Stathis said....
> I'll let Colin answer, but it seems to me he must say that some aspect of
> brain
> physics deviates from what the equations tell us (and deviates in an
> unpredictable
> way, otherwise it would just mean that different equations are required)
> to be
> consistent. If not, then it should be possible to model the behaviour of a
> brain:
> predict what the brain is going to do in a particular situation, including
> novel situations
> such as those involving scientific research. Now, it is possible that the
> model will
> reproduce the behaviour but not the qualia, because the actual brain
> material is
> required for that, but that would mean that the model will be a
> philosophical zombie,
> and Colin has said that he does not believe that philosophical zombies can
> exist.
> Hence, he has to show not only that the computer model will lack the 1st
> person
> experience, but also lack the 3rd person observable behaviour of the real
> thing;
> and the latter can only be the case if there is some aspect of brain
> physics which
> does not comply with any possible mathematical model.
> Stathis Papaioannou

Exactly right....except for the bit where you talk about 'deviation from
the model'. I expect the EM model to be perfectly right - indeed MUST be
right or I can't do the experiment because the modelling I do will help me
design the must be right or they won't work. It's just that the
models don't deliver all the result - you have to "BE the chips" to get
the whole picture.

What is missing from the model, seamlessly and irrevocably and
instrinsically... is that it says nothing about the first person
perspective. You cannot model the first person perspective by definition,
because every first person perspective is different! The 'fact' of the
existence of the first person is the invariant, however.

So....All the models are quite right and accurate, but are inherently
third person descriptions of 'the stuff', not 'the stuff'. When you be
'the stuff' under the right circumstances there's more to the description.
And EVERYTHING gets to 'be' forced, implicitly to uniquely be
somewhere in the universe and inherits all the properties of that act,
NONE of which is delivered by empirical laws, which are constructed under
conditions designed specifically to throw out that
perspective...and...what's does it by verifying the laws using
the FIRST do all scientific measurements...not only that, if
you don't do it with the first person (measurement/experimental
observation grounded in the first person of the scientist) you get told
you are not doing science!

How screwed up is that!

My planned experiment makes chips and on those chips will be probably 4
intrinsically intermixed 'scientists', all of whom can share each other's
"scientific evidence" = first person experiences...whilst they do 'dumb
science' like test a hypothesis H1 = "is the thing there?". By fiddling
about with the configuration of the scientists you can create
circumstances where the only way they can agree/disagree is because of the
first person perspective....and the whole thing will obey Maxwell's
equations perfectly well from the outside. Indeed the 'probes' I will
embed will measure field effects in-situ that are supposed to do what
Maxwell's equations says.


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

Reply via email to