--- In [email protected], "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > (snip) > > > Now if we suppose this is what happens, and the 'rich inner > > > life' of experience goes by the wayside, what does this mean > > > in terms of the hard problem? > > > > Nothing, because it doesn't "go by the wayside"--it can't, > > or you'd be a zombie. Your "rich inner life" may well > > become *poverty-stricken*, but it doesn't disappear. So > > the "hard problem" doesn't go away either. > > > > (snip) > > > If I understand [Dennett's] view, then it is impossible to > > > discover there is such a thing as consciousness objectively. > > > Subjectively, it is an illusion created by the mind's > > > interpretation of experience. > > > > For there to be an illusion, there has to be something > > being deceived by it, so you can't dispense with > > consciousness (or the hard problem) that way either. > > Judy, this last sentence made me think (and forgive me if > you all already went over this, I am only now tuning in > to a long running discussion). Isn't it possible that the > brain is like a machine, and so the illusion is merely > deceiving a sensory machine, not a consciousness. It > could be that it is the sense of conscious I-ness that > is the deception, the illusion. Underneath that, there > is functioning but not an I or a witness or Consciousness > to be deceived. So it is the illusion itself that deceives > itself, in a way. Once that goes, there is nothing to be > deceived.
This reminds me of the classic scenes from "Dark Star." In the first, Sgt. Doolittle tries to talk the AI bomb out of exploding while still attached to the ship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77cmI In the second, we see the results of his efforts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-Niv2Xh7w
