On 13 Feb 2015, at 19:52, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 February 2015 at 15:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The problem of terms like epiphenomenalism (and some other ...ism)
is that they are defined implicitly only in the Aristotelian
picture. They *can* acquire different meanings
On 14 February 2015 at 18:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/13/2015 10:05 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You mean a conscious being cannot have a zombie equivalent, i.e. a being
that behaves the same but is not conscious. In other words the
philosophical zombie is impossible: if
On 12 Feb 2015, at 13:20, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 18:14, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Which means that consciousness tests are in theory possible, and
non-conscious zombies that exhibit those certain behaviors are
prohibited.
No, as per my answer to
On 13 February 2015 at 15:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The problem of terms like epiphenomenalism (and some other ...ism) is
that they are defined implicitly only in the Aristotelian picture. They
*can* acquire different meanings in the platonician picture.
Yes, I agree. In a
On Saturday, February 14, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2015, at 13:20, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 18:14, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Which means that consciousness tests are in theory possible, and
non-conscious zombies that
On Saturday, February 14, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/12/2015 10:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, February 13, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','meeke...@verizon.net'); wrote:
On 2/11/2015 10:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/12/2015 10:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, February 13, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2015 10:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On 12 February 2015 at 18:14, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Which means that consciousness tests are in theory possible, and
non-conscious zombies that exhibit those certain behaviors are
prohibited.
No, as per my answer to Brent.
The logic above alone does not tell us what
On 2/12/2015 9:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 18:14, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Which means that consciousness
On 2/11/2015 10:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2015 7:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If zombies are impossible then what can be shown is that IF a certain
being is conscious THEN it is impossible to make a zombie
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/12/2015 9:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 18:14, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Which means that
On Friday, February 13, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2015 10:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2015 7:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If zombies are impossible then what can be shown is that
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 18:14, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Which means that consciousness tests are in theory possible, and
non-conscious zombies that exhibit those certain behaviors are
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
[Brent Meeker] If consciousness were unnecessary it would not be an
epiphenomenon, i.e.
something that NECESSARILY accompanies the phenomena
On 12 February 2015 at 08:05, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely the unconscious part of the mind is a partial zombie ?
(For example I have an inexplicable craving for chocolate which originates
somewhere in my subconscious. So my conscious thoughts are ruled by a zombie
which is partial to
Surely the unconscious part of the mind is a partial zombie ?
(For example I have an inexplicable craving for chocolate which originates
somewhere in my subconscious. So my conscious thoughts are ruled by a
zombie which is partial to chocolate.)
--
You received this message because you are
On 12 February 2015 at 02:56, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
[Brent Meeker] If consciousness were unnecessary it would not be an
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely the unconscious part of the mind is a partial zombie ?
(For example I have an inexplicable craving for chocolate which originates
somewhere in my subconscious. So my conscious thoughts are ruled by a
zombie which is
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 02:56, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch
On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result in
physicaly detectable differences in behavior? This is counter to the
belief
of epiphenominalism, where consciousness is take-it-or-leave-it
On 2/11/2015 7:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result in
physicaly detectable differences in behavior? This is counter to the
belief
of epiphenominalism, where
On 12 February 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2015 7:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If zombies are impossible then what can be shown is that IF a certain
being is conscious THEN it is impossible to make a zombie equivalent.
But this cannot be used to show that
On 12 February 2015 at 17:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:43 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb
On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
[Brent Meeker] If consciousness were unnecessary it would not be an
epiphenomenon, i.e.
something that NECESSARILY accompanies the phenomena of thoughts. Is heat
necessary to random molecular motion?
As I and others
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result
in
physicaly detectable differences in behavior? This is counter to
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 17:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch
On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 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
On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On 2/10/2015 10:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/10/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 07 Feb 2015, at 00:36, PGC wrote:
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 7:27:25 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2015, at 19:30, meekerdb wrote:
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
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 7:27:25 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2015, at 19:30, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 6 February 2015 at 04:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/5/2015 5:57 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 February 2015 at 01:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You seem intent on defining terms in order to dimiss them. For example,
why is taking mental to be re-description
On 05 Feb 2015, at 19:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/5/2015 6:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
To simplify, you can consider a competence as an ability to follow
a program P_i or to compute the corresponding partial or total
function phi_i.
Learning can then be described as the inverse:
On 05 Feb 2015, at 19:30, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 2/5/2015 5:57 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 February 2015 at 01:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You seem intent on defining terms in order to dimiss them. For example,
why is
taking mental to be re-description of the physical elimininativism?
On 04 Feb 2015, at 21:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-02-04 21:03 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/4/2015 11:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-02-04 20:00 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/4/2015 1:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
So I agree completely that there
On 4 February 2015 at 12:49, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:11, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An epiphenomenon is a necessary side-effect of the primary phenomenon.
The epiphenomenon has no separate causal efficacy of its own; if it
did, then
On 04 Feb 2015, at 21:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/4/2015 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person
observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:54 AM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 5 February 2015 at 13:35, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 12:49, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:11, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2/5/2015 12:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:54 AM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com
mailto:da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 5 February 2015 at 13:35, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 12:49,
On 05 Feb 2015, at 15:54, David Nyman wrote:
On 5 February 2015 at 13:35, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 12:49, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:11, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An epiphenomenon is a
On 5 February 2015 at 13:35, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 12:49, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:11, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
An epiphenomenon is a necessary side-effect of the primary phenomenon.
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
On 4 February 2015 at 19:47, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/4/2015 9:02 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 05:11, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
As I understand it, being an epiphenomenon means one can give a causal
account of the phenomenon without
In all dualist models the mental cannot be explained in terms of the
physical, and the physical cannot be explained in terms of the mental.
When you say they are different models of the same process, you are
defining the situation in a monist sense: you accept there is only one
nature and the
On 5 February 2015 at 21:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This looks like dualism in name only to me. The mental is just a
different model of the same process modeled physically. Just as
thermodynamics is different model for statistical mechanics.
But you're not describing
On 6 February 2015 at 01:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You seem intent on defining terms in order to dimiss them. For example,
why is taking mental to be re-description of the physical
elimininativism? Does it eliminate the physical or the mental - or
neither. If I describe heat
On 2/5/2015 4:41 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 5 February 2015 at 21:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This looks like dualism in name only to me. The mental is just a
different model
of the same process modeled physically. Just as thermodynamics is
On 05 Feb 2015, at 14:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 12:49, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:11, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An epiphenomenon is a necessary side-effect of the primary
phenomenon.
The epiphenomenon
On 2/5/2015 6:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
To simplify, you can consider a competence as an ability to follow a program P_i or to
compute the corresponding partial or total function phi_i.
Learning can then be described as the inverse: finding i (or j ...) when you are
presented with a
2015-02-05 19:25 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/5/2015 6:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
To simplify, you can consider a competence as an ability to follow a
program P_i or to compute the corresponding partial or total function phi_i.
Learning can then be described as the
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
On 4 February 2015 at 05:11, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
As I understand it, being an epiphenomenon means one can give a causal
account of the phenomenon without mentioning it. But the epiphenomenon
necessarily accompanies the phenomenon. In the case of consciousness
2015-02-04 9:10 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/3/2015 11:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-02-04 7:43 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Well the question is something conscious? is binary, like is
something alive?.
On 2/3/2015 11:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Well the question is something conscious? is binary, like is something alive?.
However there is a great
On 2/3/2015 11:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-02-04 7:43 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Well the question is something conscious? is binary, like is
something
alive?. However there is a
On 2/4/2015 12:14 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 9:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If epiphenominalism is possible, then that it implies zombies are possible. All they
would require is cutting
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 9:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If epiphenominalism is possible, then that it implies zombies are
possible. All they would require is cutting the causal link from the
physical world to the mental world.
But the
2015-02-04 9:58 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-02-04 9:10 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/3/2015 11:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-02-04 7:43 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Well the question
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.
If we build
On 2/4/2015 9:02 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 05:11, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
As I understand it, being an epiphenomenon means one can give a causal
account of the phenomenon without mentioning it. But the epiphenomenon
On 04 Feb 2015, at 02:49, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:11, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An epiphenomenon is a necessary side-effect of the primary phenomenon.
The epiphenomenon has no separate causal efficacy of its own; if it
did, then we could devise a test
On 04 Feb 2015, at 03:43, John Clark wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong but to me that all seems pretty contrived and
intended to show that humans are superior, but it doesn't work
because if true humans are doomed to be intellectually inferior to
computers because their brain is organized in a
On 2/4/2015 11:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-02-04 20:00 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/4/2015 1:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
So I agree completely that there are levels of consciousness, as there
level of
carness, but there is a
On 04 Feb 2015, at 02:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2015 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable
effects, it would be an
On 2/4/2015 1:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
So I agree completely that there are levels of consciousness, as there level of carness,
but there is a level (whatever it is) which when you're below it, there is no more
consciousness... like when it's 0 it's 0, it's no more positive, whatever word
On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, 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.
I'm
On 2/4/2015 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, 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
2015-02-04 20:00 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/4/2015 1:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
So I agree completely that there are levels of consciousness, as there
level of carness, but there is a level (whatever it is) which when you're
below it, there is no more consciousness...
2015-02-04 21:03 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/4/2015 11:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-02-04 20:00 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/4/2015 1:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
So I agree completely that there are levels of consciousness, as there
level of
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
On 04 Feb 2015, at 03:52, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
We don't need consciousness to follow the plan A. But we need it
to be aware of the plan B, and retrieve it quickly in case of urgence.
OK, so consciousness does effect
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/4/2015 12:14 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 9:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If epiphenominalism is possible, then that it implies zombies are
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 11:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Well the question is something conscious? is binary, like is
something
On 4 February 2015 at 12:18, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What could such a test even look like?
Determining whether the brain or CPU of the supposedly conscious entity was
performing computations or processing information in a manner consistent
with those processes that
On 4 February 2015 at 12:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
As I understand it, being an epiphenomenon means one can give a causal
account of the phenomenon without mentioning it. But the epiphenomenon
necessarily accompanies the phenomenon. In the case of consciousness it's
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 12:18, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What could such a test even look like?
Determining whether the brain or CPU of the supposedly conscious entity
was
performing
On 2/3/2015 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects,
it
would be an
On 2/3/2015 6:43 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Mutations happen all the time and nearly all of them are harmful. In
most animals If a mutation happens that
renders it blind that will be a
On 2/3/2015 7:20 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm arguing that might have been necessary for for the evolution of
intelligence
starting from say fish. But that doesn't entail that is
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 2:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with John. If
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 12:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
As I understand it, being an epiphenomenon means one can give a causal
account of the phenomenon without mentioning it. But the epiphenomenon
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Mutations happen all the time and nearly all of them are harmful. In
most animals If a mutation happens that renders it blind that will be a
severe handicap and the animal will not live long enough to pass that
mutated gene
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm arguing that might have been necessary for for the evolution of
intelligence starting from say fish. But that doesn't entail that is
necessary for any intelligent system.
And maybe men need consciousness to behave
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We don't need consciousness to follow the plan A. But we need it to be
aware of the plan B, and retrieve it quickly in case of urgence.
OK, so consciousness does effect behavior and the Turing Test works.
Consciousness
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But according to your theory all that junk DNA should be eliminated. It
has no behavioral effect and so evolution can't see it as someone is fond
of writing.
But the unit that Evolution works on is not the species or
On 2/3/2015 2:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with John. If
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
.
If we build computers that discuss and question their own
consciousness and qualia I'd consider that proof enough that they are.
But is that the standard of intelligence? JKC argues
intelligence=consciousness. What
On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Well the question is something conscious? is binary, like is something
alive?.
However there is a great spectrum of possible living entities, and a
massive gulf
that separates the simplest life forms from the most complex life forms. I
2015-02-04 7:43 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Well the question is something conscious? is binary, like is
something alive?. However there is a great spectrum of possible living
entities, and a massive gulf that separates the simplest
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Well the question is something conscious? is binary, like is
something alive?. However there is a great spectrum of possible living
entities, and a massive gulf that separates the
On 2/3/2015 9:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If epiphenominalism is possible, then that it implies zombies are possible. All they
would require is cutting the causal link from the physical world to the mental world.
But the definition of epiphenominalism includes that it /*necessarily */accompanies
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, 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
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
