On Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:05:58 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<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.


> -- 
> 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