On 27 Oct 2012, at 17:49, John Mikes wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
<whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, and organisms. Whatever
we do is
> what the laws of physics *actually are*. Your assumptions about
the laws of
> physics are 20th century legacy ideas based on exterior
manipulations of
> exterior instruments to measure other exterior phenomena.
Whatever we do is determined by a small set of rules,
No. What we as humans do is determined by human experiences and
human character, which is not completely ruled externally. We
participate directly. It could only be a small set of rules if
those rules include 'do whatever you like, whenever you have the
chance'.
JM: who is that agency "we"? having 'human experiences and human
character'?
You were quoting Craig. Nt sure I understand Craig paragraph, nor your
question here.
Bruno
the rules being
as you say what matter actually does and not imposed by people or
divine whim.
Matter is a reduced shadow of experiences. Matter is ruled by
people and people are ruled by matter. Of the two, people are the
more directly and completely real phenomena.
This is correct, but not obvious at all (for aristotelicians), and
yet a logical consequence of comp, with "people" replaced by Löbian
universal machine.
This has been be put in a constructive form, with computer science.
It makes comp (+ reasonable definition of knowledge, observation, in
the UD context) testable, and already tested on non trivial
relations between what is observable (quantum logic).
The science and the math already exist.
All machines looking inward deep enough will develop a non comp
intuition, and some can go beyond.
Bruno
I really don't understand where you disagree with me,
since you keep making statements then pulling back if challenged.
I don't see where I am pulling back. I disagree with you in that to
you any description of the universe which is not matter in space
primarily is inconceivable. I am saying that what matter is and
does is not important to understanding consciousness itself. It is
important to understanding personal access to human consciousness,
i.e. brain health, etc, but otherwise it is consciousness, on many
levels and ranges of quality, which gives rise to the appearance of
matter and not the other way around.
Do
you think the molecules in your brain follow the laws of physics,
such
as they may be?
The laws of physics have no preference one way or another whether
this part of my brain or that part of my brain is active. I am
choosing that directly by what I think about. If I think about
playing tennis, then the appropriate cells in my brain will
depolarize and molecules will change positions. They are following
my laws. Physics is my servant in this case. Of course, if someone
gives me a strong drink, then physics is influencing me instead and
I am more of a follower of that particular chemical event than a
leader.
If so, then the behaviour of each molecule is
determined or follows probabilistic laws, and hence the behaviour of
the collection of molecules also follows deterministic or
probabilistic laws.
I am determining the probabilities myself, directly. They are me.
How could it be otherwise?
If consciousness, sense, will, or whatever else is
at play in addition to this then we would notice a deviation from
these laws.
Not in addition to, sense and will are the whole thing. All
activity in the universe is sense and will and nothing else. Matter
is only the sense and will of something else besides yourself.
That is what it would MEAN for consciousness, sense, will
or whatever else to have a separate causal efficacy;
No. I don't know how many different ways to say this: Sense is the
only causal efficacy there ever was, is, or will be. Sense is
primordial and universal. Electromagnetism, gravity, strong and
weak forces are only examples of our impersonal view of the sense
of whatever it is we are studying secondhand.
absent this, the
physical laws, whatever they are, determine absolutely everything
that
happens, everywhere, for all time. Which part of this do you not
agree
with?
None of it. I am saying there are no physical laws at all. There is
no law book. That is all figurative. What we have thought of as
physics is as crude and simplistic as any ancient mythology. What
we see as physical laws are the outermost, longest lasting
conventions of sense. Nothing more. I think that the way sense
works is that it can't contradict itself, so that these oldest ways
of relating, once they are established, are no longer easy to
change, but higher levels of sense arise out of the loopholes and
can influence lower levels of sense directly. Hence, molecules
build living cells defy entropy, human beings build airplanes to
defy gravity.
> You can't see
> consciousness that way. From far enough a way, our cities look
like nothing
> more than glowing colonies of mold. It's not programming that
makes us one
> way or another, it is perception which makes things seem one way
or another.
>
> The only thing that makes computers different is that they don't
exist
> without our putting them together. They don't know how to exist.
This makes
> them no different than letters that we write on a page or
cartoons we watch
> on a screen.
If the computer came about through an amazing accident would that
make
any difference to its consciousness or intelligence?
Yes. If a computer assembled itself by accident, I would give it
the benefit of the doubt just like any other organism. But would it
heal itself too? Would it reproduce? Would it lie and cheat and
steal to get what it needs for it's computer family? If not, then
the accidental computer would not last very long in the wild.
If a biological
human were put together from raw materials by advanced aliens would
that make any difference to his consciousness or intelligence?
It would if we were automaton servants of their agendas.
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/-/OCJplR--MuEJ
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@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
.
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
.
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.
