From: Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2004 - 20:57:39 MST
I just read that paper, which briefly mentions absent, fading and inverted
qualia. But clearly those ideas are in the domain of philosophy; I don't
understand what you think is "scientific" about them. How do they relate to
any replicable experiments?
I tend to accept Chalmers' conclusion that functionally similar entities
will tend to have similar qualia. I don't see this as contradicting
panpsychism. Not at all. I think that functionally similar rocks will tend
to have similar qualia ;-)
-- Ben G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sl4@sl4.org [mailto:owner-sl4@sl4.org]On Behalf Of Mark
> Waser
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 8:56 PM
> To: sl4@sl4.org
> Subject: Re: What exactly is "panpsychism"?
>
>
> > I would be curious to know what "scientific evidence" you're
> referring to.
>
> Things like absent qualia, fading qualia, and inverted qualia
> (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/qualia.html).
>
> <google on qualia to find a lot more like the above>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ben Goertzel" <ben@goertzel.org>
> To: <sl4@sl4.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 5:31 PM
> Subject: RE: What exactly is "panpsychism"?
>
>
> >
> >
> > > I would
> > > also argue
> > > that rocks don't have qualia unless they have some sort of
> consciousness.
> > > And I would point out that there is scientific evidence that seems to
> > > support these points of view and many learned experts and philosophers
> who
> > > will debate the qualia point that seems to have become the
> > > orthodoxy of this
> > > list.
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > There is no orthodox opinion about qualia on SL4, I'm certain of that.
> >
> > I would be curious to know what "scientific evidence" you're
> referring to.
> >
> > -- Ben G
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT