1Z > > Colin Hales wrote: > > > > > > 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: > > Why not investigate consciousness at the neuronal level rather than > the fundamental-particle level? > >
The problem is that cells are defined and understood only through being observed with our phenomenal consciousness. That process, for the reasons that I have been outlining, can never supply a reason why it shall be necessarily 'like something' to be a cell of a collection of them. That reason is buried deep in the fabric of things. If you understand the underlying structure giving rise to phenomenality then the underlying structure will literally predict the existence, shape, size, behaviour and interconnectivity of neurons and astrocytes _in order_ that you be conscious. Our logic is all backwards: We need to have a theory predicting brain material. A theory based on brain material cannot predict brain material, especially one that has used the property we are trying to find to observe the brain material. The whole exploratory loop is screwed up. Cheers 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
