On 11/28/2010 11:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com <mailto:rexallen31...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
    <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen
    <rexallen31...@gmail.com <mailto:rexallen31...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    >> "Information" is just a catch-all term for "what is being
    >> represented".  But, as you say, the same information can be
    >> represented in *many* different ways, and by many different
    >> bit-patterns.
    >>
    >> And, of course, any set of bits can be interpreted as
    representing any
    >> information.  You just need the right "one-time pad" to XOR
    with the
    >> bits, and viola!  The magic is all in the interpretation.  None
    of it
    >> is in the bits.  And interpretation requires an interpreter.
    >
    > I agree with this completely.  Information alone, such as bits
    on a hard
    > disk are meaningless without a corresponding program that reads
    them.  Would
    > you admit then, that a computer which interprets bits the same
    way as a
    > brain could be conscious?  Isn't this mechanism?  Or is your
    view more like
    > the Buddhist idea that there is no thinker, only thought?

    Right, my view is that there is no thinker, only thought.



Do you believe as you type these responses into your computer you are helping bring new thoughts into existence? If I understood the other threads you cited on accidentalism, it seems as though you do not believe anything is caused. Wouldn't that lead to the conclusion that responding to these threads is pointless?


    Once you accept that the conscious experience of a rock exists, what
    purpose does the actual rock serve? It's superfluous. If the rock can
    "just exist", then the experience of the rock can "just exist" too -
    entirely independent of the rock.


Believing thought alone exists doesn't give any explanation for why I see a relatively ordered screen with text and icons I understand, compared to something like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Tux_secure.jpg

There are far more possible thoughts that consist of a visual field that looks random, do you find it surprising you happen to be a thought which is so compressible?

Accepting that rocks exist allows the understanding that some of these rocks have the right conditions for live to develop on them, and evolve brains to use to understand the worlds they appear on. The thoughts of those life forms is not likely to look like random snow, since that would not be useful for their survival. If I start with thought as primitive, and try to explain that thought under accidental idealism I can go no further. While it explains the existence of thought (by definition) it seems like an intellectual dead end.

I doesn't explain the existence of thought or anything else. It just asserts it and then asserts that no explanation is possible because an explanation would require another explanation. Rex is trying to play the tortoise to your Achilles.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to