Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > > > > > > Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > >> > > > > >> Q. What is it like to be a human? It is like being a mind. There is > >> information delivered into the mind by the action of brain material > >> which > >> bestows on the human intrinsic knowledge about the natural world outside > >> the human....in the form of phenomenal consciousness. This knowledge is > >> not a model/abstraction, but a literal mapping of what's there (no > >> matter > >> how mysterious its generation may seem). > > > > What is the difference between a "model" and a "literal mapping" ? > > Real physics C(.) does something (goes through certain states). > Real physics f(C(.)) does something (directly tracks the states of C(.). > > A state machine S that abstracts the states of C(.) is a model.
That's no help at all. What is the difference between tracking the states and abstracting the states ? > f(.) is a literal mapping. > > Humans to f(.), computers do S. > > > > >> The zombie does not have this. > > > > Why not ? > > Because the physics of f(.) above is not there. Zombies have the same physics as people, by definition. > > > >> Nor does the Turing machine. > > > > > >> No matter how good the a-priori abstraction given by the human the UM > >> will > >> do science on its sensory feeds until it can no longer distinguish any > >> effect because the senses cannot discriminate it > > > > Don't humans have sensory limits? > > Yes, but the sensory fields are NOT what is used in intelligence. What -- not at all ? > The > sensory fields are used to generate the phenomenal fields. So they are involved indirectly. > The phenomenal > fields are used to be intelligent. Human phenomenal fields to not include > a representation of neutrino flux. Because human sensory fields don't. > A zombie could never know of neutrinos! It is pretty hard for anyone to. > ...because they are incapable of observation of their causal descendants > (no phenomenal fields). Our sensory data did not deliver evidence of > neurtrinos...our phenomenal fields did! Hmmm. Well, at least I wa able to come to a conlusion on the basis of what you said... > In terms of the symbols above.... > > The zombie can construct an S from sensory fields predictive of the impact > of C(.) on its own sensory data. But the relationship of this S to the > outside world C(.)? It can never know. C(.) could put 5 billion other > states in between all the states detected by the zombie sensory data and > the zombie would have no clue. Zombie science is the science of zombie > senory data, not science of the natural world outside the zombie. > > Of course you can mentally increase the amount of dta and the > computational intellect of teh zombie to arbitrary levels.... all you are > doing is moving the abstractions around. The zombie still has no internal > life, no awareness there is a natural world at all. > > cheers > colin hales --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
