On 31 March 2015 at 11:11, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 31 March 2015 at 01:08, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Monday, March 30, 2015, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 30 March 2015 at 19:26, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Fading qualia in the setting of normal behaviour, if logically >>>>> possible, would destroy the common idea of consciousness that we have. >>>>> It would mean, for example, that you could have gone blind last week >>>>> but not realise it. You would look at a painting, describe the >>>>> painting, have an emotional response to the painting - but lack any >>>>> visual experience of the painting. If that is possible, what meaning >>>>> is left to attribute to the word "qualia"? >>>>> >>>>> Well, it would mean that comp is false, because the electronic >>>> replacements are not generating any conscious experience despite having >>>> their I/O matched to the rest of the brain. That would mean there is >>>> something else involved, something that isn't generated by computation. >>>> >>> >>> But if that were so it would allow the above described situation, where >>> you could lack qualia but it would make no difference to you, rendering >>> the idea of consciousness meaningless. >>> >>> I thought the idea of fading qualia was that it *would* make a >> difference? Like you find yourself unable to appreciate some particular >> sensation as you used to? Otherwise why "fading" ? >> > > Obviously qualia can fade; if your ulnar nerve is damaged, then sensation > in your little finger will be reduced. But the interesting idea is if comp > is false and there is a decoupling between qualia and behaviour. Your ulnar > nerve is damaged and it is replaced with a functionally perfect artificial > nerve. This means that, for example, your speech centre, through a series > of neural relays, will receive the usual input and you will declare that > you have normal sensation and pass any objective test of motor and sensory > function in your hand. However, it turns out that, contrary to > comp/functionalism, perfect function is not enough to reproduce the qualia, > so your hand is actually numb - it's just that there is no subjective or > objective evidence of the numbness. But in that case, what possible meaning > could be given to the word "numb"? This is the sort of weirdness that > denial of comp can lead to. > > Hmm! Yes, OK - Put like that, it does seem weird. -- 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.
