Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>> But you have no way to know whether phenomenal scenes are created by a
>> particular computer/robot/program or not because it's just mystery
>> property defined as whatever creates phenomenal scenes.  You're going
>> around in circles.  At some point you need to anchor your theory to an
>> operational definition.
> 
> OK. There is a proven mystery calle dthe hard problem. Documented to death
> and beyond. 

It is discussed in documents - but it is not "documented" and it is not proven. 
It is predicted (by Bruno to take a nearby example) that a physical system that 
replicates the functions of a human (or dog) brain at the level of neural 
activity and receives will implement phenomenal consciousness.  This may be 
false, it may take a soul or spirit, but such certainly has not be proven.

>Call it Physics X. It is the physics that _predicts_ (NOT
> DESCRIBES) phenomenal consciousness (PC). We have, through all my fiddling
> about with scientists, conclusive scientific evidence PC exists and is
> necessary for science.
> 
> So what next?
> 
> You say to yourself... "none of the existing laws of physics predict PC.
> Therefore my whole conception of how I understand the universe
> scientifically must be missing something fundamental. Absolutely NONE of
> what we know is part of it. What could that be?".
> 
> Then you let yourself have the freedom to explore that possibiltiy. For the
> answer to is which you seek.
> 
> The answer?
> 
> ....is that the physics (rule set) of appearances and the physics (rule
> set) of the universe capable of generating appearances are not the same
> rule set! That the universe is NOT made of its appearance, it's made of
> something _with_ an appearance that is capable of making an appearance
> generator.

It is a commonplace that the ontology of physics may be mistaken (that's how 
science differs from religion) and hence one can never be sure that his theory 
refers to what's really real - but that's the best bet.

> 
> That's it. Half the laws of physics are going neglected merely because we
> won't accept phenomenal consciousness ITSELF as evidence of anything.

We accept it as evidence of extremely complex neural activity - can you 
demonstrate it is not?

Brent Meeker

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to