On Oct 3, 8:29 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > I agree with Craig, although the way he presents it might seems a bit > > uncomputationalist, (if I can say(*)). > > > Thoughts act on matter all the time. It is a selection of histories + a > > sharing. Like when a sculptor isolates an art form from a rock, and then > > send it in a museum. If mind did not act on matter, we would not have been > > able to fly to the moon, and I am not sure even birds could fly. It asks for > > relative works and time, and numerous deep computations. > > > When you prepare coffee, mind acts on matter. When you drink coffee, matter > > acts on mind. No problem here (with comp). > > > And we can learn to control computer at a distance, but there is no reason > > to suppose that computers can't do that. > > Mind acts on matter in a manner of speaking, but matter will not do > anything that cannot be explained in terms of the underlying physics.
No matter how many times I say that you do not understand what I mean if you still bring this up, you still bring it up again and again. The only one talking about defying physics is you. The fact is, we have no physical explanation of why neurons in the amygdala suddenly depolarize their membranes when the subject thinks about gambling so it breaks no physical law to make the obvious conclusion that this subjective intention is itself the cause, rather than an arbitrary cluster of neurons having some peculiar sensitivity to secondhand associations of the shapes of playing cards, dice, horses (sometimes), slot machines, racing cars, sports games (sometimes), etc.. It makes no sense as an a-signifying neurochemical process. It only makes sense as a signifying conscious narrative. > An alien scientist could give a complete description of why humans > behave as they do and make a computational model that accurately > simulates human behaviour while remaining ignorant about human > consciousness. But the alien could not do this if he were ignorant > about protein chemistry, for example. I say wrong and wrong. An alien scientist simulating human behavior without any understanding of human consciousness cannot give a complete description of why humans behave at all. They would not have the foggiest idea what to make of a movie or a joke or a baseball game. It's an absurd suggestion. It is to say that there is no difference between the pirates in Pirates of the Caribbean and actual pirates. Your counterexample fails even more completely. An alien who was familiar with human consciousness would need only read a book or watch a movie to be able to simulate human behavior in any mode - biological, cinematic, verbal re-enactment, miniature sculpture, etc. No chemical or neurological understanding would be required or even relevant. 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@example.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.