RE: Consciousness Trilemma
June 6, 2017 at 8:48 am
(This post was last modified: June 6, 2017 at 9:16 am by The Grand Nudger.)
In the hardest interpretation, if experience is the subjective awareness of qualia -as you've defined..then it's blisteringly easy to identify what systems have that and what don't. None of them.
It's obvious that I've failed to explain eliminativism, since you think it might be further elimitivism to insist that there are no discrete systems in the universe. I'm not the engine in my car. We are discrete systems. That would be true regardless of what either I or my car were made of. The only way it's not true...is if I am the engine in my car, and it;s only then that any eliminitivism would apply. As of right now, we have a concept of our selves, of minds, that explicitly invokes the engine -and- an operator. Where is the operator? Do we require more than the engine to explain the behavior? There are conditions to satisfy for eliminitivism.
We can't just pump oxygen back in because the cells are damaged. W're not talking about an analog array capable of retaining it's states when the electricity goes off. That is, btw, one advantage that machine brains would have over ours. Pumping oxygen into a busted balloon doesn't work either, for the same reason. Before the cells suffer that damage, pumping oxygen in -does- restore function. That's what resuscitation is. After that damage is sustained, any restoration of function will be limited-impossible.
*eliminitive materialism suggests that the reason your explanations fall apart when you try to express them, is the insistence on the preservation of inaccurate language.
It's obvious that I've failed to explain eliminativism, since you think it might be further elimitivism to insist that there are no discrete systems in the universe. I'm not the engine in my car. We are discrete systems. That would be true regardless of what either I or my car were made of. The only way it's not true...is if I am the engine in my car, and it;s only then that any eliminitivism would apply. As of right now, we have a concept of our selves, of minds, that explicitly invokes the engine -and- an operator. Where is the operator? Do we require more than the engine to explain the behavior? There are conditions to satisfy for eliminitivism.
We can't just pump oxygen back in because the cells are damaged. W're not talking about an analog array capable of retaining it's states when the electricity goes off. That is, btw, one advantage that machine brains would have over ours. Pumping oxygen into a busted balloon doesn't work either, for the same reason. Before the cells suffer that damage, pumping oxygen in -does- restore function. That's what resuscitation is. After that damage is sustained, any restoration of function will be limited-impossible.
*eliminitive materialism suggests that the reason your explanations fall apart when you try to express them, is the insistence on the preservation of inaccurate language.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
