by saying "it does not occur in the situation i am describing.."so it does occur when our sense are present.in that case,it implies that our thoughts are affecting the environment through our senses.now how is that possible?senses are unidirectional. the situation i am describing becomes insignificant when the converse (thoughts affecting the environment )is considered
On Jun 20, 10:45 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/6/20 selva <selvakr1...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 6:32 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:35, selva wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > >> Hi selva, > > > > >> On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: > > > > >>> 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses > > > >>> shut > > > >>> down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his > > > >>> environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around > > > >>> him, ) ,affects his solution ? > > > > >> Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, the > > > >> answer is no. > > > > >>> will there be different solution at different environments ? > > > > >> There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through > > > >> interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the > > > >> situation > > > >> that you are describing. > > > > 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't > > > > affect our environment..? > > > > You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a > > > person is isolated from the environment. > > > This seems to me rather obvious, so I might be missing something. > > > > > in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it > > > > doesn't exist at all ? > > > > It exists, and is fundamental. I argue that if we accept the mechanist > > > hypothesis, then the noetic constitutes the fundamental science(s). I > > > provide the math from extracting both quanta and qualia from the > > > noetic. Physics continue to exist, but is a a study of an emerging > > > mind invariant. > > > I remind that materialism (even weak materialism: the doctrine that > > > primitive or primary (aristotelian) matter exists is logically > > > incompatible with Occam and Mechanism, despite many materialist > > > believe the contrary. > > but noetic science has showed that our physical environment is > > affected by our thoughts.Definitely they are not doing it through our > > senses,not through our actions.then how do they do it ?previously you > > mentioned that there is no interference between our mind and > > environment. > > It seems to me that he said "but this will not occur **in the situation that > you are describing**. > > Not that it does not occur. > > Quentin > > > > > > > > > 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the > > > > solution ? > > > > As far as the local computations made by the brain are well described > > > at the level of particles interactions, gravity is playing a role, no > > > less than electromagnetism or any other forces describing (locally) > > > its current brain state evolution. > > > > Bruno > > > > >>> 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal > > > >>> brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal > > > >>> human brain have computational similarities...then will they have > > > >>> similar response? or as they are made of different materials there > > > >>> would be differences in response ? > > > > >> It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of the > > > >> substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the > > > >> existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. If > > > >> the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your > > > >> "generalized brain", and it is logically possible that you have to > > > >> describe it at the Planck scale or below, but most neurophilosophers > > > >> and physician believe that the generalized brain *is* the biological > > > >> brain. > > > > >> The 'reversal consequence' of Digital Mechanism does not depend on > > > >> the > > > >> substitution level. It depends only on the existence of such a level. > > > > >> Bruno > > > > >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > > > . > > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > -- > > 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 > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
