Brent: thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words! I lost track of him lately in the West-Australian deserts (from where he seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s) by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him indeed). I loved (and tried to digest to some extent) his earlier 'words' - making them fundamental to my developing agnosticism.
Brent, to your short closing remark: I do not equate 'being conscious' with the domain-adjective of consciousness - it may be a certain aspect showing within the domain, pertinent to 'those lumps of matter' you mention. I aso value "structure" more than just material functioning. And I wish I had such (your?) alternative hypotheses... not only my agnosticism about it. I agree with most of Colin's un-numbered points on the figment he called "science of consciousness". What I would have added is a date of yesterday (and to support it - as I usually do - compare that level to earlier (millennia?) similar concoctions) . And - would have parethesized the territory named 'science' in them all. Well: what *- IS -* the *LAW OF NATURE *as widely believed? It is the majority of results of observed (poorly understood?) phenomena within the portion of Everything we so far got access to - and that, too, in our mind's adjustment at its actual level (inventory). (Wording mostly based on Colin's earlier writings) It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the totality. Thank you, Colins (and Brent) John Mikes On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also > made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no > progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter > becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically > performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must > exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a > form of mysticism. > > > Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some > others that are structually similar are and that some others are not. A > plausible hypothesis is that the consciousness is a consequence of the > structure. Alternative hypotheses would have to explain this coincidence. > > Brent > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
