Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >>
> >> You are a zombie. What is it about sensory data that suggests an
> >> external world?
> >
> > What is it about sensory data that suggests an external world to
> > human?
>
> Nothing. That's the point. That's why we incorporate the usage of natural
> world properties to contextualise it in the external world.
Huh???
> Called
> phenomenal consciousuness..that makes us not a zombie.
That's not what phenomenal consciousness means...or usually
means...
> >
> > Well, of course, we have a phenomenal view. Bu there is no informtion
> > in the phenomenal display that was not first in the pre-phenomenal
> > sensory data.
>
> Yes there is. Mountains of it. It's just that the mechanism and the need
> for it is not obvious to you.
Things that don't exist tend not to be obvious.
> Some aspects of the external world must be
> recruited to some extent in the production of the visual field, for
> example. None of the real spatial relative location qualities, for
> example, are inherent in the photons hitting the retina. Same with the
> spatial nature of a sound field. That data is added through the mechanisms
> for generation of phenomenality.
It's not added. It's already there. It needs to be made explicit.
> >> The science you can do is the science of zombie sense data, not an
> >> external world.
> >
> > What does "of" mean in that sentence? Human science
> > is based on human phenomenality which is based on pre-phenomenal
> > sense data, and contains nothing beyond it informationally.
>
> No, science is NOT done on pre-phenomenal sense data. It is done on the
> phenomenal scene.
Which in turn is derived from sense data. If A is informative about B
and B is informative about C, A is informative about C.
> This is physiological fact. Close you eyes and see how
> much science you can do.
That shuts off sense-data , not just phenomenality.
> I don;t seem to be getting this obvious simple thing past the pre-judgements.
> >
> > Humans unconsciously make guesses about the causal origins
> > of their sense-data in order to construct the phenomenal
> > view, which is then subjected to further educated guesswork
> > as part of the scientific process (which make contradict the
> > original guesswork, as in the detection of illusions)
>
> No they unconsciously generate a phenomenal field an then make judgements
> from it. Again close your eyes and explore what affect it has on your
> judgements. Hard-coded a-priori reflex system such as those that make the
> hand-eye reflex work in blindsight are not science and exist nowhere else
> excpet in reflex bahaviour.
In humans. That doesn't mean phenomenality is necessary for adaptive
behaviour in other entities.
> >> Your hypotheses about an external world would be treated
> >> as wild metaphysics by your zombie friends
> >
> > Unless they are doing the same thing. why shouldn't
> > they be? It is function/behaviour afer all. Zombies
> > are suppposed to lack phenomenality, not function.
> >
>
> You are stuck on the philosophiocal zombie! Ditch it! Not what we are
> talking about. The philosophical zombie is an oxymoron.
If *you're* not talking about Zombies,
why use the word?
> >> (none of which you cen ever be
> >> aware of, for they are in this external world..., so there's another
> >> problem :-) Very tricky stuff, this.
> >> The only science you can do is "I hypohesise that when I activate this
> >> nerve, that sense nerve and this one do <this>" You then publish in
> >> nature
> >> and collect your prize. (Except the external world this assumes is not
> >> there, from your perspective... life is grim for the zombie)
> >
> > Assuming, for some unexplained reasons, that zombies cannot
> > hypothesise about an external world without phenomena.
>
> Again you are projecting your experiences onto the zombie. There is no
> body, no boundary, not NOTHING to the zombie to even conceive of to
> hypothesise about. They are a toaster, a rock.
Then there is no zombie art or zombie work or zombie anything.
Why focus on science?
> >> We have to admit to this ignorance and accept that we don't know
> >> something
> >> fundamental about the universe. BTW this means no magic, no ESP, no
> >> "dualism" - just basic physics an explanatory mechanism that is right in
> >> front of us that our 'received view' finds invisible.
> >
> > Errr, yes. Or our brains don't access the external world directly.
>
> That is your preconception, not mine.
It's not a preconception,. There just isn't any evidence of
clairvoyance or ESP.
> Try and imagine the ways in which
> you would have to think if that make sense of phenomenality. here's one:
> That there is no such thing as 'space' or 'things' or 'distance' at all.
> That we are all actually in the same place. You can do this and not
> violate any "laws of nature" at all, and it makes phenomenality easy -
> predictable in brain material.... the fact that it predicts itself, when
> nothing else has... now what could that mean?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
> 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 - 19:54:07 PST