> a) Darwinian evolution b) genetic learning algorithm.

None of which have any innate capacity to launch or generate phenomenal
consciousness and BOTH of which have to be installed by humans a-priori.
When you don;t have either of that then what do you do? You are constantly
assuming the existance of something you don't have! Move on. I am assuming
nothing. No laws, no rules, no learning capacity, nothing - what nature
had to start with.

>> you with the external world is GONE. What
>> more support do you want? What more is possible before
>> a simple statement such as the one I make above becomes
>> reasonable?
>
> Nonsense.  On you're theory blind people aren't conscious.  And there are
> even a few blind scientists.  The support I want is one that isn't hand
> waving and assertions.
>

I am trying to show you how progressively removing phenomenal
consciousness progressively removes/alters your capacity to be scientific
about the external natural world. Of _course_ they (the blind) can be
scientists! Just not as adept. Reduced scope. They are likely to miss a
lot of data without help from the sighted. That's all I claim. That is the
key point. Phenomenal consciousness is crucially necessary.

>> is what the zombie has...even worse. No awareness even of its own
>> sensing. nothing. Now put yourself in the zombie's shoes for a while.
>
> You just referring to the definition of "zombie" as not having
> consciousness. Or, as per the coffee cup example, progressively
> inhibit/alter/degrade phenomenal fields in the scientist. This is
> something you can do on yourself. Conclusively.

Let me see if I can repeat your argument:

>
> 1) A zombie has no internal narrative (i.e. "phenomenal consciousness").
> Functionally, it just manipulates inputs and produces outputs.
> 2) I can't imagine doing science without an inner narrative.
> 3) (1) and (2) entail that a zombie a can't do science.
> 4) A digital computer just manipulates inputs and produces outputs.
> 5) Therefore a digital computer is necessarily a zombie.
>

Yes. You're there - Almost. My focus is not on zombies, it's on
scientists.  It actually goes like this:

1) A scientist has access to the natural world external to the scientist
through the a-priori 'knowledge' that is delivered through phenomenal
consciousness (generated using sensory feeds by mystery natural world
property X)

2) A human without phenomenal consciousness (zombied) has no such access,
only phenomenally inert sensory affect and effect. (Neuroscience
distiguishes the measurements from the experience thus: eg PAIN --- the
measurement is called nociception. (You don't even know this happens). The
sensation attached to the measurement is called pain and is generated in
the brain and projected to at site of the nociception, like you were a
periscope. The zombied scientist has only nociception. Without the pain
projection it wouldn't have a clue what the signal meant, while it died of
the affliction causing the nociception-say a spear through the stomach
from the neighbouring tribe. Death would go unnoticed by the zombie,
because it didn't know it was alive in the first place... but that's
incidental.)

3) 1) and 2) entail that a zombie or a zombie'd scientist can't do science
ON THE EXTERNAL WORLD. The zombie could do brilliant science on the
sensory actuation signals. That is not what human scientists do. The
mandated role of experience in science was first established by Aristotle,
I think.

4) Yes. Present day computers, anyway.

5) Yes, but only insofar as the computer fails to use the sensory signals
implement phenomenal scenes. If the activities fail to make use of mystery
natural world property X, then the computer will be a zombie. So it's not
the fact of the I/O that matters it is the presence/absense of creation of
phenomenal scenes that matters. The I/O could be used to that effect.
Indeed I/O is necessary.

My mission is about science. Not zombies or computers (these are just
collateral damage) :-)

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to