Computers are Zombies

[Brent.Allsop]

that presupposes that the programmer is omniscient...

if you are saying that knowledge is subjective, I'd say that's at least part of it as one has no other perceptions ...

Sorry, you completely lost me with all that.

[Brent.Allsop]

Brent, you say the functional isomorph responsible for a redness quale is detectably different from the isomorph corresponding to a green quale.

Yay mickthinks, thank you for doing the work required to understand. At least one person is able to demonstrate that they understand what I’m saying. Is anyone else grasping what we are talking about?

I can see how this must be so, a priori, for the isomorphs exhibited in a single brain, but I don't see why this must be the case when comparing, for example, an instance of the red isomorph in my brain with an instance of the green isomorph in your brain.

I think I understand what you are saying here. The falsifiable prediction is that whatever is responsible for redness will always be responsible for the same redness everywhere and in all brains. And whatever is responsible for greenness will also be detectably different in all brains.

And this doesn't look as if it answers my question above:

What would be the observable difference between the computer behaviour and our human behaviour that differentiates their experiences from ours?

If you are just looking at high level behavior, just like big endian and little endian computers, though their architectures are different, they can both run the same programs and "behave" the same. In other words one human with redness greenness inversion from another, may behave the same, and be able to tell you what is red and what is green. But if you get out your logic probe (or whatever is required to detect the difference between redness and greenness knowledge) you will be able to tell the qualitative difference of each of the minds.

In other words, for me a zombie is different than what David Chalmers and others think of as a zombie. For him, there is no detectable physical difference, yet the qualia can be different or absent. My prediction is it will be detectably different in a consistent way. Obviously, all this is theoretically testable via real demonstrable science.

[Impenitent]

that presupposes that the programmer is omniscient...

if you are saying that knowledge is subjective, I'd say that's at least part of it as one has no other perceptions ...

Sorry, you completely lost me with all that.

"... But the important thing to understanding consciousness, is knowing the qualitative differences between all of these types of knowledge."

as if some ethereal "T"ruth existed externally from these qualitative differences (to wit the programmer -without which the computer is useless- has understanding of "K"nowledge as well as each incidence of subjective knowledge)

-Imp

[Brent.Allsop]

"... But the important thing to understanding consciousness, is knowing the qualitative differences between all of these types of knowledge."

as if some ethereal "T"ruth existed externally from these qualitative differences (to wit the programmer -without which the computer is useless- has understanding of "K"nowledge as well as each incidence of subjective knowledge)

OK, that makes more sense, thanks for the help. But I still don't understand what "some ethereal truth" has to do with simply knowing and being able to reliably detect the difference between knowledge made of redness vs knowledge made of greenness vs knowledge made with ones and zeros that may be interpreted as if they were red or green.

Brent Allsop

[Impenitent]

there is nothing simple about knowing

I do not know of any knowledge existing outside of my knowledge, nor do I know that my knowledge exists itself...

am I justified to truly believe that some knowledge exists? internally or externally? I doubt it...

-Imp

[Brent.Allsop]

Hi Imp

I guess if you are that skeptical, there isn't a lot of reason for discussing anything?

As we look at a ripe red strawberry, with a green leaf, I think we can know quite surely, what the elemental redness quality of our knowledge of the ripe strawberry is like, and how this is different than the elemental greenness quality of our knowledge of the leaf. Even Descartes said: "I think, therefor, I am", and you can't doubt such things as this.

[Impenitent]

Hi Imp

I guess if you are that skeptical, there isn't a lot of reason for discussing anything?

As we look at a ripe red strawberry, with a green leaf, I think we can know quite surely, what the elemental redness quality of our knowledge of the ripe strawberry is like, and how this is different than the elemental greenness quality of our knowledge of the leaf. Even Descartes said: "I think, therefor, I am", and you can't doubt such things as this.

discussing is fine, making claims of truth or knowledge is something else entirely...

besides, if Rene really wanted to doubt he could have... the cogito was simply to appease the church as his mathematics ran counter to church teachings and he saw what they did to Galileo...

-Imp

[Obvious Leo]

Even Descartes said: "I think, therefor, I am", and you can't doubt such things as this.

I do. I reckon Descartes got his pithy little aphorism arse-about. I am therefore I think makes a lot more sense to me.

[mickthinks]

... besides, if Rene really wanted to doubt he could have...

I reckon Descartes got his pithy little aphorism arse-about. I am therefore I think makes a lot more sense to me.

Hmmm ... I think this shows neither Imp nor Leo has grasped the significance of "cogito ergo sum".

... the cogito was simply to appease the church as his mathematics ran counter to church teachings and he saw what they did to Galileo...

I don't believe there are any grounds for suggesting that Descartes was insincere, and I have never heard anyone suggest his mathematical ideas were in any way heretical (how could they be?). Evidence if you have it, please, Imp.

[Impenitent]

... besides, if Rene really wanted to doubt he could have...

I reckon Descartes got his pithy little aphorism arse-about. I am therefore I think makes a lot more sense to me.

Hmmm ... I think this shows neither Imp nor Leo has grasped the significance of "cogito ergo sum".

... the cogito was simply to appease the church as his mathematics ran counter to church teachings and he saw what they did to Galileo...

I don't believe there are any grounds for suggesting that Descartes was insincere, and I have never heard anyone suggest his mathematical ideas were in any way heretical (how could they be?). Evidence if you have it, please, Imp.

I never said he was insincere, although I should add physics and astronomical to mathematical ideas that ran counter to church teachings.

https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosoph ... ode42.html

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/oldsi ... ualism.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/ (part 4)

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/rene-descartes.html

"Rene Descartes left a large number of writings of major importance for both philosophy and mathematics. Of all his works, the “Meditations on First Philosophy” published in 1641 and 1642 is probably of the greatest importance and remains one of the seminal texts in virtually all university philosophy departments. In contrary to his earlier works which dealt with methodology, the Meditations show that it can be applied to the fundamental philosophical questions including scepticism, existence of soul, nature of God, truth, human knowledge of the external world and the relation between the body and mind. The Meditations caused a lot of controversy and as a result, Descartes spent most of his remaining life defending his positions which were very dangerous at the time. He was a devoted Catholic, however, we must not forget that he was a contemporary of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) who was tried by the Inquisition and forced to recant his heliocentric model. Fortunately for Descartes, his writings were not seen as “heretical” for the ecclesiastic authorities but it is also true that he was afraid of persecution and censure which clearly reveals the withdrawal of the work “The World” in which he supports the Copernican theory that earned Galileo a condemnation by the Church and house arrest. "

there is tons more through google... this is hardly an uncommon view of the cogito...

-Imp

[Brent.Allsop]

Wow, I had no idea throwing out the cogito ergo sum argument would kick up such a fire storm.

So let me put it this way. When I look at a strawberry patch, there is a level of certainty about my knowledge of the quality of the redness knowledge representing the strawberry and the quality of the greenness knowledge representing the leaves. Even if you think this level of certainty is not absolute, is there anything we can know more certain or even equally certain than this kind of stuff? In other words, it still seems to me that as we perceive them, we know what redness is like, and how it is different than greenness, more certainly than we know anything else we know?

[Obvious Leo]

I have no problem in accepting this interpretation of Cartesian philosophy because it accords with my own understanding of it. I reckon he got "cogito ergo sum" arse-about and it is perfectly consistent with the history of this era that he might have done this deliberately to appease the church. One assumes that the red-hatted cardinals of the time may have been too stupid to realise that Rene was just taking the piss but it's regrettable that so many folk since that time have been inclined to take Descartes literally on this point.

[Obvious Leo]

If I see the colour red am I seeing the same colour as you're seeing when you see the colour red? Who cares as long as we agree. This question has no answer because the colour red has no objective meaning. If I see the colour red today am I seeing the same colour as the colour red I saw yesterday? Once again who cares but the answer is "probably not". Unlike computer memory human memory is not a faithful reproduction of a stored past. Every recollection is a cognitive process of reconstruction and this retrieval process is different every time we perform it. It is literally impossible to remember the same thing in exactly the same way although it's easy enough to persuade ourselves that we do.

[mickthinks]

I never said he was insincere ...

It is firmly implied by your "the cogito was simply to appease ...". If an argument and its conclusion are sincerely believed, the belief is itself a powerful motive for an ambitious philosopher to make the argument. Your "simply" here is a denial of any motive other than the appeasement you claim (falsely, I think) he intended.

... although I should add physics and astronomical to mathematical ideas ...

LOL you mean you should correct your original statement!

It has been suggested that Descartes supported the Copernican heliocentric cosmos, the idea which got Galileo in trouble with the church, so you could say Descartes's astronomy contradicted church teachings. But since he never published those ideas, it is simply false to suggest that he was, or even needed to, appease the church because of them. And none of your links says otherwise.

[mickthinks]

I reckon he got "cogito ergo sum" arse-about ...

You've said that twice now, Leo, but you haven't tried to explain why. Since it is an open attack on the cornerstone of the philosophy of one the greatest thinkers in history, I think you owe it to us and to yourself to show why you think you can do better.

Why should—or indeed, how could—Descartes have deduced his thinking from his existence?