On 2/7/2013 7:04 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

Hi Stathis,

     The simulation of our 'self' that our brain generates *is* good enough
to fool oneself! I speculate that schizophrenia and autism are caused by
failures of the self-simulation system... The former is a failure where
multiple self-simulations are generated and no stability on their convergent
occurs and the latter is where the self-simulation fails altogether. Mind
version of autism, such as Aspergers syndrome are where bad simulations
occur and/or the self-simulation fails to update properly.
That's an interesting idea, but schizophrenia is where the the
connections between functional subsystems in the brain is disrupted,
so that you get perceptions, beliefs, emotions occurring without the
normal chain of causation, while autism is where the concept of other
minds is disrupted. I think the self-image is present but distorted.

Hi Stathis,

I'm OK with that, a distortion of a self-image can go far enough to reduce the self-image to noise... but this is just a theoretical discussion. I am not even sure if this idea is correct.. Just testing it for plausibility...


If we consider that the Libet experiments show that we are making
decisions
without knowing it, and Blindsight shows that we are able to see without
being conscious of it, then there is no reason why we should suddenly
trust
our own reporting of what we think that we know about the sense of
interacting with a living person. A true Turing test would require a
face-to-face interaction, so that none of our natural sensory
capabilities
would be blocked as they would with just a text or video interaction.
That's the situation that is assumed in the idea of a philosophical
zombie: you interact with the being face to face. If at the end of
several days' interaction (or however long you think you need) you are
completely convinced that it is conscious, does that mean it is
conscious?

     As I see things, the only coherent concept of a zombie is what we see in
the autistic case. Such is 'conscious' with no self-image/self-awareness,
thus it has no ability to report on its 1p content.
I think of autistic people as differently conscious, not unconscious.

OK, I would agree, but how could we find out for sure? One thing that I am 100% sure about is that the full scope of the content of an entities consciousness is a strictly 1p thing. I cannot know what it is like to be you unless I am you. But we can speculate and see where the idea takes us.

Incidentally, there is a movement among higher functioning autistic
people whereby they resent being labelled as disabled, but assert that
their way of thinking is just as valid and intrinsically worthwhile as
that of the "neurotypicals".

Well! Those people would not be so autistic, now would they! It they are indeed aware that other entities have minds of their own, then my hypothesis is wrong or needs reworking... I an proposing that autists are natural solipsists.

I think that it is important to remember that in theory, logically,
consciousness cannot exist. It is only through our own undeniable
experience
of consciousness that we feel the need to justify it with logic - but so
far
we have only projected the religious miracles of the past into a science
fiction future. If it was up to logic alone, there could not, and would
not
every be a such thing as experience.
You could as well say that logically there's no reason for anything to
exist, but it does.


     How about that! Does this not tell us that we must start, in our musing
about existence with the postulate that something exists?
Perhaps, but there are other ways to look at it. A primary
mathematical/Platonic universe necessarily rather than contingently
exists.

That is merely a conjecture unless there is a genuine 3p way of testing it. We can freely haev the belief in a Platonia and that "A primary mathematical/Platonic universe necessarily rather than contingently exists." But without something that connects the truth of that belief to a physical fact, it is not a scientific fact, it is merely a belief, like a belief in a God. I have come to the conclusion that I don't believe in Platonia nor any other realm or entity or whatever that allows me to by-pass the rules of objective evidence that science demands if I am to make what I would claim to be 'scientific' statements. Platonia allows computers to run in violation of the laws of thermodynamics, that bothers me.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to