Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: minds of our own (& re: Daniel's theory)

Expand Messages
  • daniel_needles
    ... Sure and I would appreciate any insights and crits you could provide. What s a good email for attachments for you? ... His book is good. He has an article
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@y..., "michael mcguire" <signinname01@h...> wrote:
      > Daniel,
      >
      > I would be really interested in what you have so far as far as your
      > theory is concerned. I definitely want you to send me sections of
      > it, if you are still willing to do that.

      Sure and I would appreciate any insights and crits you could provide.
      What's a good email for attachments for you?

      > I noticed that the link you sent was one to a David Chalmer's
      > site. I have recently read a journal article by him, which
      > from my understanding, is an
      > abbreviated version of what he writes in his book
      >'The Conscious Mind'. I think Chalmer's double-aspect
      > theory is attractive from what I have gotten
      > from it so far.

      His book is good. He has an article on line that pretty much sums up
      what he says in the book. The Nature of Consciousness article also
      does a good job outlining all the possible ways to reconsile the
      problem.

      > I plan on picking up his book really soon to get an
      > understanding of it more clearly. I know he claims to
      > address the 'hard problem' of consciousness, which deals w/
      > explaining experience and the fact
      > that we even have it at all.

      He more frames the possible solutions kinda like the lines of Ken
      Wilber in his Eye to eye book.

      > I like the idea, so far, of experience as a
      > fundamental law, but his attachment to things like 'qualia'
      > are contrary to
      > what I have been supporting in work(s) by D.Dennett etc.

      Correct.

      > Chalmer's has a cool (& very in-depth) zombie site too!

      YEs. I found that pretty good as well.

      >
      >
      > Mike
      >
      >
      >
      > >From: "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...>
      > >Reply-To: existlist@y...
      > >To: existlist@y...
      > >Subject: [existlist] Re: minds of our own
      > >Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 02:44:32 -0000
      > >
      > >Mike,
      > > Believe it or not I am working on a theory addressing this
      issue.
      > >If your interested, I could send you sections of it. This problem
      > >encompasses many areas. To start you might try:
      > >
      > >http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/master.html
      > >
      > >The article on COnsciousness and its place in nature categorizes
      all
      > >theories trying to rectify the "subjective" nature with
      > >the "objective" nature of reality.
      > >
      > >Thanks,
      > >Daniel
      > >
      > >--- In existlist@y..., "michael mcguire" <signinname01@h...> wrote:
      > > > Speaking of minds of our own...what do people think of this:
      > > >
      > > > What if we could replace, one by one, every neuron in our heads
      and
      > >their
      > > > corresponding circuitry/connections with silicon? Or for that
      > >matter,
      > > > replace the neurons with anything you like that can transmit
      > >information.
      > > > Homunculi, little robots, whatever...
      > > >
      > > > Would we see something like consciousness in such a system? I
      guess
      > >what I
      > > > am getting at is whether or not you think that consciousness is
      a
      > > > substrate-neutral phenomenon. That is, could we theoretically
      see
      > >true
      > > > consciousness in any material form?
      > > >
      > > > mike
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > >From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@v...>
      > > > >Reply-To: existlist@y...
      > > > >To: <existlist@y...>
      > > > >Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: Zombies and Existentialism
      > > > >Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 08:34:14 -0400
      > > > >
      > > > >Daniel,
      > > > >
      > > > >Why should anything apply to Zombies.
      > > > >Existentialism is for the individual as seen by
      > > > >the individual. Why should we try to get into the
      > > > >minds of zombies? Why should we try to understand
      > > > >the minds of anyone ... other than our own?
      > > > >
      > > > >eduard
      > > > >
      > > > >-----Original Message-----
      > > > >From: daniel_needles
      > > > >[mailto:Daniel.Needles@C...]
      > > > >Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:35 PM
      > > > >To: existlist@y...
      > > > >Subject: [existlist] Re: Zombies and
      > > > >Existentialism
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >Mr. Ed,
      > > > >
      > > > > The problem is if they do exist then
      > > > >existentialism doesn't apply
      > > > >to them which focuses on subjective experience. So
      > > > >what would apply
      > > > >to them?
      > > > >
      > > > >Thanks,
      > > > >Daniel
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > >(Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > >
      > > > >TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > >existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > >
      > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      _________________________________________________________________
      > > > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
      > > > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
      http://mobile.msn.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.