NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/philosop/tech/4989

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4989 sci.philosophy.meta:3167 sci.skeptic:22886
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!IASTATE.EDU!danwell
From: [e-mail] (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Mysticism and Provability (Was: Re: MINDWALK)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:14:39 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kenn Barry)
writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>If you try to tell me that there is something that is real, cannot be
>>perceived, _and_ has no physical effects, direct or indirect, then logic
would
>>indeed tell us to forget it.  But I agree with logic here.
>
>     I know an example of what you want: other people's
> consciousness. When you get right down to it, all we have is induction
> to verify they exist. Another's consciousness can't be perceived
> directly. As for indirect, that calls for drawing conclusions. We may
> believe that sentience is a prerequisite for human-type behavior, but
> who knows? Maybe a mindless automaton of sufficient complexity could act
> the same.

   Then you couldn't prove the automaton wasn't concious, no?  I'm quite
convinced of my own conciousness and parsimony suggests that you are
concious as well.  The automaton theory seems to multiply entities
needlessly.  In any case each person can verify the effects of his own
conciousness, acting via his body, on the physical world so your example
is weak: it requires a remarkable level of paranoia to become plausible.

>     Even your _own_ consciousness isn't provable by others.
> Sentience has all the characteristics of a mystical notion, _is_ a
> mystical notion, but pure materialists always seem to overlook it.
>
>                         Kayembee

   You seem to be using (mystical==not explained) yet.  A dangerous axiom
if ever there was one.  When a sentient computer is built does sentience
become nonmystical or does the computer involved become mystical?

   It strikes me that people that deride materialism don't gives
the material world credit for the unbelievable complexity it posesses.
An friend-of-a-friend I met at a science fiction convention in '84 sticks
in my mind.  She was wildly hostile to the notion that a human being
could be explained entirely from natural law.  There "just had to be"
and extraphysical component or we would all "just be machines".  Leaving
aside the fact that this is disproof by citation of evil concequences,
I don't see what so bad about being a machine.

   If J. Dillberry Egghead finishes off a conclusive demonstration that
I am a "machine" it will not diminish my enjoyment of chocolate one bit.
The laws of physics seem to leave room for unbelievably complex and
sophistocated "machines".  Nondeterministic machines seem to be the
rule rather than the exception.  For that matter if a piece of mysticism
turns out to be grounded in fact then it will eventually become part of
the materialist domain.  Take your example, sentience.  It is the topic
of intensive study by materialists; they aren't denying or ignoring it -
they're attempting to absorb it.

Dan
[e-mail]