On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 2:27 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 1:15 PM Terren Suydam <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:08 AM Dylan Distasio <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> And yes, I'm arguing that a true simulation (let's say for the sake of a >>> thought experiment we were able to replicate every neural connection of a >>> human being in code, including the connectomes, and neurotransmitters, >>> along with a simulated nerve that was connected to a button on the desk we >>> could press which would simulate the signal sent when a biological pain >>> receptor is triggered) would feel pain that is just as real as the pain you >>> and I feel as biological organisms. >>> >> >> This follows from the physicalist no-zombies-possible stance. But it >> still runs into the hard problem, basically. How does stuff give rise to >> experience. >> >> > I would say stuff doesn't give rise to conscious experience. Conscious > experience is the logically necessary and required state of knowledge that > is present in any consciousness-necessitating behaviors. If you design a > simple robot with a camera and robot arm that is able to reliably catch a > ball thrown in its general direction, then something in that system *must* > contain knowledge of the ball's relative position and trajectory. It simply > isn't logically possible to have a system that behaves in all situations as > if it knows where the ball is, without knowing where the ball is. > Consciousness is simply the state of being with knowledge. > > Con- "Latin for with" > -Scious- "Latin for knowledge" > -ness "English suffix meaning the state of being X" > > Consciousness -> The state of being with knowledge. > > There is an infinite variety of potential states and levels of knowledge, > and this contributes to much of the confusion, but boiled down to the > simplest essence of what is or isn't conscious, it is all about knowledge > states. Knowledge states require activity/reactivity to the presence of > information, and counterfactual behaviors (if/then, greater than less than, > discriminations and comparisons that lead to different downstream > consequences in a system's behavior). At least, this is my theory of > consciousness. > > Jason > This still runs into the valence problem though. Why does some "knowledge" correspond with a positive *feeling* and other knowledge with a negative feeling? I'm not talking about the functional accounts of positive and negative experiences. I'm talking about phenomenology. The functional aspect of it is not irrelevant, but to focus *only* on that is to sweep the feeling under the rug. So many dialogs on this topic basically terminate here, where it's just a clash of belief about the relative importance of consciousness and phenomenology as the mediator of all experience and knowledge. Terren > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUj8F0xkGD7Pe82R_FsLzGO51Z4cgN6J71Er_F5ptMo3EA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUj8F0xkGD7Pe82R_FsLzGO51Z4cgN6J71Er_F5ptMo3EA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA9OE6MMMSXia2eXHTajXZq068OFG4HNZuamBpy6ORCSGg%40mail.gmail.com.
