Re: deism and Newton
On 4/7/2012 10:36 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.04.2012 22:16 meekerdb said the following: On 4/7/2012 5:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 06.04.2012 19:22 meekerdb said the following: On 4/6/2012 9:26 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... “The very possibility of applied mathematics is an expression . . . of the Christian belief that nature is the creation of an omnipotent God.” Of course the regularity of nature is more consistent with a single god than with many contending gods, but it is still more consistent with a deist god who creates the world and then leaves it to itself than a theist god who answers prayers. Brent I am reading now Feyerabend's The Tyranny of Science. A couple of related quotes: “After Newton had found his law of gravitation, he applied it to the moon and to the planets. It seemed that Jupiter and Saturn, when treated in this way, slowly moved away from each other – the planetary system seemed to fall apart.” ”Newton concluded that it was being kept stable by an additional force and he assumed that God from time to time intervened in the course of planets. That agreed with his theological views. God, Newton believed, was not just an abstract principle.” More to this story http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/04/god-as-a-cosmic-operator.html where there are results of my search in Google. The story seems to have a happy end. Yet if Newton were a deist, then we would not have the Newton laws. What? You think he would have discarded his law of universal gravitation if he had been a deist? Why wouldn't he have just concluded the solar system was unstable and would eventually be dispersed? Ancient Babylonian records showed that the planetary system had been stable for a considerable time. At any rate, there was a clash between the facts and Newton's law of gravitation used without additional assumptions. Actually not. Newton's gravity would have shown that it would have been sufficiently stable much longer than Babylonian times - if Newton had been able to solve the multi-body problem. It is solved numerically now using computers. Why do you suppose the solar system has been stable enough to be predictable over millions of years? Do you think general relativity is necessary to explain that? Brent You may want to find Leibniz's critics of Newton. Leibniz ridiculed Newton's god for being an incompetent universe-maker and declared that what god does once, he does in a perfect way. Evgenii Brent Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: deism and Newton
On 08.04.2012 09:04 meekerdb said the following: On 4/7/2012 10:36 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.04.2012 22:16 meekerdb said the following: On 4/7/2012 5:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... More to this story http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/04/god-as-a-cosmic-operator.html where there are results of my search in Google. The story seems to have a happy end. Yet if Newton were a deist, then we would not have the Newton laws. What? You think he would have discarded his law of universal gravitation if he had been a deist? Why wouldn't he have just concluded the solar system was unstable and would eventually be dispersed? Ancient Babylonian records showed that the planetary system had been stable for a considerable time. At any rate, there was a clash between the facts and Newton's law of gravitation used without additional assumptions. Actually not. Newton's gravity would have shown that it would have been sufficiently stable much longer than Babylonian times - if Newton had been able to solve the multi-body problem. It is solved numerically now using computers. Why do you suppose the solar system has been stable enough to be predictable over millions of years? Do you think general relativity is necessary to explain that? Brent I believe that we should consider Newton in his historical context. As far as I have understood, because of not quite right empirical values (masses, etc.) and/or because of low level of mathematics that was available at his time, his use of his laws did not agree with observations. Hence his use of God. This also raises a question about mathematics that bothers me. If we assume that mathematics (for example Newton's laws written as equations) is the result of neuron spikes, then to me this whole story seems like a wonder. For example, try to think about the history of Newton's laws according to the quote from http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/matter_math_god.pdf (the references are in pdf) Materialists believe that mathematical objects exist only materially, in our brains.[3] Mathematical objects are believed to correspond to physical states of our brain and, as such, should ultimately be explicable by neuroscience in terms of biochemical laws. Stanislas Dehaene suggests that human brains come equipped at birth with an innate, wired-in ability for mathematics.[4] He postulates that, through evolution, the smallest integers (1, 2, 3 . . .) became hard-wired into the human nervous system, along with a crude ability to add and subtract. A similar position is defended by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez, who seek to explain mathematics as a system of metaphors that ultimately derive from neural processes.[5] Penelope Maddy conjectures that our nervous system contains higher order assemblies that correspond to thoughts of particular sets.[6] She posits that our beliefs about sets and other mathematical entities come, not from Platonic ideal forms, but, rather, from certain physical events, such as the development of pathways in neural systems. Such evolutionary explanations seek to derive all our mathematical thoughts from purely physical connections between neurons. Finally a good quote from the same paper Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of theism, concluded from his study of the history of Greek philosophy that ‘‘Mathematics is . . . the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth, as well as in a supersensible intelligible world.’’. This shows nicely that the mathematicians have been as a fifth column all the time. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Primitive Awareness and Symmetry
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But is it an empirical question? What would it mean for neuroscience to find zombies? We have some idea what it would mean to find a soul: some seemingly purposeful sequence of brain processes begin without any physical cause. But I'm not sure what test you would perform on a zombie to find that it was not conscious. I think if we had a very detailed understanding of the human brain we might be able to study and intelligent robot or a zombie android at the same level and say something like, This zombie probably experiences numbers differently than people. But if it truly acted exactly like a human, we wouldn't be able to say what the difference was. Of course humans don't all act the same, some have synesthesia for example. So we might be able to say this zombie sees numbers with colors - but this would show up in the zombies actions too. It's not an empirical question since no experiment can prove that it isn't a zombie. However, I think that the question can be approached analytically. If zombies were possible then zombie brain components would be possible. If zombie brain components were possible then it would be possible to make a being that is a partial zombie; for example, that was blind but behaved normally and did not realise it was blind. If partial zombies are possible then we could be partial zombies. If we were partial zombies that would destroy the fundamental distinction between consciousness and zombiehood: that at least I know if I am conscious even if I can't prove it to others. So if zombies are possible then zombies are no different to conscious beings. Hence, either zombies are impossible or consciousness is impossible. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
On 07 Apr 2012, at 21:54, meekerdb wrote: On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The fake political use of religion, which lasts since a long time in occident, can only be promoted by the rejection of free-will and conscience. I agree with most of what you write about free-will, but the above seems empirically false. Organized religion and the political use of it has always assumed free will and the guilt of the individual. OK. At one time even animals were tried and convicted for crimes. Interesting. Ir reminds me a scene in a café where someone (drunk) was proposing a biscuit to a dog, but insisted that the dog stand up before. The dog was old and did not learn that trick, so he just get more and more nervous. Everyone was trying to convince the guy that it was nonsense to insist that the dog does the gesture, but the guy insisted up to the point the dog get really nervous and bite him (and get the biscuit!). To convict an animal does not make much sense, but they do have some free will and responsibility, and by using some serious tone in the voice, or some reward/punishment we can teach them. I also remember a cat who did look like he was felling guilty of something, and eventually we discovered he did pee in the living. Between human and higher mammals, it is just a question of degree, I think. I also think you're wrong to single out the Occident. The Orient has effectively combined religion and politics too. I agree. I was just citing Occident, because I know it better, and the political use has been quite effective and general. I am not sure there has been a buddhist state anywhere, nor a taoist state. Of course the antic pharaonic religion where the reason of the state existence, so that religion has been used before the christians as a way to build an identity for the people, and a reason for the king and family to keep the power, justified by the divine. For the Muslim religion has been political at the start, and some East countries have used religion indirectly. Shintoism does contribute to politics in Japan, but is not part of the constitutional rules. More research on this might be interesting. It is rather normal that the political leaders try to use the fundamental belief/science (or their time) to their profit. The marxist and materialist have also politicized science, but it led quickly to catastrophes, so that they took distance with it (cf Lyssenko's genetics). So you are right, anything related to profound question end up soon or later as tools to consolidate power. The use of health politics in the USA illustrates a similar phenomenon, and basically the idea is we will do the thinking for you, but it is just a matter of controlling you. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: deism and Newton
On 4/8/2012 5:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 08.04.2012 09:04 meekerdb said the following: On 4/7/2012 10:36 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.04.2012 22:16 meekerdb said the following: On 4/7/2012 5:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... More to this story http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/04/god-as-a-cosmic-operator.html where there are results of my search in Google. The story seems to have a happy end. Yet if Newton were a deist, then we would not have the Newton laws. What? You think he would have discarded his law of universal gravitation if he had been a deist? Why wouldn't he have just concluded the solar system was unstable and would eventually be dispersed? Ancient Babylonian records showed that the planetary system had been stable for a considerable time. At any rate, there was a clash between the facts and Newton's law of gravitation used without additional assumptions. Actually not. Newton's gravity would have shown that it would have been sufficiently stable much longer than Babylonian times - if Newton had been able to solve the multi-body problem. It is solved numerically now using computers. Why do you suppose the solar system has been stable enough to be predictable over millions of years? Do you think general relativity is necessary to explain that? Brent I believe that we should consider Newton in his historical context. As far as I have understood, because of not quite right empirical values (masses, etc.) and/or because of low level of mathematics that was available at his time, his use of his laws did not agree with observations. Right. There was no clash between the facts and Newton's law of gravitation used without additional assumptions. There was a clash between Newton's calculations of the consequences of his laws and the actual consequences. Hence his use of God. This also raises a question about mathematics that bothers me. If we assume that mathematics (for example Newton's laws written as equations) is the result of neuron spikes, then to me this whole story seems like a wonder. For example, try to think about the history of Newton's laws according to the quote from http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/matter_math_god.pdf (the references are in pdf) Materialists believe that mathematical objects exist only materially, in our brains.[3] Mathematical objects are believed to correspond to physical states of our brain and, as such, should ultimately be explicable by neuroscience in terms of biochemical laws. Stanislas Dehaene suggests that human brains come equipped at birth with an innate, wired-in ability for mathematics.[4] He postulates that, through evolution, the smallest integers (1, 2, 3 . . .) became hard-wired into the human nervous system, along with a crude ability to add and subtract. A similar position is defended by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez, who seek to explain mathematics as a system of metaphors that ultimately derive from neural processes.[5] Penelope Maddy conjectures that our nervous system contains higher order assemblies that correspond to thoughts of particular sets.[6] She posits that our beliefs about sets and other mathematical entities come, not from Platonic ideal forms, but, rather, from certain physical events, such as the development of pathways in neural systems. Such evolutionary explanations seek to derive all our mathematical thoughts from purely physical connections between neurons. The same view expounded by W. S. Cooper's book The Origin of Reason which I have recommended. Brent Finally a good quote from the same paper Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of theism, concluded from his study of the history of Greek philosophy that ‘‘Mathematics is . . . the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth, as well as in a supersensible intelligible world.’’. This shows nicely that the mathematicians have been as a fifth column all the time. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Primitive Awareness and Symmetry
On 4/8/2012 6:04 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:30 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: But is it an empirical question? What would it mean for neuroscience to find zombies? We have some idea what it would mean to find a soul: some seemingly purposeful sequence of brain processes begin without any physical cause. But I'm not sure what test you would perform on a zombie to find that it was not conscious. I think if we had a very detailed understanding of the human brain we might be able to study and intelligent robot or a zombie android at the same level and say something like, This zombie probably experiences numbers differently than people. But if it truly acted exactly like a human, we wouldn't be able to say what the difference was. Of course humans don't all act the same, some have synesthesia for example. So we might be able to say this zombie sees numbers with colors - but this would show up in the zombies actions too. It's not an empirical question since no experiment can prove that it isn't a zombie. However, I think that the question can be approached analytically. If zombies were possible then zombie brain components would be possible. If zombie brain components were possible then it would be possible to make a being that is a partial zombie; That doesn't follow. It assmes that zombieness is an attribute of components rather than of their functional organization. There can obviously be zombie (unconscious) components (e.g. quarks and electrons) which when properly assembled produce conscious beings. So the inference doesn't go the other way; the existence of zombie components doesn't imply you can make a zombie, partial or otherwise. for example, that was blind but behaved normally and did not realise it was blind. There are people like. But they are not partial zombie's. You say blind but behaved normally implying they behaved just as if sighted - but that's impossible. If partial zombies are possible then we could be partial zombies. Because we 'behave normally' without being able to see the polarization of light? We don't behave as if we can see it. Brent If we were partial zombies that would destroy the fundamental distinction between consciousness and zombiehood: that at least I know if I am conscious even if I can't prove it to others. So if zombies are possible then zombies are no different to conscious beings. Hence, either zombies are impossible or consciousness is impossible. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
On 4/8/2012 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I also think you're wrong to single out the Occident. The Orient has effectively combined religion and politics too. I agree. I was just citing Occident, because I know it better, and the political use has been quite effective and general. I am not sure there has been a buddhist state anywhere, nor a taoist state. In South Korea buddhism is recognized as an official religion (among others) and so it ia funded by the government. A few years ago this led to the strange sight of a melee of buddhist monks fighting in the street with rocks and bottles and sticks over which sect was the *true* buddhism which should get the government funds. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two Studies. Visual Cortex does not see. Consciousness is not thought.
On 08 Apr 2012, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote: On 4/8/2012 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I also think you're wrong to single out the Occident. The Orient has effectively combined religion and politics too. I agree. I was just citing Occident, because I know it better, and the political use has been quite effective and general. I am not sure there has been a buddhist state anywhere, nor a taoist state. In South Korea buddhism is recognized as an official religion (among others) Yes, but that is different. In my country some religion are officially recognized, and others not. For example catholicism is recongnized, but scientology is not. and so it ia funded by the government. Yes, that's the idea. I am not catholic, but I pay taxes a part of which can be used for religious purpose. Scientology get also money, but they have to use corruption, and things like that. A few years ago this led to the strange sight of a melee of buddhist monks fighting in the street with rocks and bottles and sticks over which sect was the *true* buddhism which should get the government funds. Yes, but again, that is different from having a state which imposes the same religion to all the subjects, like materialism in the USSR, or Christianism in the Roman Empire after +500.. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: deism and Newton
On 08 Apr 2012, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote: On 4/8/2012 5:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 08.04.2012 09:04 meekerdb said the following: On 4/7/2012 10:36 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.04.2012 22:16 meekerdb said the following: On 4/7/2012 5:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... More to this story http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/04/god-as-a-cosmic-operator.html where there are results of my search in Google. The story seems to have a happy end. Yet if Newton were a deist, then we would not have the Newton laws. What? You think he would have discarded his law of universal gravitation if he had been a deist? Why wouldn't he have just concluded the solar system was unstable and would eventually be dispersed? Ancient Babylonian records showed that the planetary system had been stable for a considerable time. At any rate, there was a clash between the facts and Newton's law of gravitation used without additional assumptions. Actually not. Newton's gravity would have shown that it would have been sufficiently stable much longer than Babylonian times - if Newton had been able to solve the multi-body problem. It is solved numerically now using computers. Why do you suppose the solar system has been stable enough to be predictable over millions of years? Do you think general relativity is necessary to explain that? Brent I believe that we should consider Newton in his historical context. As far as I have understood, because of not quite right empirical values (masses, etc.) and/or because of low level of mathematics that was available at his time, his use of his laws did not agree with observations. Right. There was no clash between the facts and Newton's law of gravitation used without additional assumptions. There was a clash between Newton's calculations of the consequences of his laws and the actual consequences. Hence his use of God. This also raises a question about mathematics that bothers me. If we assume that mathematics (for example Newton's laws written as equations) is the result of neuron spikes, then to me this whole story seems like a wonder. For example, try to think about the history of Newton's laws according to the quote from http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/matter_math_god.pdf (the references are in pdf) Materialists believe that mathematical objects exist only materially, in our brains.[3] Mathematical objects are believed to correspond to physical states of our brain and, as such, should ultimately be explicable by neuroscience in terms of biochemical laws. Stanislas Dehaene suggests that human brains come equipped at birth with an innate, wired-in ability for mathematics.[4] He postulates that, through evolution, the smallest integers (1, 2, 3 . . .) became hard-wired into the human nervous system, along with a crude ability to add and subtract. A similar position is defended by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez, who seek to explain mathematics as a system of metaphors that ultimately derive from neural processes.[5] Penelope Maddy conjectures that our nervous system contains higher order assemblies that correspond to thoughts of particular sets.[6] She posits that our beliefs about sets and other mathematical entities come, not from Platonic ideal forms, but, rather, from certain physical events, such as the development of pathways in neural systems. Such evolutionary explanations seek to derive all our mathematical thoughts from purely physical connections between neurons. The same view expounded by W. S. Cooper's book The Origin of Reason which I have recommended. But they confuse human mathematics and the mathematics (like notably elementary arithmetic) that they use to make sense to notion like brain, matter, etc. UDA just refute the conjunction of materialism and mechanism. This really leads to the elimination of the person (not to confuse with the elimination of the little ego in some mystic tradition)/ This is well illustrated in this (one hour) BBC broadcast, featuring Marcus de Sautoy (who wrote a nice book on the music of the primes). (thanks to the salvianaut linking to this in a salvia forum) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xjj8E Despite being mathematicians, de Sautoy still believes he is flesh and bones, and that consciousness is neuronal activity. His reasoning are valid, but uses implicitly both mechanism and the aristotelian conception of reality. That can't work (cf UDA). Bruno Brent Finally a good quote from the same paper Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of theism, concluded from his study of the history of Greek philosophy that ‘‘Mathematics is . . . the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth, as well as in a supersensible intelligible world.’’. This shows nicely that the mathematicians have been as a fifth column all the time. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to
Re: Primitive Awareness and Symmetry
2012/4/8 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 4/8/2012 6:04 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:30 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: But is it an empirical question? What would it mean for neuroscience to find zombies? We have some idea what it would mean to find a soul: some seemingly purposeful sequence of brain processes begin without any physical cause. But I'm not sure what test you would perform on a zombie to find that it was not conscious. I think if we had a very detailed understanding of the human brain we might be able to study and intelligent robot or a zombie android at the same level and say something like, This zombie probably experiences numbers differently than people. But if it truly acted exactly like a human, we wouldn't be able to say what the difference was. Of course humans don't all act the same, some have synesthesia for example. So we might be able to say this zombie sees numbers with colors - but this would show up in the zombies actions too. It's not an empirical question since no experiment can prove that it isn't a zombie. However, I think that the question can be approached analytically. If zombies were possible then zombie brain components would be possible. If zombie brain components were possible then it would be possible to make a being that is a partial zombie; That doesn't follow. It assmes that zombieness is an attribute of components rather than of their functional organization. There can obviously be zombie (unconscious) components (e.g. quarks and electrons) which when properly assembled produce conscious beings. I could only say you're right and you're wrong. Consciousness and being is lived as a whole. From your own POV, you can't say zombieness is an attribute of components rather than of their functional organization, because you feel it. Whenever you say such thing, you can't be honest with yourself... that's not an argument. It's just proper English So the inference doesn't go the other way; the existence of zombie components doesn't imply you can make a zombie, partial or otherwise. for example, that was blind but behaved normally and did not realise it was blind. There are people like. But they are not partial zombie's. You say blind but behaved normally implying they behaved just as if sighted - but that's impossible. If partial zombies are possible then we could be partial zombies. Because we 'behave normally' without being able to see the polarization of light? We don't behave as if we can see it. Brent If we were partial zombies that would destroy the fundamental distinction between consciousness and zombiehood: that at least I know if I am conscious even if I can't prove it to others. So if zombies are possible then zombies are no different to conscious beings. Hence, either zombies are impossible or consciousness is impossible. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Primitive Awareness and Symmetry
On 4/8/2012 5:52 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/4/8 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 4/8/2012 6:04 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:30 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But is it an empirical question? What would it mean for neuroscience to find zombies? We have some idea what it would mean to find a soul: some seemingly purposeful sequence of brain processes begin without any physical cause. But I'm not sure what test you would perform on a zombie to find that it was not conscious. I think if we had a very detailed understanding of the human brain we might be able to study and intelligent robot or a zombie android at the same level and say something like, This zombie probably experiences numbers differently than people. But if it truly acted exactly like a human, we wouldn't be able to say what the difference was. Of course humans don't all act the same, some have synesthesia for example. So we might be able to say this zombie sees numbers with colors - but this would show up in the zombies actions too. It's not an empirical question since no experiment can prove that it isn't a zombie. However, I think that the question can be approached analytically. If zombies were possible then zombie brain components would be possible. If zombie brain components were possible then it would be possible to make a being that is a partial zombie; That doesn't follow. It assmes that zombieness is an attribute of components rather than of their functional organization. There can obviously be zombie (unconscious) components (e.g. quarks and electrons) which when properly assembled produce conscious beings. I could only say you're right and you're wrong. Consciousness and being is lived as a whole. From your own POV, you can't say zombieness is an attribute of components rather than of their functional organization, because you feel it. I didn't say it. I said that was what Stathis argument assumed. Whenever you say such thing, you can't be honest with yourself... that's not an argument. It's just proper English Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
