On Aug 6, 4:40 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 8/6/2011 12:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > You wouldn't feel, but neither would something in your shape feel if > > it were composed of ping pong balls. The fundamental unit has to be > > something with the potential to build it's existing nature into > > feeling. > > That would be carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms. So if I > make a computer out of those atoms and it's functionally equivalent to a > brain it will instantiate consciousness. I think that you have to make molecules that can make cells of the CHON first. If you can get cells to make a brain, then yes, you've got yourself the potential to instantiate consciousness. > > If you are knocked unconscious you stop feeling, but your > > brain continues to make sense of itself and bring itself back into a > > condition where you will become conscious again, assuming the damage > > doesn't prohibit that. > > >> The matter is, > >> ex hypothesi, the same. It seems pretty clear to me that it is not the > >> matter per se that feels, it is the organized matter. So what is it > >> about the organization that results in qualia? > > > It's both. The relationship between the matter and it's organization > > results in sensorimotive electromagnetism,which is subjectively > > experienced as compacted qualia and objectively computed as discrete > > quantitative relationships. > > I can make no sense whatsoever of the above paragraphs as it is full of > idiosyncratic terms. Can you give an operational definition for > "sensorimotive electromagnetism" and how it is computed as relationships? Have you read my TOE manifesto? http://s33light.org/SEEES Sensorimotive electromagnetism is just the recognition that like electricity and magnetism, the experience of pattern recognition (sensory input) and environmental response (motive output) are a single phenomenon which is the indivisible set complement to electromagnetic phenomena. They are the same thing. If it's outside of you it appears electromagnetic, if it's inside of you it's sensorimotive. It's a whole other model of physics which reconciles chemistry, biology, zoology, neurology, and psychology. I think it works. > >> One pluasible answer is > >> that it is the way the organized matter (e.g. a neuron or a brain or a > >> computer) processes information. > > > Right, but you have it inside out. Information is an abstraction, so > > saying that qualia is the way that organized matter processes > > information is like saying that singing is the way that the vocal > > chords process nouns and verbs. Information does not physically exist. > > It's an intellectual construct requiring adult human sanity to parse. > > Matter feels and makes sense, sense makes sense out of itself as > > information. > > Matter is an intellectual construct too. As are EM fields. And probably > "sensorimotive fields" too, if I knew what they were. Sensorimotive phenomena aren't fields, they are experiences. Intellectual constructs are a category of experience but experiences are not constructed or represented, they are presented - first hand and irreducible. > >> That it is just a property of the > >> matter is not plausible, since disorganized matter behaves much more > >> simply. > > > Elements could not have different exclusive properties if there > > weren't an inherent ability to participate in a larger organization. > > ?? The noble gases don't have different exclusive properties? Noble gases participate through non-participation. Like Switzerland. (If you want to get technical though, noble gases can be made to participate in a larger order by running a current through them in a vacuum, no?) > > Not all elements can be configured into the same molecules. > > No, but all quarks and electrons can. I think that the entire Standard model May in fact be inside out at the subatomic level. Accurate mechanically, but inverted. Quarks and even electrons could be an epiphenomenon of atoms. I call it telesemantics. That's why quantum observations are so counterintuitive - because at that level we are looking at sense events common to the atoms of our measuring equipment rather than independent particles. The further you get into the atom, the more what you can detect is like an atomic mood. I like to use a pizza delivery analogy. If you are an alien astronomer studying human behavior through a telescope, you might be able to see images of a pizza being repeated on a TV set and to correlate those images with the appearance of a car that drives up to the house to deliver an actual pizza. I think that the Standard Model/Quantum Mechanics might interpret this phenomena as follows: The TV set produces a virtual pizza, which then becomes an anti-pizza which charges the entire house with a PapaJohn field. Pizza cars in the area then are attracted to the house and emit a pizza which annihilates the anti-pizza and neutralizes the PapaJohn field. With a multibilliondollar supercollider, the alien astronomer is able to resolve the phenomenon in exquisite detail, discovering that in fact there is a tiny particle inside the house that actually creates the anti-pizza through an incredibly complex mathematical sequence of larynx vibrations into a fantastically tiny device, which is entangled to another tiny device miles away. This device transcribes the anti- pizza genome within a pizzasome miles away, which emits a messenger car containing a pizza, which then is delivered to the house, is annihilated by the customer particle. This is an accurate assessment from a functional point of view, but it is actually a complete red herring if you want to understand why people eat pizza or what a TV commercial is. This is where we are at with our model of the universe. A lot of great clarity and literalism, but not much understanding of what the hell we are dealing with and why it grows up to write symphonies. > > Simple or > > not, disorganized matter can't be made into whatever organization that > > you'd like, and likewise, > > Tell it to the LHC. I know that you're not saying that the LHC will make me solid gold that is lighter than helium? It can make iron with a single proton? I can make a computer game that does that though. That's the difference. Matter has no choice to be what it is, and that, ironically gives it a power and reality beyond what a digital simulation can generate. To make consciousness or fire, you need an equation that has to commit to not being an equation - not being a generic variable but the polar opposite, a proprietary and unique constant: a quality. 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.
