also, unless we come up with a clever way of raising the cost of reneging, we wont be able to make any bets
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013, Dennis Ochei wrote: > 1) rationality (logic) in this case is to mean founded on justified > principles. This is inherently a normative judgment. the principles that > govern a deterministic system needn't appeal to our psychology as > justified, this is what i mean by determined doesn't mean logical. none of > my desires seem to me logically justified, but that doesnt imply they are > not deterministic. > > 2) your thesis is essentially, "i cant see how a set of rules could lead > to to desire, i cant see how a set of rules could lead something that has > experiences that seem to have irreducible qualities, therefore there can be > no such rules." that's fine i suppose, but I'm unable to pretend that your > blindness is some sort of insight. i just think you havent looked hard > enough > > On Tuesday, September 3, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 8:57:13 PM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote: > > Craig, > > What UV looks like will depend on how it is transduced into the nervous > system. I could add a new opsin into your blue cones and it would appear to > be a shade of blue. > > > Sure, we can look at an infra-red camera too and see IR light as green or > some other color. That isn't what I'm talking about. I am talking about new > primary colors. > > > Or, I could achieve the transduction in such a way that UV doesn't confuse > with blue. In which case UV will look different from other colors *in way > you cannot describe because you don't have access to how you condition your > behavior based of the intensity of UV light. * > > > It wouldn't matter if you did have access to how you condition your > "behavior based on the intensity of the UV light". Color cannot be > described, it can only be experienced directly. I don't want you to waste > our time trying to tell me what I already know. > > > http://multisenserealism.com/thesis/light-revisited/is-visible-light-electromagnetic/ > > > > > I've told you in a rudimentary form what is required to build a system > that has drives and motivations, from parts that are inanimate. > > > Not at all. You are projecting drives and motivations onto a system that > is unconsciously serving a function that serves your drives and motivations. > > > Nature has constructed such a device using 302 neurons. It learns, and it > has motivations. > > > The neurons are an expression of the motivations, not the other way around. > > > Is your argument here that if we model the nematode deterministically, its > ability to learn and its biological drives will vanish like smoke? > > > Does a rabbit's taste for carrots vanish just because we model him as Bugs > Bunny? Yes. Models, cartoons, figures, functions, shapes, descriptions, > simulations...none of them can have any sense of being or feeling. Bugs > Bunny is not a rabbit. He is a symbol which reminds our psychology of > particular themes which overlap with rabbit themes. > > > Because if so, I'd bet good money that you're wrong. > > > Sure, I'd love to take that bet. I was going to say $10,000 but I don't > think that you are going to pay that when you lose. What amount sounds good? > > > Drives are traceable to electrochemical gradients "trying" to resolve > themselves, driven by thermodynamic laws. Logic is how the pipes are > connected up, desire is the water pump. > > > I agree that microphysical events correspond to microphenomenal > experiences, but that does not mean that all that has to happen to scale up > an inanimate object's thermodynamic motives to mammalian quality emotions > is that it must be configured in the correct shapes. That is an assumption, > and a seductively popular one, but it is 100% wrong. Using the hypothesis > of sense as the sole universal primitive, we should anticipate that the > relevant qualifier of sensitivity is not structure but experience. Giving > your cat a computer will not make him computer literate, and dressing a > water pump up in human clothes does not cause a human. The clues are all > around us. No machine or program has every succeeded in being anything but > completely impersonal and psychologically empty. > > > Furthermore, deterministic does not equal logical. There is no logic > behind why opposites attract, even though this logically leads to like > dissolving like. Whatever axioms there are in this universe > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
