On 20 Mar 2013, at 00:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/19/2013 3:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com
> wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms are:
Super-Personal Intentional
(Intuition)
|
|
|
unintentional (determinism) ------------+--------------
unintentional
(random)
|
|
|
Sub-Personal Intentional
(Instinct)
+ = Free will = Personal Intentional (Voluntary Preference)
The x axis = Impersonal
I don't think these are definitions, they are arguments. A definition
of "intentional" in the common sense does not normally include
"neither determined nor random". You should start with the normal
definition then show that it could be neither determined nor random.
It is a serious problem in a debate if someone surreptitiously puts
their conclusion into the definition of the terms.
As a diagram of different action it implies there are, in each
quadrant, actions that are both "Intentional" and "unintentional".
As I said there's no point in arguing with someone who contradicts
himself.
I would say that is the method of the scientist. To make one people
contradicting himself. Then the one contradicted will change its mind
and learn something ... unless it is a literary philosopher, which
will repeat again and again the contradictory statements. In that
case, there is no point in continuing the discussion indeed.
Bruno
Brent
So, do you believe that it possible that an entity which is
deterministic from a third person perspective could be
conscious, or
do you believe that an entity which is deterministic from a third
person perspective could not possibly be conscious?
Yes, I think all deterministic looking systems represent sensory-
motor
participation of some kind, but not necessarily on the level
that we
assume.
What we see as a cloud may have sensory-motor participation as
droplets
of
water molecules, and as a wisp in the atmosphere as a whole, but
not at
all
as a coherent cloud that we perceive. The cloud is a human scale
emblem,
not
the native entity. The native awareness may reside in a much
faster or
much
slower frequency range or sample rate than our own, so there is
little
hope
of our relating to it personally. It's like Flatland only with
perceptual
relativity rather than quant dimension.
I'm not completely sure but I think you've just said the brain
could
be deterministic and still be conscious.
What looks deterministic is not conscious, but what is
consciousness can
have be represented publicly by activity which looks deterministic
to us.
Nothing is actually, cosmically deterministic, only habitual.
If something conscious can look deterministic in every empirical test
then that's as good as saying that the brain could be
deterministic. A
computer is deterministic in every empirical test but you could also
say without fear of contradiction that it is "not actually,
cosmically
deterministic, only habitual."
This is also why computers are not conscious. The native entity is
microelectronic or geological, not mechanical. The machine as a
whole is
again an emblem, not an organic, self-invested whole.
I don't understand what you think the fundamental difference is
between a brain, a cloud and a computer.
A brain is part of an animal's body, which is the public
representation of
an animal's lifetime. It is composed of cells which are the public
representation of microbiological experiences.
A cloud is part of an atmosphere, which is the public
representation of some
scale of experience - could be geological, galactic,
molecular...who knows.
A computer is an assembly of objects being employed by a foreign
agency for
its own motives. The objects each have their own history and
nature, so that
they relate to each other on a very limited and lowest common
denominator
range of coherence. It is a room full or blind people who don't
speak the
same language, jostling each other around rhythmically because
that's all
they can do.
The brain and body are a four billion year old highly integrated
civilization with thousands of specific common histories. The
cloud is more
like farmland, passively cycling through organic phases.
I don't see the relevance of history here. How would it make any
difference to me if the atoms in my body were put there yesterday
by a
fantastically improbably whirlwind? I'd still feel basically the
same,
though I might have some issues if I learned of my true origin.
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
