[Serious Phil] Presupposing Experiential Subsystems

[SWM]

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "Peter D" <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
 
> --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "Peter D" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> >  
> > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > PDJ writes below: "You could build a humanoid AI, and Chalmers could look at it and say: 'Yep, I would say that AI has qualia. Of course, it has them because n non physical Extra Ingredient supervenes on its information processing...' You won't have proved a damn thing to him about the falsehood of dualism. How-and-why explanation just isn';t the same as recipe following. You can bake bread without understanding microbiology."
> > > > 
> > > > This is incredible! How many times have I pointed out that I am not tyring to prove the "falsehood of dualism," only that we don't need to opt for dualism to account for consciousness in the universe!!!
> > > 
> > > How many times do I have to say...same bloody difference! There is no
> > > purported motivation for dualism whatsoever beyond accounting for consciousness.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Then so much the worse for dualism 
> 
> =no need for dualism
> 
> =dualism should be considered false
> 
> Same bloody difference.
> 


Except my dear dualism defender, I am not asserting that dualism IS false, only that we have no reason to speculate that it's true if we can adequately explain consciousness without it which, I have claimed, we can.