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 everything-list@googlegroups.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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to