On 29 Jan 2014, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote
>> Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse
that clearly and unambiguously explains exactly what "the hard
problem" is.
> In a nutshell, the difficulty is that a complete 3p explanation of
the brain seems to make consciousness into something having no role
and no reason, and this contradicts the first person experience we
have.
That's not true, the external objective environment (the weather, a
syringe full of drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big
subjective change.
I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a
complete 3p theory of the brain-body, you can't prove that the
subjective experience exist. An interview of the person will not
suffice, as you can explain everything without it, at the level of
neurons and muscular cells.
And a subjective experience like a itch can cause a external
objective effect, like moving the matter in your hand to scratch the
matter in your nose.
Sure. But again, if someone does not believe in that subjective
experience, then a 3p causal description at some level will explain
the external objective effect without mentioning the subjective
experience.
I agree with you of course, but that is what makes a part of the
problem.
>> I think consciousness is probably just the way information feels
when it is being processed;
> In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness
cannot be localized in one brain,
Yes, because computations can't be localized either.
Excellent. Like the numbers. They don't belong to the type of object
having any physical attributes like position, velocity or mass.
>> if you don't find that explanation satisfactory it can only mean
one thing, you don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.
> Good point. Consciousness can't be fundamental, especially in
theories trying to explain it.
So if you say X causes consciousness you must either explain what
causes X or say that X is fundamental.
Yes. I have said at the start the fundamental laws I adopt: it is
classical logic +
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
