hairyfigment comments on The mystery of pain and pleasure - Less Wrong

8 Post author: johnsonmx 01 March 2015 07:47PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (43)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: hairyfigment 04 March 2015 07:07:28AM -1 points [-]

I don't understand your question. Do you actually dispute that pleasure could serve as the foundation for a consistent set of preferences? Or are you picturing "hedons" as much more concrete than I am?

Comment author: Algernoq 04 March 2015 07:33:34AM *  -1 points [-]

I assume hedons, a type of qualia, exist.

For the sake of argument, I'll argue the opposing view:

I don't believe anyone "feels" anything. People act as if they have preferences and talk about subjective experiences because that is what their brain structures do, not because subjective experiences actually exist. It is perfectly normal for evolved organisms to talk about "the meaning of life", but these organisms are only patterns in a formal system. In other words, "consciousness", "self-awareness", and "meaning" are only patterns in physical brains. There is no "mind" having experiences anywhere. A "ghost" -- a mind without a corresponding physical structure -- is nonsensical because a mind is merely its pattern in matter.

It does not matter if the patterns representing a brain are computed using pencil-and-paper (see the short story "A Conversation With Einstein's Brain" by Douglas Hofstadter, in which a choose-your-own-adventure book tries to argue that it has conscious experience).

Hedons -- conscious experiences of enjoyment -- do not exist. I am aware that I am just a pattern of a brain in a formal system, and not a "person" in the sense of actually having experiences.

In other words, people are all philosophical zombies. Prove me wrong, if you can...

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 04 March 2015 08:31:06AM *  0 points [-]

Its a sceptical hypothesis. As such it, neither admits disproof, nor persuades.