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?
> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to