Everything in this weve been through already. All my answers are already in.
> > > 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---