-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:47:38 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality


On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[GK]
>Just to show you I am not mean spirited may I make the following suggestive question: "Could your argument be > made on the basis of something not as drastic as YD, say a Turing Test type argument, which would not require > you to take someone apart but just produce a convincing simulation?". Just a thought...



[BM]
Perhaps I should give you my original motivation. My deeper goal has always been to just explain that the "mind-body" problem has not been solved. In term of the mind body problem, what I have done can be seen as "just" a reduction of a problem into another. With the comp hyp, I have reduced the mind-body problem to the problem of explaining the appearance of the physical laws from arithmetic/computer science. For this YD is needed, if only to make palpable the relation with cognitive science. Then I interview the machine and YD is eliminated, although we should need to dig a little more in the technics for adding some nuances.

[GK]
That actually makes a bit more sense to me (surely more than your other response!)

I think most people would grant you that the mind-body problem has not been solved. They would probably would also agree that 3 classes of solutions (at least) have been presented over the centuries, namely, (1) Physicalist solutions (there is no mind stuff!) (2) Pure Idealist solutions (there is no body-stuff=matter) and (3) Dualist varieties where both exist and you try to figure out how the two stuffs interact etc... It seems to me that your attempted solution is of type (2), Am I right? You do however invoke a favorite classical physicalist hypothesis in the form of YD and than you "turn the tables" on it, so to speak, no?

I think that the YD motivation is the weakest link in your chain (a real Trojan horse because it is physically untenable) to so if you use just to demolish it later, why use it at all? Why not proceed to that interview directly? Can that be done and leave your argument intact? That would make it a lot more interesting in my opinion...

Godfrey




Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/







________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Reply via email to