>> Absolutely! But the humans have phenomenal consciousness in lieu of ESP,
>> which the zombies do not.
> PC doesn't magically solve the problem.It just involves a more
> sophisticated form of guesswork. It can be fooled.
We been here before and I'll say it again if I have to....
Yes! It can be fooled. Yes! It can be wrong. Yes! It can be pathologically
affected. Nevertheless without it we are unaware of anything and we could
not do science on novelty in the world outside. The act of doing science
proves we have phenomenal consciosuness and it's third person verification
proves that whatever reality is, it's the same for us all.
>> To bench test "a human" I could not merely
>> replicate sensoiry feeds. I'd have to replicate the factory!
> As in brain-in-vat scenarios. Do you have a way of showing
> that BIV would be able to detect its status?
I think the BIV is another oxymoron like the philosophical zombie. It
assumes that the distal processes originating the casuality that cause the
impinging sense data (from the external/distal world) are not involved at
all in the internal scene generation. An assumption I do not make.
I would predict that the scenes related to the 'phantom' body might work
because there are (presumably) the original internal (brain-based) body
maps that can substitute for the lack of the actual body....But the scenes
related to the 'phantom external world' I would predict wouldn't work. So
the basic assumption of BIV I would see as flawed. It assumes that all
there is to the scene genreation is what there is at the boundary where
the sense measurement occurs.
Virtual reality works, I think, because in the end, actual photons fly at
you from outside. Actual phonons impinge your ears and so forth.
>> The human is
>> connected to the external world (as mysterious as that may be and it's
>> ESP!). The zombie isn't, so faking it is easy.
> No. They both have exactly the same causal connections. The zombie's
> lack of phenomenality is the *only* difference. By definition.
> And every nerve that a human has is a sensory feed You just have to
> data into all of them to fool PC. As in a BIV scenario.
>> Phenomenal scenes can combine to produce masterful, amazing
>> discriminations. But how does the machine, without being
>> told already by a
>> human, know one from the other?
> How do humans know without being told by God?
You are once again assuming that existing scientific knowledge is 100%
equipped. Then, when it fails to have anything to say about phenomenality,
you invoke god, the Berkeleyan informant.
How about a new strategy: we don't actually know everything. The universe
seems to quite naturally deliver phgenomenality. This is your problem, not
>> Having done that how can it combine and
>> contextualise that joint knowledge? You have to tell it how to learn.
>> Again a-priori knowledge ...
> Where did we get our apriori knowledge from? If it wasn't
> a gift from God, it must have been a natural process.
Yes. Now how might that be? What sort of universe could do that?
This is where I've been. Go explore.
> (And what has this to do with zombies? Zombies
> lack phenomenality, not apriori knowledge).
They lack the a-priori knowledge that is delivered in the form of
phenomenality, from which all other knowledge is derived. The a-priori
knowledge (say in the baby zombie) is all pre-programmed reflex -
unconsciousess internal processes all about the self - not the external
world...except for bawling...another reflex.
All of which is irrelevant to my main contention which is about science
and exquisite novelty.
>> You're talking about cross-correlating sensations, not sensory
>> measurement. The human as an extra bit of physics in the
>> generation of the
>> phenomenal scenes which allows such contextualisations.
> Why does it need new physics? Is that something you
> are assuming or something you are proving?
I am conclusively proving that science, scientists and novel technology
are literally scientific proof that phenomenality is a real, natural
process in need of explanation. The whole world admits to the 'hard
problem'. For 2500 years!
The new physics is something I am proving is necessarily there to be
found. Not what it is but merely that it a new way of thinking is needed.
It is the permission we need to scientifically explore the underlying
reality of the universe.....
That is what this is saying. Phenomenality is evidence of something causal
of it. That causality is NOT that depicted by the appearances it delivers
or we'd already predict it!
Our total inability to predict it and total dependence on it for
scientific evidence is proof that allowing youself to explore universes
causalof phenomenality that is also causal of atoms and scientists is the
new physics rule-set to find - and it is NOT the physics rule-set
delivered by using the appearances thus delivered. The two are intimately
related and equally valid, just not about the same point of view.
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