also, unless we come up with a clever way of raising the cost of reneging, we wont be able to make any bets
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013, Dennis Ochei wrote: > 1) rationality (logic) in this case is to mean founded on justified > principles. This is inherently a normative judgment. the principles that > govern a deterministic system needn't appeal to our psychology as > justified, this is what i mean by determined doesn't mean logical. none of > my desires seem to me logically justified, but that doesnt imply they are > not deterministic. > > 2) your thesis is essentially, "i cant see how a set of rules could lead > to to desire, i cant see how a set of rules could lead something that has > experiences that seem to have irreducible qualities, therefore there can be > no such rules." that's fine i suppose, but I'm unable to pretend that your > blindness is some sort of insight. i just think you havent looked hard > enough > > On Tuesday, September 3, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 8:57:13 PM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote: > > Craig, > > What UV looks like will depend on how it is transduced into the nervous > system. I could add a new opsin into your blue cones and it would appear to > be a shade of blue. > > > Sure, we can look at an infra-red camera too and see IR light as green or > some other color. That isn't what I'm talking about. I am talking about new > primary colors. > > > Or, I could achieve the transduction in such a way that UV doesn't confuse > with blue. In which case UV will look different from other colors *in way > you cannot describe because you don't have access to how you condition your > behavior based of the intensity of UV light. * > > > It wouldn't matter if you did have access to how you condition your > "behavior based on the intensity of the UV light". Color cannot be > described, it can only be experienced directly. I don't want you to waste > our time trying to tell me what I already know. > > > http://multisenserealism.com/thesis/light-revisited/is-visible-light-electromagnetic/ > > > > > I've told you in a rudimentary form what is required to build a system > that has drives and motivations, from parts that are inanimate. > > > Not at all. You are projecting drives and motivations onto a system that > is unconsciously serving a function that serves your drives and motivations. > > > Nature has constructed such a device using 302 neurons. It learns, and it > has motivations. > > > The neurons are an expression of the motivations, not the other way around. > > > Is your argument here that if we model the nematode deterministically, its > ability to learn and its biological drives will vanish like smoke? > > > Does a rabbit's taste for carrots vanish just because we model him as Bugs > Bunny? Yes. Models, cartoons, figures, functions, shapes, descriptions, > simulations...none of them can have any sense of being or feeling. Bugs > Bunny is not a rabbit. He is a symbol which reminds our psychology of > particular themes which overlap with rabbit themes. > > > Because if so, I'd bet good money that you're wrong. > > > Sure, I'd love to take that bet. I was going to say $10,000 but I don't > think that you are going to pay that when you lose. What amount sounds good? > > > Drives are traceable to electrochemical gradients "trying" to resolve > themselves, driven by thermodynamic laws. Logic is how the pipes are > connected up, desire is the water pump. > > > I agree that microphysical events correspond to microphenomenal > experiences, but that does not mean that all that has to happen to scale up > an inanimate object's thermodynamic motives to mammalian quality emotions > is that it must be configured in the correct shapes. That is an assumption, > and a seductively popular one, but it is 100% wrong. Using the hypothesis > of sense as the sole universal primitive, we should anticipate that the > relevant qualifier of sensitivity is not structure but experience. Giving > your cat a computer will not make him computer literate, and dressing a > water pump up in human clothes does not cause a human. The clues are all > around us. No machine or program has every succeeded in being anything but > completely impersonal and psychologically empty. > > > Furthermore, deterministic does not equal logical. There is no logic > behind why opposites attract, even though this logically leads to like > dissolving like. Whatever axioms there are in this universe > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
