Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> Wrote:
>Here, I want to quote a few passages from Waiting for Zed,
>because it's good stuff, and deserves a second look:
Thanks
>>Alf:It could just be
>>a mechanical gadget that goes though all
>>the proper motions but with no more
>>awareness than a cuckoo clock.
>Does this remind anyone ELSE of the zombie? It does me.
Me too obviously
>>Bob: We just have to assume that
>>when something--like other people, act
>>intelligently--they are conscious.
>Golly, we have to ASSUME it?
Yes, I agree with Bob about that.
>For all you want to poke fun at me for using the zombie example,
There is nothing wrong with the zombie example and I certainly had no intention of making fun of you, I think your posts are quite interesting and intelligent, I just think they're wrong.
>HERE YOU ARE USING IT.
No, one of my characters is, I am not Bob, Alf, or Zed.
> Don't tell me that we have to assume it. We don't. I reject it, and I'm > arguing that you should, too.
>I've just given a name to something which YOU think is conceptually
>coherent, and THAT'S my challenge to YOU.
No, I don't think it's conceptually coherent, I'm certain it's not, I just can't prove it
>YOU could be under the mistaken "impression" that you have qualia as well.
Like all really important things "qualia" has no definition worth a damn, all I have are examples of it, or rather one example. Thus I certainly mean something when I say, I experience "qualia", I just have no way of knowing if it has any relationship to your understanding of the word.
>Why should this process give rise to experience?
I can't tell you why intelligence generates consciousness, Einstein couldn't tell you why mass warps space-time, he just showed that it did.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net