Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> > Colin Hales writes:
> >> You are a zombie. What is it about sensory data that suggests an
> >> external world? The science you can do is the science of
> >> zombie sense data, not an external world. Your hypotheses
> >> about an external world would be treated
> >> as wild metaphysics by your zombie friends (none of which you
> >> can ever be aware of, for they are in this external world...,
> >> so there's another problem :-) Very tricky stuff, this.
> > My hypothesis about an external world *is* metaphysics, and
> > you seemed to agree in an earlier post that there was not
> > much point debating it. I assume that
> > there is an external world, behave as if there is one, and would be
> > surprised and > disturbed if evidence came up suggesting that
> > it is all a hallucination, but I can't
> > ever be certain that such evidence will not come up.
> This is the surprise we are due. It's something that you have to inhabit
> for a while to assimilate properly. I have been on the other side of this
> for a long while now.
> The very fact that the laws of physics, derived and validated using
> phenomenality, cannot predict or explain how appearances are generated is
> proof that the appearance generator is made of something else
> and that
> something else That something else is the reality involved, which is NOT
> appearances, but independent of them.
> I know that will sound weird...
> >> The only science you can do is "I hypothesise that when I activate this
> >> nerve, that sense nerve and this one do <this>"
> > And I call regularities in my perceptions the "external world", which
> > becomes so
> > familiar to me that I forget it is a hypothesis.
> Except that in time, as people realise what I just said above, the
> hypothesis has some emprical support: If the universe were made of
> appearances when we opened up a cranium we'd see them. We don't.
Or appearances don't appear to be appearances to a third party.
> We see
> something generating/delivering them - a brain. That difference is the
> >> If I am to do more I must have a 'learning rule'. Who tells me the
> >> learning rule? This is a rule of interpretation. That requires context.
> >> Where does the context come from? There is none. That is the situation
> >> of
> >> the zombie.
> > I do need some rules or knowledge to begin with if I am to get anywhere
> > with interpreting sense data.
> You do NOT interpret sense data! In consciuous activity you interpret the
> phenomenal scene generated using the sense data.
But that is itself an interpetation for reasons you yourself have
spelt out. Sensory pulse-trains don't have any meaning in themselves.
> reflex behaviour with fixed rules uses sense data directly.
Does that make it impossible to have
adaptive responses to sense data?
> Think about driving home on a well travelled route. You don't even know
> how you got home. Yet if something unusual happened on the drive - ZAP -
> phenomenality kicks in and phenomenal consciousness handles the novelty.>
Is that your only evidence for saying that it is impossible
to cope with novelty without phenomenality?
> > With living organisms, evolution provides this
> > knowledge
> Evolution provided
> a) a learning tool(brain) that knows how to learn from phenomenal
> consciousness, which is an adaptive presentation of real
> external world a-priori knowledge.
> b) Certain simple reflex behaviours.
> > while with machines the designers provide it.
> Machine providers do not provide (a)
> They only provide (b), which includes any adaptivity rules, which are just
> more rules.
How do you know that (a) isn't "just" rules? What's the difference?
You seem to think there is an ontological gulf between (a) and (b). But
> > Incidentally, you have stated in your paper that novel technology as the
> > end
> > product of scientific endeavour is evidence that other people are not
> > zombies, but
> > how would you explain the very elaborate technology in living organisms,
> > created
> > by zombie evolutionary processes?
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> Amazing but true. Trial and error. Hypothesis/Test in a brutal live or die
> laboratory called The Earth.... Notice that the process selected for
> phenomenal consciousness early on....
But that slides past the point. The development of phenomenal
consciousness was an adaptation that occurred without PC.
Hence, PC is not necessary for all adaptation.
> which I predict will eventually be
> proven to exist in nearly all animal cellular life (vertebrate and
> invertebrate and even single celled organisms) to some extent. Maybe even
> in some plant life.
> 'Technology' is a loaded word...I suppose I mean 'human made' technology.
> Notice that chairs and digital watches did not evolve independently of
> humans. Nor did science. Novel technology could be re-termed 'non-DNA
> based technology, I suppose. A bird flies. So do planes. One is DNA based.
> The other not DNA based, but created by a DNA based creature called the
> human. Eventually conscious machines will create novel technology too -
> including new versions of themselves. It doesn't change any part of the
> propositions I make - just contextualises them inside a fascinating story.
> 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@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at