Book recommendation Re: [FoRK] Re: anybody remember...

Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> on Tue Jul 10 06:56:40 PDT 2007

On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:32 PM, Lion Kimbro wrote:

>  I appreciate your humoring this conversation,
>  and I look forward to responding, but there's just
>  one question I have to jet out before I take my
>  daughter home --
>
> On 7/9/07, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>> >  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.
>
>  Why do you say this, and where is the perceived conflict?

The conflict is inherent in your position, and your attempt to equate  
your position with computationalism.  You say things like:

>  The hard question of consciousness is, "Why is there
>  any experience of any of it, at all?"

Okay, you agree with Chalmers on that, but that isn't an issue of  
computationalism --- it's a problem of somewhat muddled metaphysics  
or even rhetoric.  This is the sort of thing I equate to questions  
like "is love porous" --- I deny that there is a hard problem because  
I believe, as the hard COMP folks do, that experience is axiomatic.   
It doesn't need "explanation."  It suffices to explain what is  
required to model an experiential state and to show how one  
experiential state can evolve to another, which is precisely what  
COMP does, quite simply.

You also say things like:

> my position [is] that
>  consciousness, or "soul" as it's conventionally called, is:
>  A) not explained
>  B) not understood
>  C) we have a hard time even coming to understand how
>    we could even approach it
>  D) it's arguably not even possible
>  E) sure seems pretty mysterious right now

This isn't COMP, and it certainly doesn't map (as you seem to think  
it does) to the positions of Turing, Kurzweil, or even Chalmers!

jb


More information about the FoRK mailing list