>>>>>>>
Von: Russell Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  If we imagine a brain scanner with perfect resolution of space and time
then
>  we get every information of the brain including the phenomenon of qualia.
>  But we will not be able to understand it.

That's an empirical question about the future; armchair reasoning has
shown itself to be an utterly unreliable method of answering such
questions. Let's invent full brain scanning and try it out for a
generation or two and see what we actually manage to explain after
that time.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Armchair reasoning is a bad word. 
It is not an empirical question. It is a question what answers we can get
from science in principle. Therefore it is a philosophical question. By the
way: The idea of the existence of atoms came also from "armchair reasoning"
of philosophers, isn't it?


The best we can get from science is the complete plan of all connections in
the brain including a complete functional description of every part in the
brain. If we assume that we really get all information, then it is pure
logic (you can call it armchair reasoning) that we will also be able to
separate the process of qualia. I think we all agree that every phenomenon
of mind must have a physical counterpart.

But the description of the physical process does not necessarily imply that
we understand what is going on. And I have given a logical argumentation
that indeed we have no chance to understand it.

When you hear that there can be no algorithm which solves every halting
problem you might also say: Let's wait what kind of algorithms the future
will bring us and let's talk about that after that time.

But we need not know the algorithms of the future. We can already now prove
that there is never any algorithm for the halting problem.

And I think we can now prove that any explanation of qualia must have self
references and therefore will be no valid explanation.

I do not claim that I am 100% sure that there is no error in my
argumentation. Any comment which shows a logical error is welcome.



-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to