On Aug 6, 4:20 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > Craig, > Brent decries: > * ">That's the crux of the argument. Do you suppose that if I were > **> decomposed in my constituent atoms I would still feel? " <* > Whereupon you answer professionally. Not with the question "What is > "FEEL"???"
Not sure I get it. Isn't 'feel' self-explanatory? 'Would I still feel' means, in this case 'would I still experience anything'. > Nor with the retribution that "we" are not composed of 'atoms' ONLY - so why > should these hypothetical ingredients do something like 'feeling'? Because atoms are the precursors to cells, cells to organisms, organisms to nervous systems, and nervous systems feel. My idea is that just as our feeling is not visible in an MRI scan, there may be a similarly invisible interiority to organisms, cells, molecules, and atoms. I further speculate that the interiority is commensurate with the complexity so that simpler structures have simpler 'feelings', 'senses', or 'detections'. It may not - maybe all atoms are one giant entity that is super intelligent, or maybe inanimate objects are just pretending to be inanimate while we're watching. I just consider my speculation to be the most plausible intuitively. > Brent continues more reasonably about "organized matter" (still figmentous) > - while you seem to return to the figments with some "*sensorimoive > electromagnetism" - *part of the subjective physical world. Sensorimotive is the subjective part, electromagnetism is the same thing but seen objectively in the physical world. All electromagnetism is feeling or sense when experienced first hand. This is why we can change our minds with transcranial magnetic stimulation and why we can see our mind work through MRI imagery. I speculate that intention is magnetism and electricity is sense - but in reality they are one thing, just as electromagnetism is one perpendicular waviness shared amongst physical materials. > Your '*information > does not physically exist'* makes 'sense' to me, > although I wonder where the 'adult' and 'human' came in to parse(?). > I drop that in to remind us that infants, seniors with dementia, intoxicated people, people with psychiatric conditions, creatures from other species, etc do not perceive the same information that we do, and therefore we cannot make universal declarations based upon particular channels of sense that we find familiar or powerful. > To your last par: I wonder if our explanatory figment "atom" holds water in > a wider sense. > After 1/2 c in productive polymer chemical R&D I wonder if I spent that time > in a (chemical) Alice's Wunderland? Also "information'" is pretty flexible. > It should refer to 'relations'. I think that if we don't have to worry about what the polymer feels then the chemical modeling is sufficient and necessary to create materials on that level. It's just not sufficient to develop a new alternative to the color 'blue'. Craig -- 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.
