Ok, well I read part 2 three times and I seem not to be getting the importance or the crux of it.
I hate to ask this, but could you possibly summarize it in some different way, in the hopes of getting through to me?? I agree that the standard scientific approach to explanation breaks when presented with consciousness. I do not (yet) understand your proposed alternative approach to explanation. If anyone on this list *does* understand it, feel free to chip in with your own attempted summary... thx ben On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben Goertzel wrote: >> >> Richard, >> >> So are you saying that: "According to the ordinary scientific standards of >> 'explanation', the subjective experience of consciousness cannot be >> explained ... and as a consequence, the relationship between subjective >> consciousness and physical data (as required to be elucidated by any >> solution to Chalmers' "hard problem" as normally conceived) also cannot be >> explained." >> >> If so, then: according to the ordinary scientific standards of >> explanation, you are not explaining consciousness, nor explaining the >> relation btw consciousness and the physical ... but are rather **explaining >> why, due to the particular nature of consciousness and its relationship to >> the ordinary scientific standards of explanation, this kind of explanation >> is not possible** >> >> ?? > > No! > > If you write the above, then you are summarizing the question that I pose at > the half-way point of the paper, just before the second part gets underway. > > The "ordinary scientific standards of explanation" are undermined by > questions about consciousness. They break. You cannot use them. They > become internally inconsistent. You cannot say "I hereby apply the standard > mechanism of 'explanation' to Problem X", but then admit that Problem X IS > the very mechanism that is responsible for determining the 'explanation' > method you are using, AND the one thing you know about that mechanism is > that you can see a gaping hole in the mechanism! > > You have to find a way to mend that broken standard of explanation. > > I do that in part 2. > > So far we have not discussed the whole paper, only part 1. > > > > Richard Loosemore > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
