Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > > > > Le Dimanche 26 Novembre 2006 22:54, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : > > <SNIP> > >> What point is there in bothering with it. The philosophical zombie is > >> ASSUMED to be equivalent! This is failure before you even start! It's > >> wrong and it's proven wrong because there is a conclusively logically > >> and > >> empirically provable function that the zombie cannot possibly do without > >> phenomenality: SCIENCE. The philosophical zombie would have to know > >> everything a-priori, which makes science meaningless. There is no > >> novelty > >> to a philosophical zombie. It would have to anticipate all forms of > >> randomness or chaotic behaviour.... NUTS. > > > > But that's exactly what all the arguments is about !! Either identical > > functionnal behavior entails consciousness either there is some magical > > property needed plus identical functionnal behavior to entails > > consciousness. > > > >> This is failure before you even start! > > > > But the point is to assume this "nonsense" to take a "conclusion", to see > > where it leads. Why imagine a "possible" zombie which is functionnally > > identical if there weren't any dualistic view in the first place ! Only in > > dualistic framework it is possible to imagine a functionnally equivalent > > to > > human yet lacking consciousness, the other way is that functionnally > > equivalence *requires* consciousness (you can't have functionnally > > equivalence without consciousness). > > > >> This is failure before you even start! > > > > That's what you're doing... you haven't prove that zombie can't do science > > because the "zombie" point is not on what they can do or not, it is the > > fact > > that either acting like we act (human way) entails necessarily to have > > consciousness or it does not (meaning that there exists an extra property > > beyond behavior, an extra thing undetectable from > > seeing/living/speaking/... > > with the "zombie" that gives rise to consciousness)L. > > > > You haven't prove that zombie can't do science because you tells it at the > > starting of the argument. The argument should be weither or not it is > > possible to have a *complete* *functionnal* (human) replica yet lacking > > consciousness. > > > > Quentin > > > > Scientist_A does science. > > Scientist_A closes his eyes and finds the ability to do science radically > altered. > > Continue the process and you eliminate all scientific behaviour. > > The failure of scientific behaviour correlates perfectly with the lack of > phenomenal cosnciousness.
Closing your eyes cuts of sensory data as well. So: not proven. > Empirical fact: > > "Human scientists have phenomenal consciousness" > > also > "Phenomenal consciousness is the source of all our scientific evidence" > > ergo > > "Phenomenal consciousness exists and is sufficient and necessary for human > scientific behaviour" Doesn't follow. the fact that you use X to do Y doesn't make Z necessary for Y. Something else could be used instead. legs and locomotion... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---