(January 23, 2016 at 11:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This was never about 'qualia'. It was about the intentionality in a physical system. Qualia implies consciousness. I could explain how similar such systems account for qualia and consciousness, but that is beyond the scope of the original discussion which you seem to have hijacked with questions about consciousness.The OP.
Quote:It's not an argument from ignorance. It's not even an argument, since I'm not putting forward a position right now. I want to know what particular physical structures have mind, and you are talking about isomorphism, intentionality, and so on. But all these words have value attributions which require mind, so are circular at best, as far as I can see.(January 23, 2016 at 10:39 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, what is it about the universe that, if certain kinds of information or processing is there, causes qualia to exist-- when there is nothing like this in "matter of any configuration"?This is an argument from ignorance and also begs the question by implying that human mind is not a specific configuration of matter.
Quote:And I think you're skewing things to make a point. I have in detail described the necessary components and constraints required for intentionality. You've introduced vague parallels that don't fit the description of a representational system given. And you ask why the two aren't the same thing? Because they're not. A galaxy doesn't fit the description already laid out. Your constructing vague parallels while ignoring the specifics given is dishonest on your part. Again you've hijacked questions about intentionality to make this about consciousness; it never was about mind per se, but I've been generous enough to indulge your questions. If you're just going to drive like a lemming towards cookie cutter arguments like this, you will find your questions being ignored.Alright, I'm done. I'm interested in the subject, but not in your tone.
