Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> David Nyman writes:
>> You're right - it's muddled, but as you imply there is the glimmer of
>> an idea trying to break through. What I'm saying is that the
>> 'functional' - i.e. 3-person description - not only of the PZ, but of
>> *anything* - fails to capture the information necessary for PC. Now,
>> this isn't intended as a statement of belief in magic, but rather that
>> the 'uninstantiated' 3-person level (i.e. when considered abstractly)
>> is simply a set of *transactions*. But - beyond the abstract - the
>> instantiation or substrate of these transactions is itself an
>> information 'domain' - the 1-person level - that in principle must be
>> inaccessible via the transactions alone - i.e. you can't see it 'out
>> there'. But by the same token it is directly accessible via
>> instantiation - i.e. you can see it 'in here'
>> For this to be what is producing PC, the instantiating, or
>> constitutive, level must be providing whatever information is necessary
>> to 'animate' 3-person transactional 'data' in phenomenal form, and in
>> addition whatever processes are contingent on phenomenally-animated
>> perception must be causally effective at the 3-person level (if we are
>> to believe that possessing PC actually makes a difference). This seems
>> a bit worrying in terms of the supposed inadmissability of 'hidden
>> variables' in QM (i.e the transactional theory of reality).
>> Notwithstanding this, if what I'm saying is true (which no doubt it
>> isn't), then it would appear that information over and above what is
>> manifested transactionally would be required to account for PC, and for
>> whatever transactional consequences are contingent on the possession of
>> Just to be clear about PZs, it would be a consequence of the foregoing
>> that a functionally-equivalent analog of a PC entity *might* possess
>> PC, but that this would depend critically on the functional
>> *substitution level*. We could be confident that physical cloning
>> (duplication) would find the right level, but in the absence of this,
>> and without a theory of instantiation, we would be forced to rely on
>> the *behaviour* of the analog in assessing whether it possessed PC.
>> But, on reflection, this seems right.
> You seem to be implying that there is "something" in the instantiation which
> cannot be captured in the 3rd person description. Could this something just
> be identified as "the raw feeling of PC from the inside", generated by
> well understood physics, with no causal effects of its own?
> Let me give a much simpler example than human consciousness. Suppose that
> when a hammer hits a nail, it groks the nail. Grokking is not something that
> be explained to a non-hammer. There is no special underlying physics:
> momentum is transferred from the hammer to the nail, grokking necessarily
> It is no more possible for a hammer to hit a nail without grokking it than it
> possible for a hammer to hit a nail without hitting it. Because of this, it
> really make sense to say that grokking "causes" anything: the 3rd person
> describable physics completely defines all hammer-nail interactions, which is
> we have all gone through life never suspecting that hammers grok.
> The idea of a zombie (non-grokking) hammer is philosophically problematic. We
> have to invoke magic to explain how of two physically identical hammers doing
> things, one is a zombie and the other is normal. (There is no evidence that
> there is
> anything magic about grokking. Mysterious though it may seem, it's just a
> natural part
> of being a hammer). Still, we can imagine that God has created a zombie
> indistinguishable from normal hammers no matter what test we put it through.
> This would
> imply that there is some non-third person describable aspect of hammers
> responsible for
> their ability to grok nails. OK: we knew that already, didn't we? It is what
> makes grokking
> special, private, and causally irrelevant from a third person perspective.
> Stathis Papaioannou
Very well put, Stathis.
And an apt example since "to grok" actually is an english word meaning "to
understand intuitively". So when you understand that "A and B" entails "A", it
is because you grok "and". Intuitive understanding is not communicable
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at