On 2/5/2015 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote:
I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would
be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this
discussion about consciousness.
So we all agree on this.
?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss?
I am not sure I understand the question.
Strictly speaking there are no third-person observable effects because there are no third
perons observations. All observations are first-person. Other people are part of one's
model of reality (unless one is a solipist). So it's nonsense to say we can't talk about
consciousness because it's not third person observable.
Consciousness and the first person effects have observable consequences, although none
can be used as a definite evidences of the presence of consciousness and/or first
person, which can always be imitated for some finite time.
As I said, if you can see traces of nuclear technology in some (alien) civilization, you
can be pretty sure that there is some amount of consciousness there.
Why? It certainly shows intelligence=competence. But according to you that's the
complement of consciousness.
Brent
But you can't be sure.
Maybe on that alien planet, atomic bombs were built through the process of their
Darwinian evolution, like todays termites build complex air conditioning in their
termitaries without any planning or (conscious) intelligence at play (apparently).
Bruno
--
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/d/optout.
