Hi, > From: Mirai Shounen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I think your idea makes sense. > Just like the distance between two particles is not 'nothing' > but a real > property of the universe at that time (therefore there are 3 things in > mary's brain), also the specific configuration of > neurotransmitters and > electrical impulses in the brain is something not less real than the > individual constituent parts of the brain itself. So it could > very well be > that we are this something (this configuration). Maybe there > is something it > feels like for the distance between two particles to increase. > > Another possibility is that subjective sensations and qualia > are the only > things that exist, the very structure of the universe, and > the existence of > the physical, and even the way it seems to all make sense, > these maybe only > details of the experiences that we happen to have. > I imagine an infinite dimensional space in which every > possible quale has > one dimension, with intensity ranging from 0 to infinity. > Within such a > framework, every stream of consciousness could be defined as a > multidimensional curve. At Point A you have pain in your neck > of intensity > X, see a red blob with intensity Y and so forth. Then your > point at that > time would be (x,y) in a 2dimensional space (for simplicity). > This solves > copy paradoxes and teleportation arguments, if it's not clear > how it does so > feel free to mail me. > > I have an additional thought about qualia that I haven't found in the > literature. > For us to talk about qualia the brain needs to represent > them. If the brain > represents them, then they are not qualia anymore. When we > say the redness > of red, the brain is representing this, so in the end it IS > all a matter of > data structures and representation. This in my opinion invalidates all > dualistic theories, since it eliminates the need for any kind > of soul and > for a connection between soul and hardware. Any thoughts on this? > > mirai++ >
Re the latter thought: Can I suggest reading a pile of Daniel Dennett? The 'representationalist' or its extremum: the "eliminativist" end of consciousness is, as are all other philosophical positions as far as I can tell, both right and wrong. (The exception: the projectivist, this seems to match the model). I have said elsewhere: "If representation is all these is to consciousness then a mediocre poet could make paper hurt". Yes there is representation. However, the representation is in matter, literally. Not just a bunch matter pointing at a thing, but the thing. Re the former thought: I am at the end of a very long formulation of a theory and it is sourced entirely through the multi-disciplinary study of brain matter over 2 years of 'lockup'. I already know where and how and why the effects I describe are carried out with anatomical clues in neurons and glia (astrocytes). That side of it is all in the bag. I don't need a solution to that end of the detail to qualia. Job's done. It's the fundamental nature of the _visibility_ of the phenomena used to generate that is what my question is all about. ---------------------------------------------- An observation: 1) There is a spectacular lack of posts with links to papers and other supporting material. 2) Nobody has come out with a silver bullet to refute it to death. I conclude that I am out on a novel but breezy little speculative ismuth at the frontier of knowledge. I'm starting to get used to that. :-) It seems to be the lot of the guy holding this kind of proposal. It's a dirty job but.... Oh well, I tried. Cheers, Colin Hales
