> > So I ask again HOW would we act DIFFERENTLY if we acted "as-if" MIND > EXISTED. So far > the only difference I SEE is writing a lot of stuff in CAPS. > > Brent Meeker >
FIRSTLY Formally we would investigate new physics of underlying reality such as this: --------------------------------------- Cahill RT. 2005. Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter: Nova Publishers. Cahill RT, Klinger CM. 1998. Self-Referential Noise and the Synthesis of Three-Dimensional Space. General Relativity and Gravitation(32):529. Cahill RT, Klinger CM. 2000. Self-Referential Noise as a Fundamental Aspect of Reality. In: Abbott D, L K, editors. Proc 2nd Int Conf on Unsolved Problems of Noise and Fluctuations (UPoN'99): American Institute of Physics. p 511:543. Kitto K. 2002. Dynamical Hierarchies in Fundamental Physics. In: Bilotta E, editor. Workshop Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (ALife VIII): Univ. New South Wales, Australia. p 55-62. --------------------------------------- Instead of competing with traditional 'appearances' physics we go straight to brain material and make it construct atom behaviour, molecule, cell behaviour...etc and look at what behaviours might correspond to whatever it is that functions as phenomenal consciousness in brain material. Currently this physics (of an underlying structure) is ignored because all it does is compete with alternate mainstream physics on its own turf. Instead the physics needs to go to where mainstream physics is voiceless and impotent by definition - consciousness - and predict brain material behaviour. This is its validity and its unique entrée into acceptability. ========================================= SECONDLY Computationally we would investigate the same systems using cellular automata: --------------------- Wolfram S. 2002. A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media. xiv, 1197 p. --------------------- ....and ask the one question Wolfram failed to ask: "What is it like to be a cellular automata".... one that makes atoms, space and higher level structures (like our universe). Also we need to work on CAs of the cell types based on noise/fluctuation as per Cahill. CAs that construct their own cells and cell rules at higher and higher levels of complexity - free running CAs. ================================== Currently both these techniques and people are eschewed as invalid for no reason other than the virtual solipsism I have been talking about. Both of these folks have viable things to say about consciousness that mainstream physics cant. And they dont realise it and they dont understand why they have trouble with acceptance. The reason they are not accepted is that they are a) working on models of an underlying reality and b) do not realise the implications in consciousness studies and c) are competing with traditional explanations when they shouldnt be so.... The reason they don't get listened to is because underlying physics is regarded as unscientific eschewed as 'mere metaphysics' because they think there's no evidence because they dont realise the underlying physics is causing mind ..not laws derived using it because They think mind will be explained by models of appearances Because They haven't realised/accept mind as evidence in its own right = mind does not exist = as-if solipsism. This situation stems form the Kantian era when the noumenon was accepted (now erroneously) as proven to be scientifically intractable. Modern neuroscience shows it to be not intractable. We know where 'mind' is. The underlying reality is not as unknowable.... the assumption of direct access (=knowability) is still with us. In summary KANTIAN VIEW (single aspect, unsituated science) a) Phenomenon External reality: ACCESSED, KNOWABLE b) Noumenon Underlying reality INACCESSIBLE, UNKNOWABLE <inconsistent attitude to evidence source> MODERN VIEW (dual aspect, situated science) a) Phenomenon External reality: ACCESSIBLE, LIMITED KNOWABILITY b) Noumenon Underlying reality ACCESSIBLE, LIMITED KNOWABILITY <consistent attitude to evidence source> Science currently is a 250 year old museum to the Kantian model. The key is simply that our scientific evidence model needs to be fixed. None of the existing empirical laws (a) are invalidated by this approach. They all stay the same. QM, the lot ...Only their explanatory scope is questioned. They are recognised as fundamentally prevented from dealing with consciousness because they are derived FROM it. We lose nothing - indeed the existing laws (a) are valuable constraints in (b) because whatever model for (b) we derive must simultaneously provide appearances in which all (a) will be observable. This is a highly constrained simultaneous equation, in effect. Both (a) and (b) are tied at the hip by phenomenal consciousness. The two descriptive domains form the basis for what I have called 'dual aspect science'. Thats exactly what, how, why, when, where and who in the bare practical reality of it. The fundamental difference is that class (a) folks derive laws of appearances eg quantum mechanics and (b) folks work on systems of things that behave quantum mechanically when viewed by a viewer made of it. This is a cultural problem. We are already doing both sorts of physics. We just dont realise the full implications/context of it in a brain context. We need to rescue the real noumenon physicists from the metaphysics/space cadet purgatory they inhabit and simply listen to them make predictions nowhere else but in brain material. That is their trump card. Conversely phenomenon physicists must put themselves back inside the universe and get over the assumed 100% access to 100% of truth and back it off to 100% access to 50% of the KNOWABLE truth in a science where we honestly deal with the evidence source: phenomenal consciousness. I cant put it any clearer than this. I have been working within this model. Within it qualia are EASY. I can predict them formally and computationally in CAs. Qualia are possible in the entire class of physics that results from structured noise of the Cahill (Prigogine) kind. It took way longer to work out why science hadn't done it already. It was my problem - I naturally thought in (b) terms because I have never been in science before and had my structural evidentiary blindness installed. Go ask any wet neuroscientist (physiology/anatomy) about studying consciousness...and in about 10 milliseconds you'll get a lecture on evidence based on the Kantian museum-piece evidence system. Then that neuroscientist will walk off and demand all their novices use phenomenal consciousness to get their evidence..... It's all so weird. Colin Hales --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
