[extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.

[Dirk Bruere]

On 11/28/05, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Which Hammeroff and Penrose attempt.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051128/7605ef49/attachment.html>