On Sep 3, 6:17 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > I generally agree that there may be new evidence to be discovered and > theories to be > invented, and it's possible they may have some bearing on consciousness. And > I agree that > particle physics doesn't directly account for human experience - although it > accounts for > chemistry, which accounts for biology, which accounts for evolution, which > accounts for > some aspects of human and animal experience.
I wouldn't say that chemistry accounts for biology, anymore than bricks account for the New York City skyline. Nor does evolution account for perception. We can only reverse engineer a pseudo- understanding of life and awareness because we have their existence as an example. Without that example, chemistry alone would never predict biological organisms even as a remote possibility, and evolution could never dream of perception as a plausible mutation. >And the Standard Model of particle physics > is a good theory that has made some highly accurate predictions and passed > many empirical > tests. Definitely. Although Deferent and epicycle were considered solid and accurate for 1,000 years. What is the Standard Model? 40 years old or something? How's that Higgs Boson goose chase going? >Your theory of sensorimotive experience as an involuted continuum of insistence > and existence in an inertial frame of perceputal relativity on the other hand > doesn't > predict anything testable It might predict something testable, that's just not really my area of expertise. Given those basic principles of entropy, matter, space being inversely related to negentropy, energy, and time, I think there might be some experiments that could be conducted. I think two slit experiments could be reworked a bit, to use the retina as a photomultiplier and see what it looks like from inside of us. I would expect to see the cells in the retina or the eyeball itself to jiggle back and forth trying to triangulate the light source behind the center of the two slits (rather than passively being struck by dumb photons that happen to be going through one slit or another). I don't know enough about it to really make a high quality prediction, but I think that if someone who was very familiar with those experiments really understood my ideas about it, they could find something new and interesting there. > and seems to consist of abuse of terminology invented ad hoc for > the purpose. Can someone really abuse terminology that they invent? >You attack materialism like the Creationist attack evolution. You just > point to stuff and say, "See you can't explain that!....Oh you did. Well > then you can't > explain that!" as though a gap in the materialist world model proves that > materialism > can't be right. The Catholic Church has been playing that game for centuries > but their > playing field gets smaller every year. I think it's materialist arguments that attack my hypothesis like Creationists attacking evolution. It's all dogma thumping circular reasoning which demands that I explain the fault in the faulty model without going outside of the faulty model. The only difference is that instead of God there is randomness, determinism, or evolution, and instead of the Bible, there is the Laws of Physics. If physics had good explanations - even plausible explanations for awareness, life, qualia, order, or the cosmos itself then I would be a huge champion of it. I completely support physics for it's common sense applications - thermodynamics, optics, classical mechanics, etc. Chemistry gives me absolutely no cause for doubt in it's calculation of chemical reactions and usefulness in refining, engineering, etc. If anything, my view points toward a universe that is more physical - free from hypothetical voyeurs and their 'interpretations' made of 'information'. These are loose ends to me, and we've gotten now to a point where our worldview is too sophisticated to tolerate gigantic metaphysical question marks. I'm trying to rescue science from being sodomized by religious fundamentalism - a fundamentalism fed by the disowned humanity or quantitative fetish worldviews. 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.
