<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><br></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><br>On 29/04/2013, at 1:14 AM, Brent Allsop <<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@canonizer.com">brent.allsop@canonizer.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><div><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>No, No, No. You guys still aren't getting it. Let me try, yet again, in hopefully a better and more complete (thanks to your continued help) way of describing what I believe.</span><br><span></span><br><span>This 'third' class of possibilities you are talking about is obviously accepted by everyone I know to be absurd. Yet everyone in your camp seems to spend all their time fighting this strawman, as if everyone was giving it serious consideration. James Carroll wrote and published an entire paper fighting this straw man 'third' class of epiphenomena possibilities idea. You guys need to stop making fun of everyone not in your camp, as if they are talking about this 'third' class of possibilities. Including things where you don't notice fading qualia, or any other kind of" epiphenomena" that has no causal correlate in reality.</span><br><span></span><br><span>(Note: Since I mentioned James Carroll, and his paper, and since I'd like his input on this, I've CCed him. And I've CCed Steven Lehar, in case we can get some of his always brilliant feedback on this epiphenomena issue.)</span><br></div></blockquote><br><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; ">FWIW here is part of a post by James Carroll indicating he agrees with the fading qualia argument:</div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); "><br></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); "><a href="http://jlcarroll.blogspot.com.au/?m=1">http://jlcarroll.blogspot.com.au/?m=1</a></span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: none; color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.792969); font-family: HelveticaNeue; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><a href="http://rroll.blogspot.com.au/?m=1">rroll.blogspot.com.au/?m=1</a></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><br></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; ">--</div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto; "><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="text-align: justify; ">Thus, if matter can carry some "fundamental" interpretation that allows consciousness (as MPD claims), then so can information (as FPD claims). And there is no reason to suppose that matter is any "better" at carrying this fundamental property that allows for the interpretation of experience than is information. Therefore, inasmuch as the single objection to FPD (proper interpretation) has been removed, and there are compelling reasons to prefer FPD over MPD (we haven't found any evidence of specific materials that perform this function in the brain, and David Chalmer's "</span><a href="http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none; display: inline; text-align: justify; ">fading qualia</a><span style="text-align: justify; ">" and "</span><a href="http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html" style="outline: none; text-decoration: none; display: inline; text-align: justify; ">dancing qualia</a><span style="text-align: justify; ">" thought experiments STRONGLY indicate that consciousness must be found in the functional aspects of the brain, not in its material properties), it seems that we should all now prefer FPD over MPD.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto; "><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="text-align: justify; ">--</span></span></div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto; "><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="text-align: justify; "><br></span></span></div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto; "><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="text-align: justify; "><br></span></span></div></body></html>