical proposition), if you
> do/construct/create a functionnaly identical being, it WILL
> be conscious. (It is not possible that it acts like it was conscious
> without
> really being conscious)
>
> Quentin
>

Your logic applies to a philosophical zombie, consideration of which has
forced you to make a choice between two options when there are several
others out here in the real world of scientists. Choosing one or the other
will prove nothing in my world.


I choose neither/both as follows:

Consciousness (PC) is dependent on certain very specific physics (the
behaviour of brain material) being present. The fact that you do not know
what they are entitles you to no rights to make assumptions about what
"replicates/models it". Any attempt to do so is an assumption we know what
does it. We don't.

Functional equivalence is impossible, so assuming a functional equivalent
is conscious is meaningless.

The zombie defined as a philosophical zombie is impossible. That
impossibility does not make it conscious. It makes it impossible.
---------------------

Now you are going to label me a dualist.

I am a radical dual aspect monist. The fact that you can;t see how is your
problem, not mine....which is that you have failed to recognise a lack of
knowledge of physics. Rather you assume you have the entire explanatory
framework 100% complete. Existing tools do it all. That assumption is
challenged by the very existence of the 'hard problem'.

"To he who only has a hammer all the world's problems look like nails"

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 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 Sun Nov 26 2006 - 19:14:33 PST

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