Ron McClain wrote:
> The logical result of trying to impose that
> framework onto subjective phenomenon is functionalism, a version of
> behaviorism on steroids. The solution is to basically ignore the subjective
> phenomenon and explain what EVERYONE can see: The output, or
> actions of a conscious individual. That may be good cognitive science,
> but appears to me to be bad philosophy.
I disagree. I think that once you've explained my output and Chalmers' output and so on, then you've explained consciousness. Anything that's real, anything that we can pose a question about, and then write that question down, has obviously affected our behavior. Conversely, anything that doesn't affect our behavior, we don't know about.
-- firstname.lastname@example.org Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://pobox.com/~sentience/tmol-faq/meaningoflife.html Running on BeOS Typing in Dvorak Programming with Patterns Voting for Libertarians Heading for Singularity There Is A Better Way