Colin,

You have described a way in which our perception may be more than can 
be explained by the sense data. However, how does this explain the response 
to novelty? I can come up with a plan or theory to deal with a novel situation 
if it is simply described to me. I don't have to actually perceive anything. 
Writers, 
philosophers, mathematicians can all be creative without perceiving anything. 

Stathis Papaioannou

----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:54:05 +1100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: computer pain
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> 
> 
> Stathis said:
> <snip>
> > If you present an object with "identical sensory measurements" but get
> different results in the chip, then that means what you took as "sensory
> measurements" was incomplete. For example, blind people might be able to
> sense the presense of someone who silently walks into the room due to
> their body heat, or the breeze created by their breathing, or perhaps
> even
> > some proximity sensor that we have not as yet discovered.
> >
> > But even supposing that perception involves some non-local
> > interaction (which would of course be an amazing finding
> > on its own, regardless of the
> > implications for consciousness), much interesting scientific
> > work has nothing to do with the scientist's direct
> > connection with his object of study. A
> > scientist can read about empirical data collected
> > by someone on the other side of the world and come
> > up with a theory to explain it; for all he knows, the data
> > is completely fabricated, but this makes no difference
> > to the cognitive processes
> > which result in the theory.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> 
> RE: "Incomplete" sensing
> 
> Sorry, Stathis, but no amount of sensory feeds would ever make it
> 'complete'. The sensory data is fundamentally ambiguous statistic of it's
> original source. That argumant won't do it. The question is: what physical
> processes cause the brain's field structure to settle on a particular
> solution. That constraint is NOT in the sensory data.
> 
> Yes it will be an amazing result to everyone else. but me. I find it
> amazing that eveyone thinks it could be anything else or that somehow the
> incomplete laws derived using appearances can explain the appearance
> generation system. It's like saying the correltated contents of the image
> in a mirror somehow fathom the reflective surface of the mirror that
> generated the appearances.
> 
> RE: Science
> I know accurate science requires certain behavioural normatives. Effective
> science has skill sets, individual characteristics of the temperament and
> genetic propensities of individual scientists. I know it has a social
> aspect. All this is true but irrelevant.
> 
> From one of the metascience gurus:
> 
> "Science is not done by logically omniscient lone knowers but by
> biological systems with certain kinds of capacities and limitations. At
> the most fine grained level, scientific change involves modifications of
> the cognitive states of limited biological systems".
> Philip Kitcher, 1993
> "The advancement of science : science without legend, objectivity without
> illusions"
> 
> It's going to be fun watching the macro-scale electric field change in
> response to different objects when the sensory measurement is demonstrably
> the same. The only reason we can;t do it in brain materia is we can't get
> at it without buggering it up with probes and other junk related to the
> measurement. Our imaging techniques measure the wrong things.
> 
> It'll light up a light when the subjective experience changes. We can wire
> it up like that. That will be a spooky day. I have to leave now. Merry
> XMAS and 2007 all you everything folk...
> 
> cheers
> 
> colin
> 
> 
> 
> > 

_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---


Reply via email to