Re: Qualia Question

On 08 Jul 2005 04:32:50 GMT, curt@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Joe Legris <jalegris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Curt Welch wrote:
>> > "1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Curt Welch wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>So why is it a subjective experience exactly? You don't seem to be
>> >>>>>able to discriminate behavior very well. You just hypothesize
>> >>>>>certain interactions and call them subjective. What's the
>> >>>>>difference between subjective and objective behavior exactly in
>> >>>>>mechanical terms?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The difference arises in descriptive terms. There is no reason to
>> >>>>insist that everything has to be explained mechanically.
>> >>>
>> >>>To solve AI, we MUST explain everything mechanically. If we can't
>> >>>explain everything mechanically, then we can't solve AI.
>> >>
>> >>Indeed. But there is no a priori reason to suppose that we solve AI,
>> >>and therefore no a priori reasom to inist that everything must be
>> >>mechanically explicable.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>This is an AI group, so the point of all this debate is to help us
>> >>>build mechanical machines.
>> >>
>> >>The group is called comp.ai.philosophy. Philosophy has room for
>> >>sceptics.
>> >>In any case, wanting to do something does not make it a fact that it is
>> >>possible.
>> >
>> >
>> > Right, we don't know if everything about human behavior can be explaned
>> > mechanically.
>> >
>> > But there's plenty of reason to insist that everything MUST be
>> > explained mechanically in order to do the thing that many of us are
>> > here do - understand the possibilities of AI.
>> >
>> > And currently, there's no proof that everything that creates human
>> > behavior can't be explained mechanically.
>> >
>> > Those of us that want to create AI, are therefore going to make the
>> > assumption that allows our goal to be reached. It's pointless to make
>> > any other assumption - it would just be negative thinking to discourage
>> > us from a goal which might be possible.
>> >
>> > So instead, we assume there is a mechanical answer to everything, and
>> > look at what that answer must be if it's there.
>> >
>> > To solve AI, we insist on finding the mehchanical answer to all human
>> > behavior, and all human experience, bucause to not find it, is to fail
>> > to reach the goal.
>>
>> Hey Curt, you're showing signs of Zickness. Let's hear both of you
>> define "mechanical" before the infection gets any worse.
>
>Mechanical to me just means physical matter interacting with other physical
>matter. I've never been able to understand what Lester uses the word
>"mechaincal" for even though I've seem him talk about hundreds of times.

Lester didn't realize mechanics would brew such a tempest in a teapot.
Lester would be happy to discuss the subject on the E202 thread but
Lester sees no reason to discuss the subject of mechanics on a thread
devoted to vapid concepts like qualia whose adherents have no capacity
and no desire to establish their concepts mechanically.

>I believe all human behavior and our subjective experience is all a simple
>result of the mechanical properties of our body. We are just a mechanical
>device. If we build a device with the similar functions, it too will have
>human behavior, as well as its own subjective experience of things like
>aches and pains.
>
>--
>Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
>curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/


Regards - Lester
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... >Curt Welch wrote: ... But there is no a priori reason to suppose that we solve AI, ... there's no proof that everything that creates human behavior ... I've explained the concept of mechanics and mechanical explanations ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... >> Lester didn't realize mechanics would brew such a tempest in a teapot. ... So what do you mean by a physical explanation? ... What you have to decide is not so much whether physics is ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
    ... How does a Lagrangian formulation of mechanics explain ... > Bob Kolker ... IOW, Lester can't accept that things are simply what they are, and the ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
    ... How does a Lagrangian formulation of mechanics explain ... > Bob Kolker ... IOW, Lester can't accept that things are simply what they are, and the ...
    (sci.math)