Interleaving.

 "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:56 AM:

> John Mikes wrote on 28 July 2004:
>
> QUOTE-(SNIP)
> -ENDQUOTE
> I am not sure that I understand what you mean, or that you understood what
I
> meant. I don't claim to know exactly how the human brain works, but I do
> know (and so do you) that it works as the result of the complex
organisation
> of its constituent parts, (...)
[JM]:
I know it differently, unless you include into the 'constituent parts' of
its COMPLEX ORGANIZATION more than just the flesh. Eg. the qualia of the
organization (human) total. Besides for "brain" in such respect I understand
more than the tissue filling the cranium.
OR (if you wrote with an open mind for wholness-thinking beyond the
physics-books):
we have to agree that besides those physiological measurements on mostly
(electro)chemistry of neuronal functions which are only a so-far detected
(and studied) part of its function AND beyond those physical laws you
mention as sacrosanct, there is more to be known (included).
I want to bank on your subsequent expression:

>which, like everything else in the universe,
> interact according to the laws of physics, whatever those laws might be. <

-the "whatever", if it means: 'unrestricted to the content of the 2004AD
physics books'.
My argument is: there was physics before the discovery of electricity or
radioactivity and their discovery merged into 'physics' quite well, so I
don't consider the 2004 'physics' as finally closed.
(If you want to call it still 'physics').

>As a matter of fact, I believe that consciousness (or qualia, or subjective
> experience) is something irreducible,...<

According to the 2004 status-quo of those (and only those) laws you
mentioned. New discoveries may render them calculable (predictable?) by
newly emerging parameters.

>... because even if we knew every detail
> at the finest level of the workings of the brain of a bat, for example,
> there is still something we would not know: what it actually feels like to
> be a bat. But it does not follow from this that there is something
magical -
> meaning beyond the laws of physics - about consciousness.<

Please, don't substitute our human thinking for a bat-level mind. Such
substitution is false.
Hameroff and Penrose (JCS ~1992?) substituted the 'bat' by a worm's feeling.
I argued how wrong it is to think with our neuronal braincomplexity in terms
of the ~1000 neurons of a worm.
The complexity of the mind works WITH the material tool (10^11 neurons) and
all that our present science is doing is to observe the tool-part and
explain the whole (function) by the conclusions drawn therefrom (using the
word: somehow for the qualia-jump).
It is like explaining the car by the study of the piston and concluding that
the piston is the cause of the running of the car. With proper conditioning
(modeling, kept inside the adequately chosen boundaries) it may even be
mathematically proven(?).
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
John Mikes


Reply via email to