MG: 'It's really quite obvious in retrospect - physical
> properties involve energy, mathematical properties involve knowledge
> (meaningful patterns).  Old David Chalmers was right about this one
> (see his 'property dualism').  The two properties just ain't the same
> and no amount of semantic trickery is going to reduce one to the
> other.'

MP: It is not semantic trickery to assert that a _translation_ 
can be possible however. This is the problem when people talk 
and get hot under the collar about 'identity theory'. At its 
simplest level it is the difference between 1PV and 3PV. 3PV 
observation and analysis _may_ eventually turn up with objective 
criteria that establish universally consistent and reliable 
correlation between certain brain processes and certain reported 
phenomenal experiences - things like itching on certain parts of 
the body, "hearing music", "seeing bright colours", etc. I am 
not sure about experiencing redness per se, although that is not 
ruled out. It is conceivable that this type of facility could be 
useful in diagnosing locked-in consciousness.

The key concept of course is _correlation_. Accurately 
*identifying* certain characteristic brain processes - in both 
relevant senses of identifying - is almost certainly what the 
future holds for us. Is this what you mean by *reducing* the 
experience though? If so I think it is a 'red herring'; being 
able to locate and accurately describe brain processes from/in 
3PV cannot thereby diminish or encompass the experience of what 
it is like to be that process.

NB: "Old Chalmers ... " --- He's not THAT old, surely!

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> 
> On Aug 19, 12:26 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> This all makes sense if you are referring to the values of a
>> particular entity. Objectively, the entity has certain values and we
>> can use empirical means to determine what these values are. However,
>> if I like red and you like blue, how do we decide which colour is
>> objectively better?
> 
> No, that's not what I'm referring to.  I'm referring to 'Abstract
> Universals' - Platonic Ideals that all observers with complete
> information would agree with.
> 
> "What they have to be are inert EXPLANATORY PRINCIPLES, taking the
> form:  'Beauty has abstract properties A B C D E F G'.  'Liberty has
> abstract properties A B C D E F G' etc etc.  None the less, as
> explained, these abstract specifications would still be amenable to
> indirect empirical testing to the extent that they could be used to
> predict agent emotional reactions to social events."
> 
> 
> 
>> You could make a similar claim for the abstract quality "redness",
>> which is associated with light of a certain wavelength but is not the
>> same thing as it. But it doesn't seem right to me to consider
>> "redness" as having a separate objective existence of its own; it's
>> just a name we apply to a physical phenomenon.
> 
> I don't agree that 'redness is just a name we apply to a physical
> phenomenon' (although I agree with you its not an objectively existing
> primative).  I thought about these issues hard out for a long long
> long long long long LONG time before finally nailing 'em.
> Unfortunately the answers are not something I easily explain in short
> sentences on Internet messageboards ;)
> 
> 'redness' is not a *thing* it's a *process* - as a phenomenal
> (subjective) quality it's a *mathematical* property associated with
> the running of an algorithm (or computation) .  But this is NOT a
> *physical* property.  The mathematical property (redness) is *attached
> to* (resides in, is dependent upon) the physical substrate
> implementing the algorithm giving rise to the subjective experience ,
> but the mathematical property *per se* is not physical.  It's
> abstract.  It's really quite obvious in retrospect - physical
> properties involve energy, mathematical properties involve knowledge
> (meaningful patterns).  Old David Chalmers was right about this one
> (see his 'property dualism').  The two properties just ain't the same
> and no amount of semantic trickery is going to reduce one to the
> other.
> 

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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