> > 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's enshrined in encylopedias! yes it's a problem We don;t know. It was #2 in "big questions" in science mag last year. > 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. Then the proposition should be able to say exactly where, why and how. It can't, it hasn't. >> ....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. Yes but in order that you be mistaken you have to be aware you have made a mistake, which means admitting you have missed something. The existence of an apparently unsolvable problem... isn;t that a case for that kind of behaviour? (see below to see what science doesn't know it doesn't know about itself) > >> >> 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? You have missed the point again. a) We demand CONTENTS OF phenomenal consciousness (that which is perceived) as all scientific evidence. but B) we do NOT accept phenomenal consciousness ITSELF, "perceiving" as scientific evidence of anything. Evidence (a) is impotent to explain (b). Empirical fact - 2500 of total failure. So, why not allow ourselves the luxury of exploring candidate physics of underlying realities that appears to provide phenomenal consciousness in the way that we have? Indeed more than that...such that it also makes the universe look like it does when we do science on it using it = (a)? A very tight constraint. Phenomenality is the evidence source for 2 sets of descrptions not one - both equalliy empirically supported. If we accepted (B) as evidence we'd be doing this already. We don't. We're missing half the 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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---