Colin Hales wrote:
> Dear Brent,
> If you had the most extravagent MRI machine in history, which trapped
> complete maps of all electrons, neuclei and any photons and then plotted
> them out - you would have a 100% complete, scientifically acquired
> publishable description and in that description would be absolutely no
> prediction of or explanation of why it is necessarily 'like it is' to 'be'
> the brain thus described, what that experience will be like.
I think that is mere prejudice on your part. It may be true, but I see no
reason to assume it in advance.
>It would not
> enable you to make any cogent claim as to why it is or is not 'like
> something' to be a computer except insofar as it doesn't have neurons. Why
> am I saying this....Please read David Chalmers. This is not new.
I have. Please read Daniel Dennett's answer to Chalmers.
> Science does not and never has EXPLAINED anything. It merely describes.
So what is your idea of explanation? Is it not a description of cause or
> Read the literature. For the first time ever, to deal with qualia, science
> has to actually EXPLAIN something. It is at the boundary condition where
> you have to explain how you can observe anything at all.
If I can explain how a cat or a robot observes something, does that count?
> As to your EM theory beliefs... please read the literature. Jackson
> "Classical electrodynamics" is a brilliant place to start.
Yes, it was my textbook in graduate school. I don't think Jackson would
endorse your theory that is nothing but EM fields.
> around here in electrical engineering agrees with you... and I have just
> been grilled on that very issue by a whole pile of very senior academics -
> who agree with me. Even my anatomy/neuroscience supervisor, who are
> generally pathologically afraid of physics....tells me there's nothing
> there but space and charge....
Have they not heard of quarks and electrons and gluons? It's really hard to
make atoms without them.
> If you want to draw a line around a specific zone of ignorance and inhabit
> it...go ahead. If you want to believe that correlation is causation go
> ahead. "This is what we do" is what you say when you are a member of a
> club, not a seeker of truth. You have self referentially defined
> truth....and you are welcome to it. ...
> Meanwhile I'll just poke around in other areas. I hope you won't mind.
> Please consider your exasperation quota reached. Job done.
I hope you haven't given up on explaining observation.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at