On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:05:28 AM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > <stat...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> But you claim that it is impossible to conceive of consciousness >> supervening on function. A religious person would claim that it >> impossible to conceive of consciousness as residing anywhere other >> than in the spiritual realm. Both your positions seem to essentially >> be based on the argument from incredulity: see, this lump of coal is >> inert and dead, how could anything derived from it possibly have >> feelings? >> >> > Craig's "theory" is essentially equivalent with explaining consciousness > in terms of the religious 'soul'. >
Nope. Soul is anthropmorphic. Sense is generic and universal. I am talking physics, not religion. > He argues that "sense" is primary, and that the top-down causality of > intention translates to the bottom-up causality of physics, > Not always, not. There is bottom up, top down, inside out, outside in...all kinds of causality. > and, crucially, that top-down intention is not computable, i.e. that it is > not possible for such top-down intention to emerge in any kind of > simulation, at any level. This is almost exactly the same thing as saying > that what animates us is our god-given soul. > Nope. I am saying that top-down intentions emerge from proprietary diffractions of the eternal experience. It's more Vedic or Taoist than Christian, but where I differ from Vedic or Taoist conceptions is that I do not see matter as illusion or Maya, but as the concrete public presentations which orthomodularly re-present private experiences. > Such stories exist in part to assuage the discomfort of uncertainty or > existential angst, and stop any further inquiry by defining the fundamental > mystery of existence in absolute terms. It is no different from saying that > the way things are is God's will. > Haha, if you see my last response to Stathis, you will see that my story offers no comfort nor discomfort - it is pure science which merely accounts for the actual universe as it is rather than what our mechanistic or animistic compulsions tell us it cannot be. The only advantage that my view offers is that it reveals consciousness as it actually is. Craig > > Terren > > >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> -- >> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -- 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.
