Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >>
> >> 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?
> Nothing. That's the point. That's why we incorporate the usage of natural
> world properties to contextualise it in the external world.


> Called
> phenomenal consciousuness..that makes us not a zombie.

That's not what phenomenal consciousness means...or usually

> >
> > 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.
> Yes there is. Mountains of it. It's just that the mechanism and the need
> for it is not obvious to you.

Things that don't exist tend not to be obvious.

> Some aspects of the external world must be
> recruited to some extent in the production of the visual field, for
> example. None of the real spatial relative location qualities, for
> example, are inherent in the photons hitting the retina. Same with the
> spatial nature of a sound field. That data is added through the mechanisms
> for generation of phenomenality.

It's not added. It's already there. It needs to be made explicit.

> >> The science you can do is the science of zombie sense data, not an
> >> external world.
> >
> > What does "of" mean in that sentence? Human science
> > is based on human phenomenality which is based on pre-phenomenal
> > sense data, and contains nothing beyond it informationally.
> No, science is NOT done on pre-phenomenal sense data. It is done on the
> phenomenal scene.

Which in turn is derived from sense data. If A is informative about B
and B is informative about C, A is informative about C.

> This is physiological fact. Close you eyes and see how
> much science you can do.

That shuts off sense-data , not just phenomenality.

> I don;t seem to be getting this obvious simple thing past the pre-judgements.

> >
> > Humans unconsciously make guesses about the causal origins
> > of their sense-data in order to construct the phenomenal
> > view, which is then subjected to further educated guesswork
> > as part of the scientific process (which make contradict the
> > original guesswork, as in the detection of illusions)
> No they unconsciously generate a phenomenal field an then make judgements
> from it. Again close your eyes and explore what affect it has on your
> judgements. Hard-coded a-priori reflex system such as those that make the
> hand-eye reflex work in blindsight are not science and exist nowhere else
> excpet in reflex bahaviour.

In humans. That doesn't mean phenomenality is necessary for adaptive
behaviour in other entities.

> >> Your hypotheses about an external world would be treated
> >> as wild metaphysics by your zombie friends
> >
> > Unless they are doing the same thing. why shouldn't
> > they be? It is function/behaviour afer all. Zombies
> > are suppposed to lack phenomenality, not function.
> >
> You are stuck on the philosophiocal zombie! Ditch it! Not what we are
> talking about. The philosophical zombie is an oxymoron.

If *you're* not talking about Zombies,
why use the word?

> >> (none of which you cen ever be
> >> aware of, for they are in this external world..., so there's another
> >> problem :-) Very tricky stuff, this.
> >> The only science you can do is "I hypohesise that when I activate this
> >> nerve, that sense nerve and this one do <this>" You then publish in
> >> nature
> >> and collect your prize. (Except the external world this assumes is not
> >> there, from your perspective... life is grim for the zombie)
> >
> > Assuming, for some unexplained reasons, that zombies cannot
> > hypothesise about an external world without phenomena.
> Again you are projecting your experiences onto the zombie. There is no
> body, no boundary, not NOTHING to the zombie to even conceive of to
> hypothesise about. They are a toaster, a rock.

Then there is no zombie art or zombie work or zombie anything.

Why focus on science?

> >> We have to admit to this ignorance and accept that we don't know
> >> something
> >> fundamental about the universe. BTW this means no magic, no ESP, no
> >> "dualism" - just basic physics an explanatory mechanism that is right in
> >> front of us that our 'received view' finds invisible.
> >
> > Errr, yes. Or our brains don't access the external world directly.
> That is your preconception, not mine.

It's not a preconception,. There just isn't any evidence of
clairvoyance or ESP.

>  Try and imagine the ways in which
> you would have to think if that make sense of phenomenality. here's one:

> That there is no such thing as 'space' or 'things' or 'distance' at all.
> That we are all actually in the same place. You can do this and not
> violate any "laws of nature" at all, and it makes phenomenality easy -
> predictable in brain material.... the fact that it predicts itself, when
> nothing else has... now what could that mean?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

> Colin Hales

 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