Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Colin,
Looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness,
does your position vary substantially from what is written there?
Thanks,
Terren
JJ McF, SueP and ERoyJohn all basically say "the EM Field /is/
conscious(ness)".
In that regard: YES. But that's hardly a satisfactory answer.The
real/hard question is: Why? My model is also focussed on whole-tissue
behaviour as driven by the atomic-level. So there's a lot more detail in
my approach. The Russian EM field model in the patent is different to
mine. I also have causal efficacy built in and automatic. The wiki entry
will have to be altered when my stuff gets out.
So the answer is 'sort of'. :-)
My concern all along was more 'why'? That is, I ask the question: X =
/"What perspective must be found under which it makes perfect sense that
the EM field be responsible for phenomenal consciousness?"
/To that end I have actually spent more time researching /science
itself/. Not scientific knowledge, but the behaviour of human
scientists. I have spent much more time answering X than in the neural
molecular/physiology realm!
It turns out that to answer X you have to change science. That is, the
options that humans have when behaving scientifically have to be
fundamentally altered. Technically it's a shift from 'single aspect
science' SAS to 'dual aspect science' DAS. This has been the major
thrust of my writing all along. The practical implication is the full
recognition of the relationship between qualia and scientific
observation and when you have scientific evidence of something.
I have a publication in review at the moment called 'Dual Aspect Science' :
*Abstract*
Our chronically impoverished explanatory capacity in respect of
P-consciousness is used as a vehicle for exploration of the idea that
the problem may be a problem with science itself, rather than its lack
of acquisition of some particular knowledge. The hidden assumption built
into science is that science itself is a completed human behaviour.
Removal of this assumption is achieved through a simple revision to our
science model which is constructed, outlined and named 'dual aspect
science'. It is constructed with reference to existing science being
'single aspect science'. The new model is consistent with and predictive
of the very explanatory poverty that generated it and is simultaneously
a seamless upgrade in that no existing law of nature has to be altered
in any way. The framework is completely empirically self-consistent and
serves to eliminate the behavioural inconsistencies that currently
inhabit a world in which single aspect science has been inherited rather
than chosen and in which its presuppositions are implemented through
habit rather than by scientific examination of options by the scientists
actually carrying out science. The overall implication is that a
discovery is made of a framework within which an explanation of
P-consciousness becomes meaningful . The discovery is about ourselves as
scientists. We have to fully discover how to do science.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It turns out that there are precisely 2 very different sets of 'laws of
nature' that are perfectly consistent with each other. SAS populates the
set of 'laws of nature' I call T. Laws of 'appearance'. These are laws
of nature like F=MA and schrodinger equation etc. However....In reality
a completely distinct set of 'laws of structure' is possible. Call the
laws set T'. Together set T/T' from DAS.
Set T cannot predict phenomenal (P) consciousness because it presupposes
P-consciousness (and scientists).
Set T' delivers P-consciousness. So when someone says "qualia are
outside science" they are right! But not because they are impossible to
characterise - but merely because we have a science culture
misconfiguration (or better - omission).
The 'discovery' we must make is the actual behaviour of scientists fully
equipped to explain P-consciousness. This is the real reason why
P-consciousness is hard to explain - the 'natural world' that is a
scientist capable of the explanation - hasn't been 'discovered'.
That's what the DAS paper is about. EM fields, from the perspective of
dual aspect science - can be held accountable for a subjective
experience. The rub is the acceptance that the universe is NOT made of
the things as revealed by P-consciousness we call space and atoms.
Whatever the universe is made of....EM fields are 'what it looks like'
when you use the EM fields to observe the production of P-consciousness.
P-consciousness is literally scientific evidence for both T and T'
science domains. Any scientific discovery has to be completely
consistent with both the 'appearance' T and the (underlying) or T' =
'structure' knowledge sets. The T' set is explored via the use of
cellular automata (a free-form CA, not the traditional kind). The laws
in T' are the rules of the 'natural' CA.
For the physics buffs amongst us: DAS explains why there are 2 kinds of
'theory of everything' MATHS (uber-group-maths-theories - of -
appearances) and 'STUFF' (branes, strings, loops, preons etc theories of
structure). The reason for the 2 types is that thr former is the
T-aspect version of the latter, which is the T' aspect equivalent. The
poor buggers doing T' aspect don't know they're actually fighting over
the same thing!
Only from a DAS perspective does EM-field (the U1
group)-as-consciousness acquire any explanatory authority. /So to
explain my chips I have to change the whole of science! /That's 1
impossible thing before breakfast. Only 5 to go.
cheers
colin hales
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=123753653-47f84b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
