On Aug 6, 6:35 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here, please try thinking of it this way. Substitute the word
> > 'conscious' for the word 'expensive'.
>
> > If I paid a lot of money for something, it is expensive to me. That is
> > not debatable, it's the definition of expensive. If I see something
> > that 'looks expensive', there is a fair chance that it would correlate
> > with being expensive if I tried to buy it. But... If you are talking
> > about a counterfeit Rolex, it may cost $25, but it is designed
> > specifically to 'look expensive'. The fact that it might fool some
> > people doesn't mean that the fake Rolex is expensive or that I paid
> > $10,000 for it.
>
> Yes, but the question is whether it LOOKS expensive.

Who cares if it looks expensive. A picture of the watch in a magazine
looks expensive. The question is whether looking expensive causes
something to be expensive. It doesn't. Can you have zombie Rolexes
that look perfectly expensive without them actually being expensive
Rolexes? Maybe but by the time you are done with making such an exact
replica that it cannot be determined to be different in a laboratory,
you would need real gold, real precision engineering, etc that the
fake winds up being pretty much the same thing as the original. If you
don't use real gold, then it would be easy to tell in a lab that it's
not a Rolex.

> > The thing to understand is that 'consciousness' is like 'expensive' -
> > it's a subjective experience of significance that does not directly
> > manifest mechanically in the physical character. It correlates to the
> > physical character, but the quality itself is not describable in
> > physical terms like density, mass, velocity, etc.
>
> OK, that's what I am assuming. So it is possible to make something
> that LOOKS as if it's conscious but is NOT in fact conscious.

Aaaaaaghfhgjghpojkyt. There is no 'LOOK' to consciousness. If you are
conscious, and something looks like you, then you think that it must
feel like you do. To a magnet, iron looks 'conscious' but aluminum
does not.

>This
> leads to the possibility of being unconscious in some important
> aspect, such as perception, but not noticing that anything is wrong -
> which you agree is absurd. Ergo, the assumption must be wrong.

I'm saying that even if we are fooled, we may not be fooled forever,
and the neurons may not be fooled either. As soon as we try to do
something that was not anticipated in the physical modeling - the
response to an unforeseeable event for instance, then the weakness of
the substitution is exposed - however, it may not be distinguishable
to us from the normal range of neurological failure that we experience
- some is noticed, some is not noticed. Just because you don't notice
Alzheimer's until it is sufficiently progressed doesn't mean that it's
not happening. You can get away with a plastic brain appliance that
results in a certain level of dementia without the subject noticing,
but that doesn't mean it wouldn't cause dementia if increased beyond
that level.

We are not conscious of our digestion, but that doesn't mean that our
digestive tract is not aware of what it's doing, and it doesn't mean
that it could be replaced with a plastic jug of hydrochloric acid.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to