On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/27/2012 11:07 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb<[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote: > > >>> On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote: > >>>>> On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > >>>>>>> On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following: > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> As I've posted before, when we know how look at a brain and infer > >>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>> it's thinking and we know how to build a brain that behaves as we > >>>>>>>> want, > >>>>>>>> in other words when we can do consciousness engineering, the "hard > >>>>>>>> problem" will be bypassed as a metaphysical non-question, like "Where > >>>>>>>> did the elan vital go?" > >>>>>>>> Brent > >>>>>>> This is a position expressed by Jeffrey Gray as follows (he does not > >>>>>>> share it): > >>>>>>> What looks like a Hard Problem will cease to be one when we have > >>>>>>> understood the errors > >>>>>>> in our ways of speaking about the issues involved. If the route were > >>>>>>> successful, we > >>>>>>> would rejoin the normal stance: once our head have been straightened > >>>>>>> out, science could > >>>>>>> again just get on with the job of filling in the details of empirical > >>>>>>> knowledge. > >>>>>>> Evgenii > >>>>>>>http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/jeffrey-a-gray > >>>>>> I think the main mistake in formulating the 'hard problem' is thinking > >>>>>> that we can't > >>>>>> explain consciousness with mathematical theories like mechanics, > >>>>>> astrophysics, quantum > >>>>>> mechanics. The mistake isn't that we can explain consciousness, it's > >>>>>> supposing that we > >>>>>> can explain physics. We don't explain mechanics or gravity or > >>>>>> electrodynamics - we have > >>>>>> models for them that work, they are predictive and can be used to > >>>>>> control and design > >>>>>> things. Bruno points out that *primitive matter* doesn't add anything > >>>>>> to physics. When > >>>>>> asked what explained the gravitational force Newton said, "Hypothesi > >>>>>> non fingo". Someday, > >>>>>> consciousness will be looked at similarly. > >>>>>> Brent > >>>>> Is that any different to regarding cosnc. as fundamental, as dualists > >>>>> do? > >>>> I think it is. We don't regard elan vital as fundamental, we just gave > >>>> up looking for > >>>> it. We decided life is a process, not a substance. > >>>> Brent > >>> So if I decide consc. is a process not a substance, will my pains stop > >>> hurting and my food stop tasing and my vision stop being colourful? > >> Not unless that stops the process. > > >> Brent > > And will ceasing to look for any kidn of cosnc. beyond the process > > mean i can explain > > why pains hurt, etc? I seem to recall that we stopped lookign for Elan > > Vital after we came > > up with better explanations, not vice versa. > > I said that we'd stop asking the 'hard question' when we had consciousness > engineering.
There's a HQ *about* engineering. We don't know how to get started on engineering qualia, although we can get started on memory. cognition, pattern recognition. language etc. We can engineer conscious-style behaviour, but there is still the doubt that an AI has real phenomenality: no behaviour can prove it does. > Being able to manipulate and synthesize something is a 'better explanation' > in a different > sense of 'explanation'. Manipulate and synthesise what? How do you tell that your manipulations are having the desired effect on phenomenality? Don't you need qualiometers in a properly equipped Consciousness Engineering lab? > We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came > from. We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'. > > Brent -- 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.
