[ExI] Zombie glutamate
johnkclark at gmail.com
Thu Feb 19 03:20:27 UTC 2015
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't need a proof to convince myself I'm conscious because I have
>> something much better than proof, direct experience.
> > This way goes solipsism.
I don't think so but even if it did the fact remains that I know from
direct experience that I am conscious, I need no theories or proofs to know
that. I have a theory that you're conscious too but only when you behave
intelligently, not when you're sleeping or under anesthesia or dead.
> > If you are not a solipsist
I am not a solipsist for the same reason you're not, because I believe in
the theory that if something behaves intelligently then it is conscious.
And I'm not alone, every single person on this list believes in and uses
this theory every minute of every day of their lives; ...well OK there is
one exception, there is one time when some don't believe in the theory,
when they're arguing philosophy on the internet.
> you believe that there is a world out there, with trees, animals and
> other objects that have an existence independent of you. Their existence
> and properties are inferred from sensory data
Yes, but I don't need to do any inferring to figure out I'm conscious.
> To say that consciousness of some of these objects in your world model is
> inherently unknowable is solipsistic - you demand special proof where the
> usual coherent model of the world should be sufficient.
What are you talking about? I specifically said I DON'T demand proof, the
evidence for the theory that I'm not the only conscious being in the
universe is so overwhelming that it's just not worth worrying about it
being wrong. Nevertheless the fact remains I have direct experience with
just one consciousness.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat