On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:33:23 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote: > > > The laws of physics as you understand them forbid any form of >> consciousness >> > > The laws of physics as I understand them neither forbids nor demands any > form of consciousness. >
In what way isn't it forbidden though? What physical mechanism is there available that could allow for experience? > > > The only thing you know about the brain is the way that people have used >> instruments, using a one dimensional signal that comes into a wire from >> some probe or meter. > > > That is true but its truth is not confined to the brain. The only way you > know about ANYTHING, except perhaps for pure mathematics, is indirectly by > interpreting a sequence of electrical signals sent to the brain. > Why do you exempt mathematics? Are you saying math has a backdoor to your mind that skips the brain? > And those electrical signals did not even come from the apple you think > you're "looking" at, they came from your eye. > Who says that the electrical signal is the experience of looking? I think that it is nothing of the sort. The signal is a sign of an experience taking place, and taking place on several levels, but the brain level activity has very little to do with the experience other than to announce its occurrence. Am I communicating that well enough that you can tell the difference? A frame count is not the same thing as movie. A movie is not made of frame counts. The apple, I am saying is actually more what you think you're looking at than it is anything that can be derived from instrumental measurements. Measurement augments experience, but cannot replace it. > And the eye did not directly detect the apple either, it only detected > electromagnetic waves (that the brain would later hypothesize came from a > apple) and then used a convention that both the eye and brain agreed upon > and translated those electromagnetic waves into electrical sequences that > are sent down a wire to the brain. > I used to believe that also, but I understand that it is actually a misconception. There is computation, and there are protocols but that has nothing whatsoever with the physics of awareness itself. > > > Looking at an apple >> > > How a apple looks to you is NOT an apple. > Yes it actually is. How an apple looks to a camera with no photographer is NOT an apple. > > > smelling >> > > How a apple smells to you is NOT an apple. > Again, you are arbitrarily privileging your certainty in a voyeurs world that can't actually exist. OF COURSE how an apple smells to you IS an apple. There is no experience of an apple beyond whatever it is that is experiencing it - be it a person, a bird, an ant, or a molecule in a cell in the apple seed. There IS NO "IS". > > > and tasting the apple >> > > How a apple tastes to you is NOT an apple. > See above. > > > I experience everything that matters about apples >> > > Everything that matters to you perhaps, and in exactly the same way > complex numbers can provide everything that matters to you about 3D space. > I don't see the connection. Complex numbers provide me with nothing at all that matters to me about 3D space. > > > When we talk about apples, we are talking about qualia. >> > > If so then when we're talking about the color red why aren't we talking > about electromagnetic waves 7700 angstroms long? You can't have it both > ways, either the qualia of a thing is identical to the thing itself or it > is not, and either answer leads to a contradiction in your philosophy. > Because the color red is not dependent on electromagnetic waves. I am imagining a red apple right now, yet there are no red apples being projected in my brain. Everything is qualia but not every part of everything is the same kind of qualia. Qualia related to public interaction is a reduced set - the ASCII of qualia if you will - which deals with bodies in space. Density, position, shape. Bodies are obstructions in sense where other experiences which are not our own are represented in our experience. > > > There is no 'one dimensional wire to your brain'. The optic nerve is a >> community of living organisms [...] We can talk about sugar content or >> cellular structure, but there is nothing apple-like about that. >> > > Why is it that the cellular structure of a apple is not important but the > cellular structure of a nerve is? > The cellular structure of an apple is important if you have a microscope and are interested in it. > > > Why should any signals be interpreted as 3D space? >> > > Because it can be without contradiction, and because Evolution has > determined that this interpretation helps in getting genes into the next > generation. > That's meaningless. You have no idea at all why they should be interpreted in that way, or in any way, so you say 'God, er, evolution did it.' It doesn't make sense though. Evolution has no reason for or method by which anything such as a 'spatial presentation' could come to be. It's indefensible. > > > Where do the dimensions come from? >> > > The qualia of spacial dimensions come from complex numbers (probably); as > for the dimensions themselves who knows, I don't even know for a fact they > exist. > It's so odd and frustrating, and you are by no means the only one, that you can't see this is so obviously a huge problem. Why would space come from complex numbers probably? Why not from apple pies? > > > You have no support for your supersitition that there is a such thing as >> 3D space independent of that experience orchestrated by a brain >> > > So we're back at the qualia of a thing being identical to the thing itself > No, we're not, because there IS NO thing itself. There is experiences nested within experiences. > , in that case I wonder why anybody even bothered to invent the word > "qualia" in the first place, but never mind, from now on I don't want you > to give me that old line "electromagnetic waves of 7700 angstroms are not > the qualia red" > You mean that old, true-by-definition-to-those-who-understand-the-word-qualia line? > > >> > Please give me an example of any arithmetic process which generates >> physical or experiential consequences. >> > > Email, MPEGS, JPEGS. > Sorry, need a Video Graphic Array for thems to have consequences...which would be a physical device. > > >> complex numbers can be both qualitative as well as quantitative, they >>> can have both a magnitude and a direction. >>> >> >> > No. All of the qualities of numbers are figurative. The direction and >> magnitude are poetic and abstract, not spatial. >> > > The correct complex number can give me enough spatial information > There is no spatial information. There is an experience of being informed in a way that you can visualize spatially. The numbers themselves provide no access to space. > to tell me how much gunpowder to put into my cannon and what angle to > elevate it at to drop a artillery shell on your head and poetically turn > your brain into bits of grey goo and stop your abstract mind from working > forever. > Yes, like I said, numbers are figurative. You can use them to figure out how much gunpowder to use. But that's only because you have a sensory-motor experience of gunpowder, not because the numbers are magically making something happen in space without you. > > >> >> if the way computers process data is meaningless why is computer data >>> processing a multi-trillion dollar industry? >>> >> >> > Because it is valuable to us to be informed. >> > > If computers strip out the meaning from data how can that inform us. > There isn't any meaning in the data to begin with. The meaning is in our experience of how that data is presented through the technology and our senses. > > >> > It is not because computers are made of silicon, but because anything >> that does not become a living being by itself can't generate a history of >> personal experiences of human>animal>cellular quality. >> > > You did not "become a living being by itself" anymore than Watson did. > Why not? > > > I don't care whether computers are conscious or not. >> > > I do not believe that for one single second, and if you're honest with > yourself you won't believe it either. Coming to this problem with a clean > slate and without prejudice NOBODY would be convinced by the anemic and > contradictory arguments presented by you and others on this list. This is > clearly the case where somebody has strong emotional reasons for wanting > something to be true and then looks around in panic desperate to grab hold > of anything however insubstantial that might keep the idea afloat for just > a little longer. > That's just your prejudice talking. The reality that my position is completely honest, unbiased, and scientific doesn't make sense to you, so you deny it. At least Bruno has an interesting reason for arguing comp. I believe that he is seeing that arithmetic truth is orders of magnitude more mind-like than most people can realize. I respect that and I don't mind that he thinks that I don't realize that. I suspect that he thinks that since I don't understand how to do the math, I am arguing from a narrow view of it, but that is not the case. My argument is that the complexity and depth of math is a wholly orthogonal phenomenon to the depth of sense. I have no prejudice at all against technology, but I do see that what I call the Occidental worldview pathologically under-signifies subjectivity, and that it is in fact at the root of the crisis of modernity. My view heals that pathology and the counter-pathology of fundamentalist religiosity so that we can move forward personally and collectively. Craig > > John K Clark > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
