Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >
> >
> > Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >> >> The problem is that cells are defined and understood only through
> >> being
> >> >> observed with our phenomenal consciousness.
> >> >
> >> > Not "only". Cognition and instrumentation are needed too.
> >>
> >> Yes. But the instruments are observed. All the instruments do is extend
> >> the causal chain between your phenomenality and the observed phenomena.
> >> Provided you can justify the causal source...all is OK... but that's
> >> part
> >> of the critical argument process using existing knowledge. The observer
> >> is
> >> fundamentally in the causal chain from the deepest levels all the way
> >> through all of the instrumentation and into the sensory systems of the
> >> observer. The observer is part of every observation.
> >
> > Hmmm. Are you sure? Is an earthbound astronomer fundamentally
> > part of a supernovca which exploded millionsof years ago ? What
> > do you mean by "fundamentally" ?
> >
> Yes. Causal chains, no matter how improbable, executed at the tiniest of
> scales the same ones that make LUCY our literal ancestor..... connect us.

It depends what you , mean by "connect". I am connected to these
things, but they can manage without me. It is a one-way
kind of connection.

> Consider them entropy transactions. When you objectify it, formalise it
> and it looks (is equivalent to) 'light cone' causal proximity, but that's
> only how it appearas.

> Causal chains all the way from the sub-sub-quark level, all the way out of
> the experiment, up through the instruments, across the room, into your
> eye, action potentials along nerves and then the neuron(s) that deliver
> the qualia... observation.
> >> Consciousness is not a 'high level' emergent property of massive numbers
> >> of neurons in a cortex context. It is a fundamental property of matter
> >> that single excitable cells make good use of that is automatically
> >> assembled along with assembling cells in certain ways.
> >
> > There are a number of leaps there. from "basal" areas
> > to "single neurons", for instance.
> When you look at the imaging it's very small cohorts of neurons. They look
> identical to other sorts of neuron cohorts nearby. One set delivers
> qualia. The others do not.

How do you know ?

> So there are 2 parts to an explanation:
> a) single neuron properties
> b) cohort organisation
> Unless thesre is a property of single neurons to use for a cohort to do
> something with, you are attributing 'magical emergence' to a cohort. This
> is a logical inevitability.

y-e-e-s. But where are you without emergence ? Qualia would
then be properties of quarks. Wihich brings on a Grain problem with
a vengeance.

> Magical emergence means attributing some sort of property inherent in
> organisation itself.

The point of emergence is rather that the property is *not* inherent in
lower-level parts and realtions.

> This leads to logical nonsense in other
> considerations of organisation (eg sentient plumbing in Beijing).
> That leaves us with a property of excitable cells which can
> a) be optionally established by a single cell
> then
> b) be used to collective effect (including cancellation/nullification)

A phenomenal property of a single cell would be emergent relative to
molecular/atomic level.

> At this stage I don;t know which option does the priordial emptions. What
> I do know is that without single cell expression of a kind of
> 'elemental-quale' you can't make qualia.
> Crick and Koch also attributed qualia to small cohorts or possibly single
> cells (but in cortical material in 2003). No we have moved it out of the
> cortext, the arrow is pointing towards single cells... and what do you
> know? they are all different - 'excitable' = electromagnetic behaviour. We
> have a fairly large pointer which says this is a single cell
> electromagnetic phenomenon as like a pixel in a qualia picture.
> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to