On 2/11/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:



On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
    > On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
    >
    > > My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in
    > > the sense required for this argument.  I think consciousness depends of
    > > consciousness *of* an external world and thoughts just about Peano's
    > > arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the
    > > "ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous.  There are obvious
    > > physical and evolutionary reasons that qualia would be ineffable.  
That's
    > > why I think step 8 is invalid because it assumes dreams (of arithmetic?)
    > > are possible independent of any external world - or looked at another 
way,
    > > I think to make it work would require that the 'inert' computation 
simulate
    > > a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist *relative* to
    > > that world.
    > >
    >
    > Well, you have already rejected step 0 - (at least one of) the initial
    > assumptions - so I wouldn't worry about step 8!
    >

    I don't see how it rejects step 0. Provided that the artificial
    computational brain offered by the doctor is connected to the actual
    senses, and not just placed in a vat connected to some simulated
    reality, it certainly satisfies the Yes Doctor postulate.

    I don't see the relevance of AR or CT to Brent's argument.

Well, Brent seems to think it does (it was the AR bit he was rejecting, or the Peano subset thereof I think?).

However, I agree that "I think consciousness depends of (sic) consciousness *of* an external world" is simply an opinion,

Is it?  Can you be conscious without being conscious of something?

and the other related objections seem to be "arguing from incredulity".

Yes, I am incredulous that "arithmetical provability" = "knowledge" and "unprovable arithmetical truth" = "qualia". Are you credulous on those two points?

Brent

--
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.

Reply via email to