On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal > > In 1) you left out the someone to be conscious. Consciousness needs a > subject. > In 2) you left out the our. Consciousness needs a subject. > Consciousness needs a subjective point of view but if you think of how we experience being deeply engrossed in a movie or book, or how we 'lose ourselves' in Flow states, it seems that the necessity of a subject in the human sense is an open question - although the existence of human subjectivity certainly suggests that such a subject is inherently possible through consciousness. I remember having dreams in which I was not present, but rather just aware of events and people as they were interacting. Not even a voyeur, but no sense of there being anything other than the people and their activities. Maybe dream consciousness doesn't qualify as consciousness, but that's a separate semantic issue. It could also be the case that such dreams and self-transcendence are only possible as an a posteriori imagination which arises from a fully formed human self...hard to know. Craig > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/4/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-09-03, 11:06:47 > *Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect > > > On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi meekerdb > > I don't hold to Popper's criterion. > There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable. > For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down. > > > ? > Falsifiable means "can be falsified". here the gravity can be falsfied: > "you drop the apple and gravity pulls it up". > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > IMHO and for what it's worth, if you don't at least give a rough > definition of consciousness, > you might leave out something some of us consider essential, such as > a subject: > > Cs = subject + object > > If you don't include the subject, then: > > > Cs = object > > > which makes it a noun. Persponally I believe that it's a dipole. > > > I have no definition of consciousness. With comp I can show why there are > none. > But this does not prevent us to reason on it, once we can agree on some > principles about it. > To get the consequences of comp, about consciousness, you need only to > agree with this: > > 1) that you are conscious (or that the humans are conscious) > 2) that our consciousness is invariant for digital functional change made > at *some* description level of the brain or body or local environment or > even some physical universe. > > All the rest follows from arithmetic and Church thesis if you agree on 1) > and 2). > > 3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work, > it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle > down doesn't work. > > > I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot > work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on > propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too > much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military > industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. > It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as > the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) > of professional liars. > > Hi Richard Ruquist > > There is no god in comp. > > > Here I disagree. If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by > 1) what is responsible for our existence > 2) so big as to be beyond nameability > Then there is a God in comp. > Of course if you define God by "white giant with a beard, and sitting on a > cloud", then you are very plausibly right. > A little more on this in my reply to Richard. > > Bruno > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
