Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>> 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.

Where is in the brain.  Science doesn't usually answer "why" questions except 
in the general sense of evolutionary adaptation.  How? we don't know exactly.  
But having an unanswered question doesn't constitute a deep mystery that 
demands new physics.  

>>> 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, 

Do you ever read what you write?  That sounds like something Geore W. Bush 

>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.

Sure we do.  We accept it as evidence of our evolutionary adaptation to 
survival on Earth.

> Evidence (a) is impotent to explain (b). 

That's your assertion - but repeating it over an over doesn't add anything to 
its support.

Maybe some new physics is implied by consciousness (as in Penrose's suggestion) 
or a complete revolution (as in Burno's UD), but it is far from proven.  I 
don't see even a suggestion from you - just repeated complaints that we're not 
recognizing the need for some new element and claims that you've proven we need 

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