On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > A popular subproblem consists in explaining how a grey brain can generate > the subjective color An outline would be given by > 1) a theory of qualia. This just means some semi-axiomatic definition of > qualia, some agreement of what characterize them, etc. (For example: qualia > are subjective sensation >
And subjective sensations are qualia. You need more than a dictionary list of synonyms and I have no idea how to get more. And if you're not clear about what you're trying to explain then your theory explaining that vague mush is unlikely to be any good. > 2) a theory of mind. this can be computationalism, or even just computer > science, or even just arithmetic + a supervenience thesis. > By "supervenience thesis" I assume you mean a theory explaining how lower level operations of a system, like the firing of neurons in the brain, can lead to higher level attributes like intelligence and consciousness. Well yes that's the name of the game and I can see how the quest for a intelligence theory would be genuine science; but the other would not be because consciousness theories are just too easy to crank out, out of the infinite number of potential consciousness theories there is no way to experimentally determine which one is correct. That is also why consciousness theories (but not intelligence theorys!) are so popular with crackpots. And its got to be more than just arithmetic. Numerical relationships always have and always will exist, but the mind of John K Clark has not and will not. I think those arithmetical values must be implemented in matter to become operational. > > 3) an embedding of the theory of qualia in the theory of mind, > respecting some faithfulness conditions. > Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you mean the use of induction to infer the structure of something from statistical data, but you have no data at all about the consciousness of anything except for that of Bruno Marchal and you can't develop a viable theory or even use induction with only one example. > Most religious belief, like the belief in the existence of primary > matter, or of mind, or God, etc, can be seen as attempt to clarify, or > hide, the mind-body problem. > Religion never EVER clarifies anything, it just adds pointless wheels within wheels to the problem of mind that is already complex enough as it is. John K Clark -- 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.
