On Sep 4, 1:51 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > 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'm fine with abiogenesis,but it's reverse engineered so it doesn't explain why biological organisms would experience themselves as a separate class of phenomena than chemistry. > I suppose you would > "account for" biology by invoking a biologic sensorimotive field with the > appropriate > chronosynclastic involuted topololgical interiority Is ridicule scientific to you? > > > 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". You slipped from attacking my ideas to attacking me. >Of course you will object that we > cannot predict what has already happened. You misrepresent me, and try to put words in my mouth. I'm only saying that we have no understanding of why immortal, unconscious molecules would have any reason to work together as a cell that builds feeling organisms. No ad hominem argumentation is going to distract me from the simple truth of that observation. > > > > >> 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? Early on I mentioned several times that when people can't find a way to argue with my ideas, they invariably turn to attacking my writing style or some other attack on my personal authority. Happens every time. > > > 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? So what does it look like? Is there somewhere I can see an artist's rendering of the first person views? The whole point is to examine the subjective view and not to assume that we are looking at a substance/ projectile of light in space. Has that been specifically attempted? > > > 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. Can you point out an instance where I do that? > > > > >> 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. > Terminology is just vocabulary. I'm using terminology to describe a model. It predicts broad relationships between categories of phenomena. It predicts that a large part of the universe cannot be predicted, and predicts that substance monism can become a form of epistemological fascism, among other things. > > > > 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. They believe that because materialism has abandoned their commonsense apprehension that there is more to the universe than unconscious entropy, randomness, blind determinism, and computation. That's the problem it that they are correct in their intuitions but have only pre- modern models of the universe to work with, which rely on the native first person subjective perspective. That perspective is an anthropological universal for a reason. Without it, there would be no science to begin with. By making an enemy of it, science has failed to understand the limitations of it's approach and created another irrational orthodoxy to be protected, in the mirror image of the church. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.