On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> 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.
> > See your own post. you ask me not to give the theory, just sketch the
I don't ask you to prove it in just a sketch, but I don't think its too
much to ask to make it clear what you'd like to prove.
> Qualia are private, know, uncommunicable mental state,
> > and much more.
More? How much more? I need to know what I'm trying to explain.
>> 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.
> > Higher level attribute are still third person descriptible.
Consciousness isn't but intelligence is; and that's why a intelligence
theory is so hard to find and why its so unpopular with crackpots, they
prefer easy stuff like consciousness theories.
> The problem is more how "neuron firing", or "information handling" can
> lead, or can be associated to private first person experience.
That is a much easier task because any theory will do, that is to say any
consciousness theory is as good, or as bad, as any other. If you want to
make your mark on the world forget consciousness and work on intelligence,
that is a far harder task and for that reason far less popular with
>> 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.
> > Then comp is false, as the mind of John K Clark is determined only by an
> infinity of (complex) numerical relationships.
Maybe. You've been talking about "comp" for a long time now but I'm still
not entirely sure what you mean by that odd term, you seem to pack a lot
more into it than just being satisfied with a digital copy of yourself, so
maybe "comp" is wrong, but I am sure of one thing, my mind does not
incorporate all numerical relationships but only a finite subset of them.
> you need to be more familiar with the first person indterminacy,
I am very familiar with indeterminacy, and I am familiar with the fact that
when a amoeba reproduces by splitting in half it makes no sense to ask
which one is the original amoeba, and when X becomes 2X it's silly to ask
which X is the real X.
>> 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.
> > ? The literature is full of data.
There is no data about consciousness, none, not one single bit! However
there is lots and lots of data about the intelligent behavior of beings and
machines, and some of that behavior includes making the noise "I am
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at