On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s
grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so
obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief.
I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-
wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they
(Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness”
is
· the “the science of the scientific observer”
That's observation theory, not consciousness theories.
· trying to explain observing with observations
Of course you need logic, ans some assumption on the mind (like
computationalism assume mind to be invariant for Turing simulation).
· trying to explain experience with experiences
Well, at some level, we can't avoid that, but the experience are
extended into testable theories.
· trying to explain how scientists do science.
In some theoretical frame. yes, "meta-science" can be handled
scientifically (= modestly).
· a science of scientific behaviour.
· Descriptive and never explanatory.
You overgeneralize. That is the case of physics, but not of meta-
mathematics in the comp frame. I recall to you that computationalism
is incompatible with physicalism.
· Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of
nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality...
That's partly wrong, partly correct.
· Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never
ever ever questioning that.
?
That's fuzzy, and false, as far as I can interpret it precisely.
· Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything.
That's false in Everett QM, and in computationalism.
· Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out
of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it.
Many does evidence the subjectivity. especially on this list. You are
a bit unfair.
· Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with
objectified phenomena.
Well, that's exactly the kind of Aristotelianism that computationalism
refutes.
2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presupposition....now
gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A
new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we
have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe,
The physical universe? I am agnostic on this, if only because that is
what we need to explain once we assume the brain Tring emulable at
some level.
made of whatever it is made of,
Yes, matter is not made of matter. That's the comp point.
getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it......
grrrrrrrr. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever,
in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the
universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a
presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’.
Yes, that is what comp makes into a theorem. We agreed on this already
in previous post. You should send your comment to more physicalist
forum.
yet you still seem to assume a physical reality, ad so are not yet
cured of Aristotelian theology, apparently.
The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what
the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering
an ability to scientifically observe in the first place.
Wich stuff?
These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even
lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know
what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The
problem is _science itself_ ... _us_.
Science is just a matter of modesty and clarity. And yes, in the mind
science, the human emotions drives us still a lot, and people get
unscientific. the problem is not "science", it is our tolerance for
the lack of rigor in theology (efven more so in the theologuy of the
atheist scientists (a contradiction in term). Science must be
agnostic, even religion has to be, if comp is true.
Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a
book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll
sort them out.
It looks like you are still confusing computationalism and
physicalism. But there are opposed. if comp is correct, the theology
has to be platonist. The physical universe is not made of things, but
is an appearance from inside arithmetic.
Happy new year!
Happy new year Colin. You preach a choir here, but amazingly seems to
still believe in a primitive universe, making your point eventually
seeming contradictory.
Bruno
Cheers,
Colin (@Dr_Cuspy, if you tweet).
<phew rant over, feel better now>
--
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
