On 8/20/2011 4:04 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:26 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  wrote:
On 8/19/2011 6:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The retina doesn't act on the world in response to light? It doesn't
send a signal to the brain in the same manner that changes in a metal
strip triggers the HVAC system?
The hypothesis was that the retina was detached from the visual cortex. So it has not way to act on the world. It's like a thermostat that's
not connected to the furnace.
Who said anything about a furnace? Apples to apples, thermostat sensor
= retina, or thermostat sensor = rod cell. Both things act on *their*
world, responding to an electromagnetic change in their environment*
in their own way.

No they don't. The thermostat that's connected to the furnace can modify it's world, who's only attribute is temperature. If it's not connected to a furnace then it can sense temperature, but it can't act on it.

Whether or not a retina is connected to a furnace or
a metal strip is attached to the optic nerve is irrelevant as to their
ability to sense electromagnetic changes within a certain range of
frequencies. A furnace or a visual cortex is an interpreter of retina
interpreting light or an interpreter of metal strips interpreting

Your response is interesting though because you are defining sensation
as nonexistent without being tied to a tangible impact on 'the world'.
This means that already you are compelled to disqualify all passive
experience as less than an action which can be seen from the outside
and 'not just internally'. You assume that an HVAC is what makes
something a thermostat - function = existence.

Right. I don't require that it act on the world at the same moment you consider passive, but that it be able to act on the world after "passive" consideration. I think that consciousness depends on both perception and on action.

I can't believe that you want me to
accept that eyes can't see but metal can. What about our skin, surely
you must give that the same consideration when it contracts into
goosebumps as when a strip of metal contracts in size?
Sure it's acting in the world - not just internally.
To me that's a rather religious or patriarchal approach - which is
fine, I just think that it probably precludes any impartial
examination of consciousness on it's own merits. From that
perspective, there is no significant difference between a
philosophical zombie and a person, as long as the zombie fulfills the
same actions on 'the world' (meaning the external physical processes
outside of our Selves) it *must* be conscious.

> From that perspective, imagination, dreams, and fiction have no value
except when they happen to lead to an improvement in the manufacture
of Whiffle balls or hand grenades. I'm glad that the universe doesn't
believe that also, or we'd all be some form of insect.

What makes you think you aren't?


*If anyone is interested in the SEE view, an electromagnetic change in
the environment is actually an electromagnetic change in physical
objects within the PRIF. A thermostat sensor expands and contracts in
response to the level of excitement in the air, which has been excited
by the sun baked walls, warm animal bodies, electrical appliances,
etc. Each thing is contributing energy, but not as a substancelike
stuff, but as a semantic signal that it's time to relax or tense up.
It's a signal that is as discrete or flowing, simple or complex that
the receiver hardware can interpret.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to