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 purpose? > 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. >For nobody > 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. Brent Meeker > > colin > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
