On 01.09.2011 15:00 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>
wrote:
The atoms have to move in order to write the book. They have to
move inside the brain of the author, then his hands have to move,
the keys on the computer keyboard move, and so on. Also, things
have to happen prior to the book being written. The universe
arises, stars and planets form, life evolves, the author is born,
photons from books he has read on consciousness impact on his
retina which then leads to reactions in his visual cortex and
language centre. It's all very complex, of course, but there is a
causal chain of events. If
Well, this was my question, to specify this casual chain of
events. Especially how movement of atoms creates conscious
experience. Otherwise this is just a matter of belief.
If it isn't the physical processes in the brain causing
consciousness it must be something else, i.e. something non-physical,
conveniently called a soul. The soul should be empirically detectable
if it has an effect on the body. It would be detectable by observing
that apparently magical physical processes occur in the brain, such
as an ion channel opening for no reason at all. We have no evidence
of such things happening. If the soul had no effect on the body but
simply mirrored its behaviour we would not have any empirical
evidence for it but as a hypothesis it should be eliminated by
Occam's Razor.
Well, you have still not explained how books self-assembly themselves
from atoms. This is some problem with your reasoning. What Occam's Razor
says about the creation of books?
In general, I do not know what else exists, but I do have conscious
experience and it is unclear how to explain it starting from atoms and
physical laws that we know (in order to accept Bruno's theory I have
first to learn mathematical logic).
you had the right physical theory and enough computing power you
could start with the Big Bang, run a computer simulation and end
up with the book. Quantum mechanics does not preclude such a
simulation.
This is also just a matter of belief, as you cannot prove it.
I like more science based on experimental studies. From such a
viewpoint, all we can say now is that we do not know this. Or can
you prove your viewpoint based on empirical studies?
While it is not known if physics involves uncomputable functions,
all of known physics is computable.
Do you agree with Bruno's theory? If I understand him correctly, then
even one starts with comp, the 1st person view is still uncomputable.
Hence something uncomputable does exist.
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
