On 4/27/2012 1:46 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:14 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/27/2012 11:57 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/27/2012 11:07 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> 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?"
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
in our ways of speaking about the issues involved. If the route were
would rejoin the normal stance: once our head have been straightened out,
again just get on with the job of filling in the details of empirical knowledge.
I think the main mistake in formulating the 'hard problem' is thinking that we
explain consciousness with mathematical theories like mechanics, astrophysics,
mechanics. The mistake isn't that we can explain consciousness, it's supposing
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
things. Bruno points out that *primitive matter* doesn't add anything to
asked what explained the gravitational force Newton said, "Hypothesi non
consciousness will be looked at similarly.
Is that any different to regarding cosnc. as fundamental, as dualists
I think it is. We don't regard elan vital as fundamental, we just gave up
it. We decided life is a process, not a substance.
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.
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
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
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
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
That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies.
A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to
a human. An AI will be
made out of silicon or something, which could naturalsitically explain
its lack of qualia.
That is a different matter. With the possible exception of Craig, we
all think our toasters are
But if our robots behave as intelligently as humans we (except Craig) will suppose they
have qualia too.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at