Hi Colin,
Le 28-juil.-05, à 02:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Hi Bruno,
Now look at science.
We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions
of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
AND THEN
we deny phenomenal consciousness? Declare it unassailable by science?
Delude ourselves that these descriptions actually contain causal
necessity?
[Bruno]
Who does that?
[Col]
What?
The entire suite of practical empirical science does that. Walk the
halls. Find _any_ scientist at the coal face and ask. What planet are
you from? Before your breath has finished the asking sentence you will
be told you are not being scientific.
Perhaps but what's the problem being told non scientific by people who
loss the scientific attitude in front of unsolved questions?
[Bruno]
I don't think that, in this list, you will find someone
denying phenomenal consciousness.
[Col]
Since when has the data found on this list been _any_ scientific
source of confirmation of anythng?
Since I was refering to the list. Come on, I was not trying to confirm
anything.
This list is specifically more likely to include people admitting to a
reality of phenomenal consciousness! They are not the ones that need
their brains adjusted: It's mainstream science that needs the therapy
....we are the therapists.
Careful with the term you are using. It could be ok between us, but
this list is public, and to say "we are the therapist" makes you seem
(rightly) foolish. It could be a proposition of the type Dt. Those are
true, but once said, they are false (or very near).
The only way to cure the scientist is by helping them to single out the
step where they leaves their scientific attitude. Some like Omnes in
his book "explaining quantum mechanics", tells precisely to their
readers where he decides to abandon Science
[Bruno]
But I don't understand what you mean by causal necessity, especially
when you say that:
We have phenomenal consciousness, the most obvious, egregious
screaming evidence of the operation of that causal necessity - the
same causal necessity that results in the desciption F = MA being
found by Newton...
[Col]
I think you need to (aghast) do some physics or something with a real
empirical edge to it. ALL our scientific 'laws' are tautologies in
relation to statisical generalisations that don;t actually exist -
like 'Ms Average'. F = MA is exactly that.
NONE of these laws say WHY. They only say WHAT. WHY =
necessity/causality.
I agree. Actually I think that all "causality" notion can be captured
by the necessity of an implication. B(p->q). (Please skip if you are
"logic-anxious"). But then there are 10000 of "causal" links.
There is causal necessity behind EVERYTHING, not just consiousness.
Of course!
Again- are you even in the same universe as me?
Good question!
Whatever generates 'everything' generates phenomenal consciousness as
well.
I follow you.
You think there is one bucnh of happenstance for phenomenal
consciousness and another for eveything else? = dualist delusion.
All right.
If you think the universe is run by emprical laws = rationalist
delusion.
Not at all!!!!! it is a NON RATIONALIST delusion.
If you think the universe is run by a symbolic crunching machine =
computationalist delusion.
Not at all. Please: this is a key point (which follows from the UD
argument, ref in my url):
if by comp you mean "the universe is run by a computer" then comp *is*
contradictory or trivial. By computationalism I mean "I" would not see
the difference if you replace my brain/body/universe by some digital
machine. This entails that whatever the *observable* universe is, it
cannot be run on a computer. To put it simply: if you are a machine
then "not you" is not a machine!
These are all unfounded ascrptions and have no evidenntiary basis
other than the reconfigured brain matter that results from a belief.
Note that the "reconfigured brain matter" is also a belief.
I am talking about real, supportable verifyable science of the natural
world.
I hope you are willing to bet that I certainly attempt to do so.
[Bruno]
I tend to believe in some causal necessity related to consciousness,
but I have no evidence that F=MA has anything to do with that. I guess
you are postulating the existence of some "primitive" physical
universe, aren't you?
[Col]
I am talking about the natural world, in which we are embedded, of
which we are made as the situation inwhich we must understand the
natural world.
I don't believe in the natural world. To be short. I do believe in
observation and measurement's results. The notion of natural world, it
seems to me, is a lasting superstition which does not resist any
serious observation, nor even serious introspection. But I know many
people *want* to believe in some primitive material Nature. For me it
is like ether or phlogistic, just a name for stopping Children's
question.
If you think that you are 'outside' looking in: another delusion =
you think you are GOD. :-)
Sure. I hope you don't think that I think I am 'outside' looking in.
[Bruno]
I don't pretend that this is obvious, but the missing 50% of science is
not phenomenological consciousness (in this list).
Bruno
[col]
You are making another rationalist ascription. You assume that
mathematical abstractions are the object of scientific endeavours.
WRONG.
Here I don't understand you at all. Surely the prime numbers can be an
object of scientific endeavour.
You assume that fiddling with computation about will somehow bestow
access to the ultimate explanation. You are not talking about science
of the natural world - you are talking about the science of some other
world. You assume the link between them without justification and
without any proof.
What are you talking about? About my work? have you studied it? You
should be more specific in the critics.
Proof: Just watch it come. With empirical evidence from neuroscience.
I'm happy to wait until then (it may take a decade or so) and then say
'I told you so'.
Well, if this is what you call a proof ... I'm not sure we are talking
on the same subject.
BTW I used to think the same way as you..... I have been on a huge
journey. I spent 25 years puting computers in control of the real
world.
You should have consult me. Computers are intrinsically not controlable
and they makes the environment less controlable. To control a computer
is an infinite art.
All I can say is: deal with human embeddedness , HERE in our natural
world,
I guess you mean here. Comma.
fully, comprehensively and you will get answers. Staring at maths and
running symbols will not do it. The computer chips neede to make a
conscious machine have not been invented yet and they will be VERY
different to all von-neumann, parallel and quantum computing
architectures.
I am problem driven. My initial goal was just to show that the
mind-body problem was not yet well formulated when we assume the comp
hyp. Then I succeed to show that the comp hyp reduces the mind-body
problem partially into the problem of justifying the physical laws from
the relation among numbers, all this by a simple but non-constructive
proof (and probably not *so* simple). It is mainly the Universal
Dovetailer Argument.
The proof relies on some notion of "grandmother psychology" (which some
scientist understand only the week-end!). Still, I succeed to replace
the grandmother by the more mathematical "universal machine" (available
by Church thesis). Then the translation of the UDA is the language of a
universal machine gives the laws of physics. And then I have begin to
test that theory with empirical physics, just to see if comp is false,
plausible, etc. There is work there for the next millenia. Comp did
succeed the first steps.
Naturalism will disappear like vitalism, even if comp is false. It will
take some time sure.
My morning bombast session is over... time for coffee!
You are joking? I have evidence it is the evening!!! (you are right: we
are not in the same universe!, but then a last coffee? your fault if I
don't sleep this night ;)
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
