On Sep 15, 12:11 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> What seems clear to me from your response to Stathis is that you can
> build something that does what it wants to do within a deterministic
> system, such as the game of life.

Depends what you mean by 'what it wants to do'. If it's made of
silicon, then what it wants to do is whatever you tell it to do. If
it's made of living mammals, then it has not only more but greater
options of what it can want to do.

>
> Now you say we cannot predict the high level process of the mind to
> know what the mind will do.

You might be able to predict some high level process of some minds,
especially if you know them well and/or are a keen observer of people.

 This is true in one sense: we cannot be
> certain what the mind will do without ourselves instantiating the mind
> and seeing what it does.  God himself cannot know what will happen 5
> years from now in this world without us experiencing those 5 years and
> making decisions throughout that period of time.
>
> Hopefully this idea can bridge the gap between your view of the minds
> unpredictability with Stathis and my idea that underlying the mind
> exist predictable rules.

For me there isn't really a gap. My perspective is that the would be
gap is filled with a graduated continuum of phenomena which extends in
one direction toward the literal and predictable, and in the other
toward the figurative and idiopathic.

Predictability is just not an appropriate property to ascribe to all
possible processes. Some processes are more predictable than others.
Some processes are more predictable on one level than they are on
another, with simplicity and complexity playing off of each other in
counterpoint through successive levels of organization. Complex
molecules act like single cells. Complex groups of cells act like a
single organ or body. A single (more or less) mind conceives of a
complex universe. Physical processes are publicly accessible, so they
are much more suited to prediction. If private phenomenology were all
predictable, it would invalidate the premise of experience in the
first place. The point of subjectivity is the revelation of
significance through experiences in time.

Craig

-- 
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