[ExI] [Extropolis] test this idea
dsunley at gmail.com
Tue Jan 10 20:36:45 UTC 2023
See also (hilariously)
It turns out that it's impossible to distinguish between normal people and
p-zombies, /unless/ they're talking about consciousness: P-zombies write
off the hard problem of consciousness as meaningless syllables.
I dunno about y'all, but when I introspect on my consciousness, there's
things there that are an ontologically different kind of thing than calcium
ions bouncing from one side to the other of a lipid membrane.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 12:52 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> OK, let's everybody jump on me: how about this: consciousness is the
> private experiences of a person's inner and outer world. It is nothing
> more than an awareness of incoming stimuli (at least some of them) from the
> outside world and from the person's unconscious mind and short term memory
> (temporary storage of experiences). This awareness is greatly turned off
> in sleep (though powerful stimuli can get through and awaken the person).
> Simple things like EEG can determine the level of awareness (and they claim
> they can tell sometimes what a person is dreaming!).
> If consciousness is anything more than the above, let me know. Maybe I am
> naive but I can learn. I don't think there is any mystery to it.
> Certainly not any ghosts. bill w
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:09 PM Terren Suydam <terren.suydam at gmail.com>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:08 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:44 AM Terren Suydam <terren.suydam at gmail.com>
>>> >> The obvious answer is that our world appears to be lawfully ordered
>>>>> and constrained by the laws of physics because our universe *IS* lawfully
>>>>> ordered and constrained by the laws of physics. And Occam's razor
>>>>> says the simplest explanation that explains an observation is the best.
>>>> *> Yes, that is the obvious answer, but sometimes the obvious answers
>>>> are wrong.*
>>> But usually they are not, usually Occam's razor is a very effective
>>> strategy and I see absolutely no reason to deviate from it in this
>> But you said yourself that you need to sweep some inconvenient facts
>> under the rug to make physicalism work. Even if you ultimately choose not
>> to deviate from it, that is clearly a reason to do so.
>>>> *>>> It's just saying that the Hard Problem is a proof that the axioms
>>>>>> at the heart of physicalism are wrong.*
>>>>> >>If I knew exactly what the hard problem was maybe I'd agree I don't
>>>>> know. But at least tell me this, tell me what sort of thing would convince
>>>>> you that the "hard problem" had been solved? If somebody said X produces
>>>>> consciousness then what sort of thing would X have to be, could it be
>>>>> complex and made of many parts or would it have to be simple and be all of
>>>>> one thing and not have parts at all? I'm assuming you would demand that X
>>>>> be pure objective stuff since you're trying to figure out how to jump over
>>>>> the huge subjective/objective gap. Is my assumption correct?
>>>> *> I don't think the hard problem can be solved, that's why I'm no
>>>> longer a physicalist. I think the "Hard Problem" is actually a poor name
>>>> for what it's describing, because calling something a problem suggests
>>>> there's a solution. It's more of a category error. Idealism makes the
>>>> category error go away. Nothing "produces" consciousness. Consciousness is
>>> So your brute fact is that something as wonderful and complex as c
>>> onsciousness just is, and that's that. My brute fact is that something
>>> as wonderful and complex as consciousness is the result of the simplest
>>> thing conceivable, something that can have only 2 states, for example on or
>>> off. I like my brute fact better and I'm pretty sure William of Ockham
>>> would too, and as an added bonus it agrees with experimental results (the
>>> effects of anesthesia and poison) which your brute fact does not.
>> Your brute fact is a category error and a base contradiction. It's saying
>> the ghost *is *the machine, and yet physicalism only allows machines.
>> For physicalists who allow consciousness, they are at complete odds with
>> the rest of their metaphysics. They allow it because they have to (unless
>> they're courageous enough to deny consciousness), but it's a terribly
>> inconvenient fact that consciousness exists, which is why most physicalists
>> would really rather not talk about it.
>>> John K Clark
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "extropolis" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "extropolis" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat