On 9/3/2011 10:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 3, 6:17 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  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.

Maybe that's because you don't know anything about abiogenesis. I suppose you would "account for" biology by invoking a biologic sensorimotive field with the appropriate chronosynclastic involuted topololgical interiority

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.

One always "accounts for" something we have an example of.

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.

So now you slipped from "account for" to "predict". Of course you will object that we cannot predict what has already happened.


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.

THAT's an understatement.  Just what is your area of expertise - wordsmithing?

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.

What do you think Young used when did the experiment in 1803?  A 
photomultiplier tube?

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?

Sure; use it inconsistently.

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.

You don't have model - just terminology. If you had a model it would predict something we could test - at least in principle.

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.
If that's what you're trying you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Every religious fundamentalist in America hates materialism and believes in an immaterial spirit, distinct from brain processes, which is responsible for our thoughts and actions.

Brent

--
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.

Reply via email to