On Aug 28, 11:06 pm, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 28, 2011, at 7:09 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>
> > I hear what you're saying, but no, there's an important difference. > > When we encode our programmatic texts on silicon, we get software out > > of it, but that isn't what the chip gets out of it. The silicon isn't > > becoming software in any way that would compare with molecules > > becoming a cell. > > The hardware of a computer undergoes physical changes just as > elaborate and intricate as the software running upon it. A brain also undergoes physical changes just as elaborate and intricate (topologically) as the experiences taking place through it, yet the brain's changes you attribute to the brain only and not the experiences but you don't have a problem admitting that the changes in the computer are being directed by the logic of the software. >The computer > is to the software as physics and biochemistry is to the brain or the > life form. It provides a stable platform with fixed rules upon which > very complex patterns can be sustained. Right, except these patterns do more than sustain complexity, they drive complexity, they are the 3-p view of what we know is a 1-p experience which simplifies that complexity and allows us to partially program it. > > A cell develops it's own autopoietic processes for > > it's own purposes, where a chip is never inspired by our human > > software to adopt those scripts as it's own. The chip never grows or > > dies or lives on it's own, it just politely hosts our texts which we > > have designed to piggyback on their natural molecular processes. > > Right, but neither do the laws of physics grow or evolve, rather > physics and chemistry politely host the DNA texts chosen through > billions of years of natural selection. Did I ever say once say that the laws of physics grow or evolve? Our understanding of it certainly evolves and grows, but no, cells don't need to invent new elements in the periodic table to do what they do, but they do need to invent new combinations of the existing elements to generate biochemistry. In this way it could be said that chemistry extends into biochemistry which indirectly extends physics, but that's all irrelevant word definition semantics. As far as we know, physics and chemistry have only hosted DNA through a very small number of elements and relatively narrow ranges of physical conditions. By and large the physical materials in the universe do not support DNA at all. If they did, this entire conversation would not be happening because we would have many examples of mineral based animals roaming around and we would leave our monitors on at night because our computers might be afraid of the dark. > >>> it's radically different, just > >>> as a song is different from a pattern of bytes in an mp3 file. > > >> Just because it is different doesn't give it the ability to violate > >> well-established theories such as the conservation of energy and > >> momentum. Spontaneous motion from nothing would be magic in the > >> sense > >> that it violated these laws. > > > It doesn't violate any well-established theories at all. Just like a > > tree is able to transport water from the roots up to the top of the > > tree 40 feet in the air without violating the law of gravity. The > > motion isn't from nothing, it's from the tree as a whole plus the > > atmosphere and soil. It's sending matter deeper into the earth and > > higher into the air to get more water, nutrients, and sunlight. The > > substance monist view, if applied literally, would preclude any form > > of life from existing, which is why it's so catastrophically > > misguided. > > Capillary action is not a violation of the laws of physics. No, but the existence something that uses capillary action for it's own private negentropic purpose is not predicted by physics qua physics. > What > about substance monism precludes any life form from existing? Because life wouldn't make sense as an aspect of substance entropy, even in an open system, the creation of local order and order-building teleology would have no function in a literally functionalist cosmos.. > > Also are you saying you are a substance dualist? No, I'm a sense monist (sense is by definition a relation of substance- like pattern and perception-like pattern recognition/detection). > >> Do you not believe in the conservation of momentum? > > > I try not to believe anything, but I do assume the validity of every > > conventionally accepted law and principle of science. My view now only > > differs in that I have a different interpretation of the topology of > > electromagnetism, the consequences of which cascade into re- > > interpretations of cosmology, psychology, and philosophy. > > If your view is only a different interpretation rather than a > different theory then is computationalism an equally valid > interpretation? Equally valid for what purpose? Is a flat map of the world turned 'upside down' equally as valid as a globe? It might be if you are traveling south and don't have room for a globe in your car. I think my view is the more complete TOE for general understanding, however to apply that understanding to My interpretation predicts computationalism, but I'm not sure that computationalism can recognize view at all. > Is the acceptance of your view vs. computationalism > only a matter of taste? It's a matter of making more sense. If making more sense is a matter of taste, then sure. > > PS - Someone mentioned "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" to me > > today. Are you familiar with agnosia? > > Yes. > > > Is that evidence that partial > > zombies conditions with absent actually exist? If not, why not? > > In this case the person is not able to identify objects correctly so I > don't think it meets the normal definition of a zombie. True. Although if they could identify objects correctly, then we would never know about the condition. A p-zombie then would just be agnosia in reverse, where the subject can't make sense of things but it appears to others that they are able to...which is exactly what happens when people yell at characters on a movie screen or have a conversation with voicemail (or attribute consciousness and feelings to machines). Prognosia? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
