On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 9:44:38 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 3/20/2013 6:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:26:04 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 3/20/2013 4:51 PM, Tom Bayley wrote: >> >> There is not a "direct link" between the light switch and the light >>> going on either, the closing of the light switch just caused a current to >>> flow in the wire, the current flow didn't cause the light either it just >>> caused the filament in the light bulb to get hot, it was the hot electrons >>> in the filament that caused the electromagnetic waves to be produced. >>> >> >> I think explanations are important to prove causation ;-) and it's >> interesting that you can break this example down. Each explanatory step is >> materially plausible (it has a satisfactory public explanation), right up >> to the perception of the light. But the qualia (qualium?) itself doesn't >> have a public description, and there isn't any sense of satisfaction that >> it has been explained. It's tempting to believe that's because it's a >> complicated step, but there seems no obvious way to reduce it. So as far as >> I can see it is still only an assumption, with the hope/faith that some >> plausible explanation will one day be found. I'm not sure there are many >> other widely-held scientific explanations like this one? >> >> >> I don't think you have considered carefully enough explanations that you >> do think are plausible: Did Newton explain gravity? Did Gell-Mann explain >> quarks. Is life explained by chemistry? An explanation is satisfying when >> we can used it to predict or manipulate. When we can build robots that act >> just like people and report their qualia to us - then we'll think we've >> explained qualia, and questions like "Yes, but what is it really?" will >> seem anachronistic. >> > > That isn't a rebuttal to the promissory functionalism which Tom and I > point out. You are only saying that you don't care about our objections, > because of your faith in the future of your particular view of science. > What reason do you offer to share your optimism, completely blind as it is? > What explanations do you accuse Tom of not considering carefully enough? > > > It's not just my view. It was Newton's too which he expressed as > "Hypothesi non fingo." And it's not optimism. It's a recognition of the > limits of explanation. I listed three for consideration. >
" When we can build robots that act just like people and report their qualia to us - then we'll think we've explained qualia, and questions like "Yes, but what is it really?" will seem anachronistic" That is not a statement of modesty, it is an empty brag. Yours is 'Hypothesi non dubium'. In my opinion, these assumptions will seem anachronistic, like the flying cars and vast space colonies of 20th century Sci-Fi. Craig > Bret > -- 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.
