On 20 Jun 2011, at 19:10, selva wrote:



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.

What do you mean by "noetic science". I use it in the sense of the (greek scholars): pertaining to the intellect or the mental. It is the third person describable cognitive process, and it is well described by computer science, or by the logic of provability (in the case of ideally correct machines). I think that noetic might come from the "noûs" (the divine intellect, the one played by G* in arithmetic). Now I can understand that the cognitive processes affect the physical environment (fears leads to atomic bombs, to give a trivial example, love gives rise to 'Mona Lisa', etc.).





Definitely they are not doing it through our
senses,not through our actions.

You lost me, here.




then how do they do it ?previously you
mentioned that there is no interference between our mind and
environment.

In the situation you were describing, that is where someone is isolated from his local environment.

If you are thinking to something like telekinesis, I don't believe in it. Nor do I believe it is impossible. Its existence is just an open problem, theoretically. So I am agnostic on it. If it exists, it would probably mean that the comp substitution level is much lower than what most empirical evidences suggest.

I have never seen evidence for telekinesis, but I do have seen many evidences for it being debunked by a deepening of the statistics (a bit like the danger of cannabis). To be sure, I have also seen many incorrect arguments against telekinesis. They assume some high comp substitution level without making this precise, or they use some naïve notion of matter hardly compatible with comp or even the quantum data. Some weak quantum form of telekinesis are plausible, a bit like the quantum Zeno effect. But they will use interferences between superposed states (aka parallel universes).

Bruno






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 .


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.

Reply via email to