Book recommendation Re: [FoRK] Re: anybody remember...
<jbone at place.org> on
Mon Jul 9 17:47:15 PDT 2007
On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Lion Kimbro wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>> Yeah, yeah... Chalmers will deny being a computationalist on some
>> level, but if you read the actual arguments, he's toeing the line.
> I'm a computationalist as well;
> I believe that computational states are mental states.
> It still doesn't answer the hard problem of consciousness,
> and it still doesn't give us any real answers about why there's
The hardest COMP hypothesis of all is, of course, that these are
exactly the kind of question I brought up earlier: "what color is
Thursday?" I.e., questions without answers, therefore not worth
asking or worrying about too much.
> Like Alan Turing, I believe that when I die, the soul that I am
> may well reincarnate into a computer.
Hello, Tipler... ;-)
> Chalmers' approach is to pull out a list of all the possibilities,
> and then think about what we have to give and take should we
> accept any of them.
Yes, but the problem is he frames it in the rhetorical trappings of
earlier philosophical (pre- or psuedo-scientific) exploration of
consciousness; while I won't at all deny that Chalmers is a Real
Scientist (tm) and there's lots of juicy bits in the whole
presentation, I find it hard to track his thought when he delves into
conclusion. It's a bit as if he's thinking of really hard problems
in a very deep way, but trying to frame the answers in a deprecated
mode of thought. "Is there phlogiston?" "What is the essential
character of the Philosophick Mercury?" It's as if he doesn't have
the courage of his own convictions.
> You say tomatoe, I say tomato.
Indeed. (Actually, backwards: I say tomato, and insist that it is
more "linguistically efficient.")
Yet though we talk about the same thing, you insist on differences
that I say are not meaningful at all.
> So I just call it Soul, and if you think I mean "karma" or
> cosmic bank accounts or records of good and evil and so on,
> that'll just be your problem. It ain't mine.
No, it's a problem for you when you try to use terminology
imprecisely, or even precisely but divergent to the understanding of
those with whom you are conversing. In the latter case, you need to
have rigor; and not just that, but rigor that grounds in
terminological consensus. Chalmers has the rigor, but not the
terminological consensus, or the subsequent ontological consensus.
> Well, you can't talk about me, but it's entirely plausible
> that that's true for you.
Oh, I have a much more compelling case for my own reality than I do
But I don't actually *believe* that case, so I won't make it; all
random bitstrings have equivalent existential probability.
> I guess you have to have a name like "Ray Kurzweil" or
> "Alan Turing" to hold this view and still be tolerated in polite
> circles, or arm yourself to the teeth, like David Chalmers.
I find it hilarious, really, that you think the points you are
attempting to make have any similarity to the viewpoints of any of
the people you mentioned. How odd that you would, like me, assert
that your own viewpoint has something in common with any of theirs
--- when it apparently is, ultimately, in conflict.
> No, the facts of the world make it utterly clear that we don't exist.
> I completely understand that.
> That just causes some fundamental problems for me.
> I'm happy for you, that you're able to just light up a cigarette,
> in the face of that. Go with the flow, you know?
Absolutely, and what a shame for you. It appears that you're
ideologically doomed to an eternity of noise-generation about the
topic. ;-) Well, I suppose there has to be an underlying process for
the subjective appearance of the second law of thermodynamics in my
life, or the lives of those on this list... ;-) :-)
More information about the FoRK