Re: q***** (and incorrigibility)

Dan Fabulich (
Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:52:55 -0500 (EST)

'What is your name?' 'Zeb Haradon.' 'IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!!!':

> if I was just thinking that I was Thinking, I wouldn't have the qualia
> associated with it, which I do.
> We seem to be arguing in circles.

Well, I... Sort of, yes. Look, I feel like I've raised a genuine skeptical concern, directly challenging both the claim that you are Thinking and the claim that you have qualia. Your defense that you have qualia is that you are Thinking, and your defense that you are Thinking is that you have qualia.

My challenge to BOTH is that you could just be "thinking" that you're Thinking and have qualia. Do you have a non-circular defense to this argument?

> There is an experience of seeing blue, which is more then what we know
> of the physical process of a path of neurons firing from the eye to
> the visual center. Do you deny this?


> Presumably thinking causes Thinking, or they are the same phenomena
> experienced from different angles. It would really surprise me to find
> out that the consistent co-occurrence of certain brain states with
> certain mental states is a coincidence.

It's no coincidence. It's a mistake!

> >This is not an idle skeptical concern. I really DON'T think that you're
> >Thinking. I think that you're "thinking."
> but do you think that you're Thinking? Do you have experiences?

No. I don't think that anyone's Thinking. I think we're all "thinking."

> As for AI - who cares whether an AI is conscious or not? I wish it were
> possible to make inconcsious AI, they could be used as slaves with no moral
> problem.

I'm not so sure that it would be morally acceptable to enslave a zombie. Sure, he wouldn't Feel either way about it, but he would "feel" quite badly if you did so.


-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-

e.e. cummings