> So I ask again HOW would we act DIFFERENTLY if we acted "as-if" MIND
> EXISTED.  So far
> the only difference I SEE is writing a lot of stuff in CAPS.
> Brent Meeker

Formally we would investigate new physics of underlying reality such as
Cahill RT. 2005. Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space
and Matter: Nova Publishers.
Cahill RT, Klinger CM. 1998. Self-Referential Noise and the Synthesis of
Three-Dimensional Space. General Relativity and Gravitation(32):529.
Cahill RT, Klinger CM. 2000. Self-Referential Noise as a Fundamental Aspect
of Reality. In: Abbott D, L K, editors. Proc 2nd Int Conf on Unsolved
Problems of Noise and Fluctuations (UPoN'99): American Institute of Physics.
p 511:543.
Kitto K. 2002. Dynamical Hierarchies in Fundamental Physics. In: Bilotta E,
editor. Workshop Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the
Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (ALife VIII): Univ. New South
Wales, Australia. p 55-62.
Instead of competing with traditional 'appearances' physics we go straight
to brain material and make it construct atom behaviour, molecule, cell
behaviour...etc and look at what behaviours might correspond to whatever it
is that functions as phenomenal consciousness in brain material.

Currently this physics (of an underlying structure) is ignored because all
it does is compete with alternate mainstream physics on its own turf.
Instead the physics needs to go to where mainstream physics is voiceless and
impotent by definition - consciousness - and predict brain material
behaviour. This is its validity and its unique entrée into acceptability.

Computationally we would investigate the same systems using cellular
Wolfram S. 2002. A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media. xiv,
1197 p.
....and ask the one question Wolfram failed to ask: "What is it like to be a
cellular automata".... one that makes atoms, space and higher level
structures (like our universe). Also we need to work on CAs of the cell
types based on noise/fluctuation as per Cahill. CAs that construct their own
cells and cell rules at higher and higher levels of complexity - free
running CAs.

Currently both these techniques and people are eschewed as invalid for no
reason other than the virtual solipsism I have been talking about. Both of
these folks have viable things to say about consciousness that mainstream
physics can’t. And they don’t realise it and they don’t understand why they
have trouble with acceptance. The reason they are not accepted is that they

a) working on models of an underlying reality 
b) do not realise the implications in consciousness studies 
c) are competing with traditional explanations when they shouldn’t be


The reason they don't get listened to is 
  underlying physics is regarded as unscientific
  eschewed as 'mere metaphysics'
  they think there's no evidence
  they don’t realise the underlying physics is causing mind
..not laws derived using it
  They think mind will be explained by models of appearances
  They haven't realised/accept mind as evidence in its own right

= mind does not exist

= as-if solipsism.

This situation stems form the Kantian era when the noumenon was accepted
(now erroneously) as proven to be scientifically intractable. Modern
neuroscience shows it to be not intractable. We know where 'mind' is. The
underlying reality is not as unknowable.... the assumption of direct access
(=knowability) is still with us. In summary

KANTIAN VIEW (single aspect, unsituated science)
a) Phenomenon   External reality:       ACCESSED, KNOWABLE
b) Noumenon             Underlying reality      INACCESSIBLE, UNKNOWABLE
<inconsistent attitude to evidence source>

MODERN VIEW (dual aspect, situated science)
a) Phenomenon   External reality:       ACCESSIBLE, LIMITED KNOWABILITY
b) Noumenon             Underlying reality      ACCESSIBLE, LIMITED
<consistent attitude to evidence source>

Science currently is a 250 year old museum to the Kantian model. The key is
simply that our scientific evidence model needs to be fixed. None of the
existing empirical laws (a) are invalidated by this approach. They all stay
the same. QM, the lot ...Only their explanatory scope is questioned. They
are recognised as fundamentally prevented from dealing with consciousness
because they are derived FROM it. We lose nothing - indeed the existing laws
(a) are valuable constraints in (b) because whatever model for (b) we derive
must simultaneously provide appearances in which all (a) will be observable.
This is a highly constrained simultaneous equation, in effect. Both (a) and
(b) are tied at the hip by phenomenal consciousness. The two descriptive
domains form the basis for what I have called 'dual aspect science'.

That’s exactly what, how, why, when, where and who in the bare practical
reality of it. The fundamental difference is that class (a) folks derive
laws of appearances eg quantum mechanics and (b) folks work on systems of
things that behave quantum mechanically when viewed by a viewer made of it.

This is a cultural problem. We are already doing both sorts of physics. We
just don’t realise the full implications/context of it in a brain context.
We need to rescue the real noumenon physicists from the metaphysics/space
cadet purgatory they inhabit and simply listen to them make predictions
nowhere else but in brain material. That is their trump card. Conversely
phenomenon physicists must put themselves back inside the universe and get
over the assumed 100% access to 100% of truth and back it off to 100% access
to 50% of the KNOWABLE truth in a science where we honestly deal with the
evidence source: phenomenal consciousness.

I can’t put it any clearer than this. I have been working within this model.
Within it qualia are EASY. I can predict them formally and computationally
in CAs. Qualia are possible in the entire class of physics that results from
structured noise of the Cahill (Prigogine) kind.

It took way longer to work out why science hadn't done it already. It was my
problem - I naturally thought in (b) terms because I have never been in
science before and had my structural evidentiary blindness installed. Go ask
any wet neuroscientist (physiology/anatomy) about studying
consciousness...and in about 10 milliseconds you'll get a lecture on
evidence based on the Kantian museum-piece evidence system. Then that
neuroscientist will walk off and demand all their novices use phenomenal
consciousness to get their evidence..... It's all so weird.

Colin Hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to