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 email@example.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---