'What is your name?' 'Eliezer S. Yudkowsky.' 'Do you deny having written
the following?':
> No, I think it's considered to be a dead horse because everyone with
> something original to say about the subject has either already said it,
> is tired of discussing it, doesn't think it's worth it, or all three.
Our claims needn't NECESSARILY be in disagreement. While my claim was
stronger than this, I could have made the smaller claim that "qualia is a
dead horse because no argument can be given that will convince a believer
or a non-believer that they are wrong." Certainly, if all of the
interesting/original arguments have already been made, and THEY haven't
worked, none of the boring/repetitive arguments will do any better. So it
seems that we're more or less in agreement on this point.
Now, of course, I ALSO gave an account of WHY, it seems to me, no
convincing argument can be given for either side. (Where, here, I'm using
"convincing" in the technical sense of actually convincing someone who
disagrees with you.) You don't seem to like my account that qualia are a
matter of axioms, but you haven't told me why. I DO like my account,
because people like Zeb and John and Kate Riley have made the argument
that qualia are axiomatically necessary explicit; in an important respect,
I'm just reporting the fact that this is what people think.
I don't suppose you have any mention of qualia on your website? I recall
that one not-an-argument on your meaning of life FAQ, but it was
sufficiently cryptic that I couldn't make any sense of it.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:59 MDT