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.
Huh??? > Called > phenomenal consciousuness..that makes us not a zombie. That's not what phenomenal consciousness means...or usually means... > > > > 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---