On Monday, October 8, 2012 5:51:56 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Craig Weinberg > <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > >> Well, if it's not the laws of physics then it's something supernatural, > >> isn't it? > > > > > > Not unless you assume that physics is complete. To me, if we have no > idea > > how anything detects anything then we haven't completely understood > physics. > > I assume that nothing can be supernatural. There is nothing that is not > > nature. This conversation is nature. > > There is no assumption that our knowledge of physics is complete; in > fact if there were that assumption there would be no point in being a > physicist, would there? As a matter of fact I believe that the basic > physics of the brain has been understood for a long time and I > challenge you to point out one thing that has been discovered in > neuroscience which would surprise a chemist from the middle of last > century.
What you are saying is 'nobody thinks physics is complete', followed by 'everybody knows that the physics of the brain has been complete for a long time'. This not only supports my point, but it brings up the more important point - the blindness of robustly left-hemisphere thinkers to identify their own capacity for denial. For me it's like a split brained experiment. I say 'the problem is that people think physics is complete' and you say 'no they don't. You can't show me any signs that physics of the brain isn't complete.' Total disconnect. You'll keep denying it too. Not your fault either, apparently, that's just the way a lot of intelligent people are wired. I have no idea if it's possible for people to consciously overcome that tendency...it would be like glimpsing yourself in the mirror before your image actually turned around. > But that is not relevant to this discussion. The question is > whether the physics of the brain, known or unknown, is computable. If > it is, If the physics of the brain is incomplete, then how could we say whether it is computable or not? To me, the color red is physical, so that any computation of the brain has to arrive at a computational result that is [the experience of seeing red]. I don't think that is remotely possible. > then in theory a computer could be just as intelligent as a > human. If it isn't, then a computer would always have some deficit > compared to a human. Maybe it would never be able to play the violin, > cut your hair or write a book as well as a human. The deficiency is that it couldn't feel. It could impersonate a violin player, but it would lack character and passion, gravitas, presence. Just like whirling CGI graphics of pseudo-metallic transparent reflecty crap. It's empty and weightless. Can't you tell? Can't you see that? Again, I should not expect everyone to be able to see that. I guess I can only understand that I see that and know that you can see a lot of things that I can't as well. In your mind there is no reason that we can't eat broken glass for breakfast if we install synthetic stomach lining that doesn't know the difference between food and glass. Nothing I can say will give you pause or question your reasoning, because indeed, the reasoning is internally consistent. > This is apparently > what you think, but you have not presented any evidence for this > non-computable physics. It's just an assumption you make. > We are the evidence. Our own consciousness is an assumption that we have no choice but to make. The capacity to judge evidence supervenes on the assumption of consciousness, of the color red, of self and other, symmetry, etc. Evidence is wayyyy down the list of derivative effects. Craig > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/UJOZq77HVMsJ. 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.
