Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >
> > Le Dimanche 26 Novembre 2006 22:54, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
> > <SNIP>
> >> What point is there in bothering with it. The philosophical zombie is
> >> ASSUMED to be equivalent! This is failure before you even start! It's
> >> wrong and it's proven wrong because there is a conclusively logically
> >> and
> >> empirically provable function that the zombie cannot possibly do without
> >> phenomenality: SCIENCE. The philosophical zombie would have to know
> >> everything a-priori, which makes science meaningless. There is no
> >> novelty
> >> to a philosophical zombie. It would have to anticipate all forms of
> >> randomness or chaotic behaviour.... NUTS.
> >
> > But that's exactly what all the arguments is about !! Either identical
> > functionnal behavior entails consciousness either there is some magical
> > property needed plus identical functionnal behavior to entails
> > consciousness.
> >
> >> This is failure before you even start!
> >
> > But the point is to assume this "nonsense" to take a "conclusion", to see
> > where it leads. Why imagine a "possible" zombie which is functionnally
> > identical if there weren't any dualistic view in the first place ! Only in
> > dualistic framework it is possible to imagine a functionnally equivalent
> > to
> > human yet lacking consciousness, the other way is that functionnally
> > equivalence *requires* consciousness (you can't have functionnally
> > equivalence without consciousness).
> >
> >> This is failure before you even start!
> >
> > That's what you're doing... you haven't prove that zombie can't do science
> > because the "zombie" point is not on what they can do or not, it is the
> > fact
> > that either acting like we act (human way) entails necessarily to have
> > consciousness or it does not (meaning that there exists an extra property
> > beyond behavior, an extra thing undetectable from
> > seeing/living/speaking/...
> > with the "zombie" that gives rise to consciousness)L.
> >
> > You haven't prove that zombie can't do science because you tells it at the
> > starting of the argument. The argument should be weither or not it is
> > possible to have a *complete* *functionnal* (human) replica yet lacking
> > consciousness.
> >
> > Quentin
> >
>
> Scientist_A does science.
>
> Scientist_A closes his eyes and finds the ability to do science radically
> altered.
>
> Continue the process and you eliminate all scientific behaviour.
>
> The failure of scientific behaviour correlates perfectly with the lack of
> phenomenal cosnciousness.
Closing your eyes cuts of sensory data as well. So: not proven.
> Empirical fact:
>
> "Human scientists have phenomenal consciousness"
>
> also
> "Phenomenal consciousness is the source of all our scientific evidence"
>
> ergo
>
> "Phenomenal consciousness exists and is sufficient and necessary for human
> scientific behaviour"
Doesn't follow. the fact that you use X to do Y doesn't make
Z necessary for Y. Something else could be used instead. legs and
locomotion...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 - 20:10:48 PST