On Oct 13, 2:53 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/10/13 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 11:04 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 12:52 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 12, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1676 > > > > > > > "As stated above, blindsight is seen clinically as a contrast > > between > > > > > > a lack of declarative knowledge about a stimulus and a high rate of > > > > > > correct answers to questions about the stimulus (1). People > > suffering > > > > > > from blindsight claim to see nothing, and are therefore unable to > > > > > > reach spontaneously for stimuli, cannot decide whether or not > > stimuli > > > > > > are present, and do not know what objects look like. In this sense, > > > > > > they are blind. However, they are able to give correct answers when > > > > > > asked to decide between given alternatives (1). Studies done with > > > > > > subjects that exhibit blindsight have shown that they are able to > > > > > > guess reliably only about certain features of stimuli having to do > > > > > > with motion, location and direction of stimuli. They are also able > > to > > > > > > discriminate simple forms, and can shape their hands in a way > > > > > > appropriate to grasping the object when asked to try. Some may show > > > > > > color discrimination as well (2). Subjects also show visual > > > > > > capacities, including reflexes (e.g. the pupil reacts to changes in > > > > > > light), implicit reactions and voluntary responses (3). " > > > > > > > Sounds like absent qualia to me. > > > > > > > "people suffering from blindsight claim to see nothing" > > > > > > > So Stathis, Jason, Bruno... how do you know that your computer > > brain > > > > > > doesn't have blindsight if it's eyes seem to work? Is it lying when > > it > > > > > > says it can't see, or is it seeing without being able to look at > > what > > > > > > it is seeing? > > > > > > It seems blindsight is the result of some modules receiving visual > > > > > information but not all the modules which would normally receive it. > > > > > > In any event, one with blind sight is not functionally equivalent to > > a > > > > > normally sighted person. > > > > > It doesn't matter whether they are functionally equivalent. The point > > > > is that the function of sight is in some ways independent from the > > > > qulaia of visual perception. > > > > I don't think you have established this. See below. > > > > > This is the big deal about absent qualia, > > > > that it would be too crazy if we could somehow see without seeing, yet > > > > this is evidence of just that. > > > > All we learn when we interview someone is what level of access their > > verbal > > > center of the brain has to other perceptual functions > > > I think it's too simplistic to talk about a verbal center acting on > > it's own. There is no suggestion that a sightblind patient has been > > reduced to a talking parrot by their condition. We have no reason to > > doubt the authenticity of the condition that they describe. If there > > were no such condition, that would tend to support functionalism, so > > even the existence of reports of sightblindness are somewhat > > contrafactual for functionalism. > > > > of the brain. > > > Therefore we cannot use the claim of blindness to assert that no > > processes > > > in the person's brain are receiving processed visual information. > > > There is no question that parts of the brain are making sense of > > optical experiences through the eyes but there is no reason to assume > > that it is processed as visual qualia. > > > For > > > instance, a person with blind sight might still be able to catch a thrown > > > ball, because the motor section of the brain is receiving visual > > > information. > > > There is no such thing as information. It is only the subjective > > capacity to be informed. To talk about visual information without a > > subjective experience is like saying that your video card could be > > watching a movie. > > > Likewise, someone with Anton's syndrome may have the opposite > > > defect in wiring, where the verbal center of the brain does receive > > visual > > > information, but the parts of the brain that integrates it to control > > motion > > > and reflexes do not. > > > > > It is not necessary for any of the > > > > qualia of vision to be present to achieve some of the functional > > > > benefit of sight. > > > > This is somewhat of a leap. > > > Why? If we believe the reports of blindsight, what other conclusion > > can we make? > > > > > Qualia may or may not assist us functionally at all. > > > > Replace qualia with "awareness of information", and you can see how > > > necessary it is for certain processes to be aware of some piece of > > > information in order to function properly. > > > Qualia is not awareness of information. We are informed by qualia, but > > we can be informed more effectively through unconscious processes. > > Replace information with experiences instead. > > > > > Blindsight shows the potential from an unconscious form of vision to > > > > develop in the same way that our digestion or immune system operates > > > > within a complex, survival intensive environment without conjuring up > > > > a world of top-level qualia with voluntary control. > > > > I think your conclusion from the phenomenon of blindsight is premature. > > > Imagine a coinjoined twin who just had one very big head and two brains. > > > One brain controlled walking and received input from the eyes, the other > > > brain received input from the ears and controlled talking. What could > > you > > > conclude from this twin's insistence that it was unable to see? > > > I conclude that the blind twin is telling the truth. It's no different > > than a passenger in a car asserting that they aren't driving. > > > > > > If a robot does things that only something that can see can do, then > > > > > there must be something within it that sees. > > > > > Not at all. I can make a ventriloquist dummy respond to things that > > > > only something can see can do but there is nothing within it that > > > > sees. > > > > You are not considering the whole system, which includes both the > > > ventriloquist dummy and the ventriloquist. Obviously there is something > > in > > > that system which sees (the ventriloquist). Take the ventrioliquist away > > > and the dummy can no longer behave as if it sees. This example only > > > confirms my original statement. > > > Your argument is that if something acts like it sees then that means > > that thing must see. If you acknowledge that a dummy can't see then > > why not extend the same logic to a computer? The programmer is the > > ventriloquist who has recorded his act in advance so that a switching > > system routes inputs with recorded outputs. > > You insist to compare a computation with a record when it's absolutely not > the same thing,
That's true, they aren't the same thing. A record actually exists. A computation is just a mindless chain of consequences generated by whatever initial conditions are set. Just because a voicemail system responds to my saying words doesn't mean that it knows what I'm saying. Computation just makes record selection more sophisticated, but there is still no entity doing the selecting. It's just a bunch of dumb binary switches that we have sculpted into something that reminds of how we want our minds to function. > likewise you insist about the fact that a program can't show > unexpected novelty and you're proven wrong... Proven wrong how? It depends what you mean by unexpected novelty. Has a computer program ever suddenly started designing hats? Has one ever begged for food? > so instead of parroting those > false facts could you just take that in account ? Instead of making unfounded accusations, you could explain your view and how it makes more sense than mine. How do you explain consciousness, life, order, and feeling? 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.
