1Z wrote: > > Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: >> Stathis, ... >>>> Whatever 'reality' is, it is regular/persistent, >>>> repeatable/stable enough to do science on it via >>>> our phenomenality and come >>>> up with laws that seem to characterise how it will appear >>>> to us in our phenomenality. >>> You could say: my perceptions are >>> regular/persistent/repeatable/stable enough to assume an >>> external reality generating them and to do science on. And if >>> a machine's central processor's perceptions are similarly >>> regular/persistent/, repeatable/stable, it could also do >>> science on them. The point is, neither I nor >>> the machine has any magical knowledge of an external world. >>> All we have is regularities in perceptions, which we assume >>> to be originating from the external world because that's >>> a good model which stands up no matter what we throw >>> at it. >> Oops. Maybe I spoke too soon! OK. >> Consider... "...stable enough to assume an external reality..". >> >> You are a zombie. What is it about sensory data that suggests an external >> world? > > What is it about sensory data that suggests an external world to > human? > > Well, of course, we have a phenomenal view. Bu there is no informtion > in the phenomenal display that was not first in the pre-phenomenal > sensory data.
No, I think Colin has point there. Your phenomenal view adds a lot of assumptions to the sensory data in constructing an internal model of what you see. These assumptions are hard-wired by evolution. It is situations in which these assumptions are false that produce optical illusions. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---