did your dog communicate to you (in dogese, of course) that she has - NO -
INNER NARRATIVE? or you are just ignorant to perceive such?
(Of course do not expect such at the complexity level of your 11b neurons)
On 11/22/08, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Günther Greindl wrote:
>> Kory Heath wrote:
>>> If Lucky Alice is conscious and Empty-Headed Alice is not conscious,
>>> then there are partial zombies halfway between them. Like you, I can't
>>> make any sense of these partial zombies. But
>> also can't make any
> I don't see why partial "zombies" are problematic. My dog is conscious of
> perceptions, of being an individual, of memories and even dreams, but he
> have an inner narrative - so is he a partial zombie?
>> I think a materialist would either have to argue that Lucky Alice is
>> conscious (if he focuses on physical states) and that removing neurons
>> would lead to fading qualia (the "partial zombies") or simply assume
>> that already Lucky Alice is a Zombie (because he focuses on causal
>> (I would like to note that I have dropped MAT in the meantime and tend
>> to MECH. Just wanted to "simulate" a materialist argumentation :-) -
>> maybe I can convince myself of MAT and not MECH again *grin*)
>> Could we say that MAT focuses on _physical states_ (exclusively) and
>> MECH on _dynamics_? And that MGA shows that one can't have both?
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