On Oct 4, 9:32 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > This goes by the name "causal completeness"; the idea that the 3-p
> > observable state at t is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt.  Craig
> > wants add to this that there is additional information which is not 3-p
> > observable and which makes a difference, so that the state at t+dt depends
> > not just on the 3-p observables at t, but also on some additional
> > "sensorimotive" variables.  If you assume these variables are not
> > independent of the 3-p observables, then this is just panpsychic version of
> > consciousness supervening on the 3-p states.  They are redundant in the
> > informational sense.   If you assume they are independent of the 3-p
> > variables and yet make a difference in the time evolution of the state then
> > it means the predictions based on the 3-p observables will fail, i.e. the
> > laws of physics and chemistry will be violated.
> > Of course this violation maybe hard to detect in something very complicated
> > like a brain; but Craig's theory doesn't seem to assume the brain is special
> > in that respect and even a single electron supposedly has these extra,
> > unobservable variables, i.e. a mind of its own.  The problem with electrons
> > or other simple systems is that while we have complete access to their 3-p
> > variables, we don't have access to their hypothetical other variables; the
> > ones we call 1-p when referring to humans.  So when all the silver atoms in
> > a Stern-Gerlach do just as we predict, it can be claimed that they all had
> > the same 1-p variables and that's why the 3-p variables were sufficient to
> > predict their behavior.
> That's a bit like saying there are fairies at the bottom of the garden
> but they hide whenever we look for them. According to Craig, the 1-p
> influence (which is equivalent to an immaterial soul)

Wrong. I have been very consistent in my position that it is a
category error to conceive of the 1-p influence as a pseudo-substance.
It is not a 'stuff' that's in everything, any more than volts are a
stuff that's in everything. it's the opposite of a stuff - it is what
it's like to be stuff and to be surrounded by stuff.

> is ubiquitous in
> living things, and possibly in other things as well. I think if no
> scientist has ever seen evidence of this ubiquitous influence that is
> good reason to say that it doesn't exist.

No scientist has ever seen anything other than evidence of
sensorimotive perception. That is all that we or anything can ever
see. I agree that it doesn't exist in the sense of it occupying space
like matter does, it insists and it occupies matter though time.

> In fact, Craig himself
> denies that his theory would manifest as violation of physical law,
> and is therefore inconsistent.

There is no inconsistency. You're just not understanding what I'm
saying because you are only willing to think in terms of reactive
strategies for neutralizing the threat to your common sense (which is
a cumulative entanglement of autobiographical experiences and
understandings, interpretations of cultural traditions and
perspectives, etc).


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to