On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:06:32 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 5 February 2014 06:36, meekerdb <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > >> On 2/4/2014 12:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> But I don't believe that. I think that consciousness is a necessary >> aspect of intelligence, >> >> OK. >> and that is functionally observable. >> >> It is not. Leibniz already understood this. You evacuate the mind-body >> problem. No 3p observation can detect consciousness. It is pure 1p. We can >> detect evidences that some entities behave as if they were conscious, but >> materialists would not been tempted to eliminate it if it was observable. >> >> "That" refers to intelligence. Which I think is observable. I think my >> dogs are conscious because of their intelligent behavior. >> >> Well, intelligent behaviour is observable, certainly, but if one is going > to draw fine distinctions (coordinate systems not appearing in special > relativity, for example) then I think you have to make the cut here and say > that behaviour doesn't prove consciousness. Your dogs *could* be > p-zombies, or Deep Blue *could* be conscious... >
They could in theory, but not necessarily in fact. In reality there may be no way that your dog could not be authentically conscious or Deep Blue could be. We may have intuitive capacities which are often correct, or some people may have a better sense of that than others. The idea that your dog could be a p-zombie or Deep Blue could be conscious may itself be nothing but sophism. It is the logical mind shutting down common sense to erect a fictional possibility. -- 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.
