On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:54:44 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Russell Standish 
> <li...@hpcoders.com.au <javascript:>> wrote: 
> > I know you don't believe in COMP, but assuming COMP (I am open-minded 
> > on the topic), mass and chemical composition are irrelevant to 
> > consciousness. 
> Chalmers' "fading qualia" argument purports to prove the 
> substrate-independence of consciousness. 

Fading qualia is the only argument of Chalmers' that I disagree with. It's 
a natural mistake to make, but I think he goes wrong by assuming a priori 
that consciousness is functional, i.e. that personal consciousness is an 
assembly of sub-personal parts which can be isolated and reproduced based 
on exterior behavior. I don't assume that at all. I suspect the opposite 
case, that in fact any level of personal consciousness - be it 
sub-personal-reflex, personal-intentional, or 
super-signifying-synchronistic cannot be modeled by the impersonal views 
from third person perspectives. The impersonal (micro, meso, macrocosm) is 
based on public extension, space, and quantifiable lengths, while the 
personal is based on private intention, time, and qualitative oscillation. 
Each layer of the personal relates to all of the impersonal layers in a 
different way, so that you can't necessarily replace a person with a 
sculpture and expect there to still be a person there - even if the 
sculpture seems extremely convincing to us from the outside appearance. My 
prediction is that rather than fading qualia, we would simply see 
increasing pathology, psychosis, dementia, coma, and death.


> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to