Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Hi Brent,
> Le Vendredi 21 Juillet 2006 17:52, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>>That's simply an assumption. When we know how to make a conscious brain we
>>may find that we do have a good idea of what it experiences - as evidenced
>>by its self-reports and other behavoir.
>>>On the other hand,
>>>if you know every empirical fact about a non-conscious entity well enough
>>>to make an exact working replica, then you know everything there is to
>>>know about it. We could define consciousness as what is left over when
>>>you subtract what can be known about an entity by an external observer
>>>from what can be known by being that entity yourself.
>>If there is anything left over. I don't think it is sufficiently
>>appreciated that this "unknowability" is an assumption.
> Frow what you say, I understand that you could know what it is like to being
> myself if I'd described to you my all life ? Whatever I could say about me
> will be 3rd persons communicable fact...
No, the hypothetical was stronger than that: it was that I knew exactly how
your brain worked to the
degree that I could make one. You certainly don't know how your brain works,
so while it is in
princple communicable, it would not be part of your self description.
>Even when I describe a feeling, I
> describe it in a 3rd communication way, and you could infer from your own
> feeling what it would be like, never to be sure it is... because if you were
> sure of this, then you'll no longer be Brent Meeker, but me.
I don't think that follows. When I'm sure that my wife is in pain from torn
cartilage in her knee,
it doesn't mean that I am my wife. But in any case, being sure is a higher
standard than we apply
to any scientific belief.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at