On 28 Aug, 17:07, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Flammarion wrote:
> > On 28 Aug, 02:27, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >> Flammarion wrote:
> >>> On 21 Aug, 21:01, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >>>> Flammarion wrote:
> >>>>> Do you think that if you scanned my brain right down to the atomic
> >>>>> level,
> >>>>> you still wouldn't have captured all the information?
> >>>> That's an interesting question and one that I think relates to the
> >>>> importance of context. A scan of your brain would capture all the
> >>>> information in the Shannon/Boltzman sense, i.e. it would determine which
> >>>> of the possible configurations and processes were realized. However,
> >>>> those concerned about the "hard problem", will point out that this
> >>>> misses the fact that the information represents or "means" something.
> >>>> To know the meaning of the information would require knowledge of the
> >>>> world in which the brain acts and perceives, including a lot of
> >>>> evolutionary history. Image scanning the brain of an alien found in a
> >>>> crash at Roswell. Without knowledge of how he acts and the evolutionary
> >>>> history of his species it would be essentially impossible to guess the
> >>>> meaning of the patterns in his brain. My point is that it is not just
> >>>> computation that is consciousness or cognition, but computation with
> >>>> meaning, which means within a certain context of action.
> >>> But figuring out stored sensory information should be about the
> >>> easiest part of the task. If you can trace a pathway from a red
> >>> sensor to a storage unit, the information in the unit has to mean
> >>> "this is red".
> >>> What is hard about the Hard Problem is *not* interpretation or
> >>> context.
> >> I'm not so sure about that - maybe "more is different" applies. "This
> >> is red" is really a summary, an abstraction, of what the red sensor
> >> firing means to the alien. To a human it's the color of blood and has
> >> connotations of violence, excitement, danger. To an alien with green
> >> blood... from a planet with red seas...? If you knew all the
> >> associations built up over a lifetime of memories and many lifetimes
> >> of evolution maybe the 'hard problem' would dissolve.
> > Not at all. That theory predicts that some entirely novel sensation--
> > one which
> > has not built
> > up any associations --should be easy to describe. But it isn;t. And in
> > fact
> > describing associations is a lot easier than describing the core
> > phenomenal feel.
> Does "that theory" refer to more-is-different? ISTM that
> more-is-different implies exactly what you point out. It's easier to
> describe a sensation that has lots of associations because describe it
> in terms of the associations; whereas a completely novel sensation is
> impossible describe.
if that is so, it negates the claim that the HP is nothing more than
the difficulty of describing meanings and associations
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at