[extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.

[Emlyn]

On 29/11/05, Brent Allsop <allsop at extropy.org> wrote:
>
> Eliezer,
>
> I've always wondered what your opinion on qualia and phenomenal properties
> was.  You give a hint here when you say:
>
> > Of course people who try to invent a separate magisterium just end up
> > inventing hypotheses about things that exist and make other things
> > happen - no matter how often the speaker repeats phrases like
> > "non-causal", "unobservable", and "separate magisterium".
>
> Did you read my post with subject: "spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia
> Bet.)"?
>
> When I talk about phenomenal properties of matter in addition to causal
> properties of matter - this is something real and not something like you are
> referring to here as "non-causal", "unobservable", and "separate
> magisterium" right?
>

"phenomenal properties in addition to causal" *means* you think there
are relevant non-causal properties of conciousness, which is a
"separate magisterium". Bot Robin and Eli have brought up the same
point that I did early in this discussion - somewhere you need a magic
connection between that "non-causal" stuff and your mundane causal
neural network, or you can't have cognition about qualia. So if these
phenomenal properties are not just figments of our imagination, or
epiphenomenal if you wish to euphemize, you must in principle be able
to map out the machinery of the brain and find a point where neurons
fire, in some coherent, systematic way, but due to no observable
cause.


--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
NaNoWriMo word count: 43028 (http://nanowrimo.org)