On Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:05:58 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > > 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. > > No, he does NOT assume this. He assumes the opposite: that > consciousness is a property of the brain and CANNOT be reproduced by > reproducing the behaviour in another substrate. >
I'm not talking about what the structure of the thought experiment assumes, I am talking about what David Chalmers himself assumed before coming up with the paper. We have been over this before. I'm not saying I disagree with the reasoning of the thought experiment, I am saying that I see a mistake in the initial assumptions which invalidate the thought experiment in the first place. > > > 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. > > But since you misunderstand the first assumption you misunderstand the > whole argument. > Nope. You misunderstand my argument completely. Craig > > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/URUtQDKOlkgJ. 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.
