From: O'Regan, Emlyn (Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au)
Date: Sun Jun 20 1999 - 21:40:18 MDT
Eliezer wrote:
> There are only two logically consistent positions: CCC and PPP.
>
NNN might also be proposed, but one would hope it turns out to be false.
I would expect that it could be possible, for example, to produce and
simulate consciousness computationally, but not explain it. To explain
something you must often go outside the system. If consciousness is an
emergent phenomenon, it might only be explainable/understandable in N, even
though producable and simulatable in C (Hofstader?). But then this is CCN,
which you have attributed to Chalmers.
Eliezer also wrote:
My position is simple: No Zombies. Only single-letter codes are
logically consistent. Every facet of consciousness we can notice,
that
we can *have a need to explain*, obviously influences our physical
actions. If there's any quality of consciousness that doesn't
influence
our actions, nobody has ever written a paper about it.
Here, you are stating that if we (consciousnesses) can explain
consciousness, and consciousness can be produced+simulated computationally,
then an explanation of consciousness can be computational. The flaw as I see
it is that consciousness is not explainable (so far) by us, or any other
consciousness that we know of (?). Perhaps it can never be. We may be able
to be aware of our consciousness (necessary to thought?), yet be entirely
unable to fully explain that quality (and what is a partial explanation but
an isomorphism of the unexplainable?).
By the way, why PPP rather than CCC?
Emlccn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:15 MST