On Aug 29, 2011, at 7:53 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 28, 11:06 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 28, 2011, at 7:09 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>

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,

I agree with the above.

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.

High level processes can direct changes on lower levels, certainly. This is true for both brains and software. But the software causing some electron to go through a certain transistor isn't going to make the electron do anything physically impossible. Everything the software causes can also be explained in terms of phydical interactions at lower levels.

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,

Evolution can drive complexity. Evolution can be replicated in software, as in that smart sweepers program.

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.

Various modules in the brain filter what they consider to be irrelevant and presents their simplified views to other parts of the brain.

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?

No but you expect that of computer chips. Computer chips are the "physical laws" to the software. Their rules don't need to change for the programs that execute on them to be able to.

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.

Just as different software programs are merely different arrangements of bits.

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

I don't see that this has to do with anything.

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
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

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

Given a physical arrangement of a narrow tube in a liquid physics would predict the force driving the flow of the liquid through that tube.

That life forms would use this is a matter of history and circumstance.

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

Life is here, it makes sense. Does it need to have some particular function to exist?

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

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.

If your theory makes sense that sense has not been well communicated to me.

PS - Someone mentioned "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" to me
today. Are you familiar with agnosia?


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.

Yeah that us why people don't believe in zombies. There could be no detectable difference.

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?


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 .

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