Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >> Colin
> >> I'm not talking about invisibility of within a perceptual field. That is
> >> an invisibility humans can deal with to some extent using instruments.
> >> We
> >> inherit the limits of that process, but at least we have something
> >> presented to us from the outside world. The invisibility I speak of is
> >> the
> >> invisibility of novel behaviour in the natural world within a perceptual
> >> field.
> >
> >
> > To an entity without a phenomenal field, novel
> > behaviour will be phenomenally invisible. Everything
> > will be phenomenally invisible. That doesn't
> > mean they won't be able have non-phenomenal
> > access to events. Including novdl ones.
> Then you will be at the mercy of the survivability of thast situation. If
> your reflex actions in that circumstance are OK you get to live.

There is no special relationship between the novel and the phenomenal.
Both new and old events are phnemoneally visible
to humans, and both are phenomenaly invisible to zombies.

> If the
> novelty is a predator you've never encountered it'll look like whatever
> your reflex action interpretation thinks it is...if the behaviour thus
> slected is survivable you'll get to live. That's the non-phenomenal world
> in a nutshell. I imagine some critters live like this: habitat bound.

Likewise, there is no strong reason to suppose that there is no
adaptation or learning in the absence of phenomena.
Phenomenality itself is an adaptation that arose in a
non-phenomenal world.

> >> Brent:
> >> Are you saying that a computer cannot have any pre-programmed rules for
> >> dealing with sensory inputs, or if it does it's not a zombie.
> >>
> >> Colin:
> >> I would say that a computer can have any amount of pre-programmed rules
> >> for dealing with sensory inputs. Those rules are created by humans and
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> grounded in the perceptual experiences of humans.
> >
> > Not necessarily. AI researches try to generalise as much as possible.
> Yes, and they generalise according to their generalisation rules, which
> are also grounded in human phenomenal consciousness.

>  It is very hard to
> imagine what happens to rule-making without phenomenality...but keep
> trying... you'll get there...

It's not for me to imagine, it's for you to explain.

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to