From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 20 1999 - 11:20:13 MST
'What is your name?' 'John Clark.' 'Do you deny having written the
following?':
> >Anyway, when I say that some thing is real, I mean that it exists
>
> I see, and when you say that some thing exists you mean that it is real.
> Round and round we go. Forget definitions, give me contrast, give me
> examples. I'll give you one, horses exist unicorns don't.
Sure. Neither does ether or phlogiston, though heat and light do exist.
Horses exist in exactly the same way as qualia don't.
> >That's my original argument, if you recall: nobody could tell the
> >difference if qualia existed or not.
>
> Well of course they can't tell you, qualia is inexpressible.
I think you mistook my use of the word "tell" there. I don't mean that
nobody could *convincingly report* the difference (though, that too!) but
rather that nobody could *observe* the difference.
> >as a totally useless idea.
>
> Sensation is not an idea and it doesn't matter if it's useful or not,
> we have it anyway.
Uhm. What IS it, then, if not an idea? I take the term "idea" to be
sufficiently broad as to cover an Awful Lot... Why doesn't it cover
Sensation? Are you taking "idea" to be something we posit but don't
Directly Observe, like electrons, the number 7, centers of gravity, etc?
> > Pop quiz: If consciousness is perfectly correlated with intelligence, why
> > talk about consciousness at all?
>
> I don't, except when somebody claims there is a distinction between the two,
> then I argue. It's fun.
Let me ask you a question, a la Damien's suggestion: Do you *assume* that
consciousness is perfectly correlated with intelligence, or do hold that
consciousness just IS intelligence by definition, just as heat just IS the
bouncing of molecules, by definition? I'd assumed that you held the
former view, but if you hold the latter view, there may be some hope for
this debate. ;)
> >but to justify that claim.
>
> Oh that's easy. I feel that way because that's the way my brain is wired.
That wasn't *precisely* the level of explanation I was looking for. "Why
is the sky blue?" "Because the laws of physics are true." While this
answer is, admittedly, correct, that isn't the level of explanation I was
curious about.
Suppose for a moment that you're a rational agent. Why, if so, do/would
you CHOOSE to care about consciousness?
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:09 MST