On 31 March 2015 at 11:11, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 31 March 2015 at 01:08, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Monday, March 30, 2015, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 30 March 2015 at 19:26, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Fading qualia in the setting of normal behaviour, if logically >>>>> possible, would destroy the common idea of consciousness that we have. >>>>> It would mean, for example, that you could have gone blind last week >>>>> but not realise it. You would look at a painting, describe the >>>>> painting, have an emotional response to the painting - but lack any >>>>> visual experience of the painting. If that is possible, what meaning >>>>> is left to attribute to the word "qualia"? >>>>> >>>>> Well, it would mean that comp is false, because the electronic >>>> replacements are not generating any conscious experience despite having >>>> their I/O matched to the rest of the brain. That would mean there is >>>> something else involved, something that isn't generated by computation. >>>> >>> >>> But if that were so it would allow the above described situation, where >>> you could lack qualia but it would make no difference to you, rendering >>> the idea of consciousness meaningless. >>> >>> I thought the idea of fading qualia was that it *would* make a >> difference? Like you find yourself unable to appreciate some particular >> sensation as you used to? Otherwise why "fading" ? >> > > Obviously qualia can fade; if your ulnar nerve is damaged, then sensation > in your little finger will be reduced. But the interesting idea is if comp > is false and there is a decoupling between qualia and behaviour. Your ulnar > nerve is damaged and it is replaced with a functionally perfect artificial > nerve. This means that, for example, your speech centre, through a series > of neural relays, will receive the usual input and you will declare that > you have normal sensation and pass any objective test of motor and sensory > function in your hand. However, it turns out that, contrary to > comp/functionalism, perfect function is not enough to reproduce the qualia, > so your hand is actually numb - it's just that there is no subjective or > objective evidence of the numbness. But in that case, what possible meaning > could be given to the word "numb"? This is the sort of weirdness that > denial of comp can lead to. > > Hmm! Yes, OK - Put like that, it does seem weird. -- 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/d/optout.
