On Oct 5, 2:54 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>

> > Consciousness happens. Physics has nothing to say about what the
> > content of any particular brain's thoughts should be. If give you a
> > book about Marxism then you will have thoughts about Marxism - not
> > about whatever physical modeling of a brain of your genetic makeup
> > would suggest.
> But reading a book is a physical process, photons from the book hit your
> retina, which in turns generate electrical current through the nerves to
> your brain which acts accordingly to its state and the new input.

The same process would be taking place whether you could read or not.
Your ability to make sense of the book depends on your subjective
learning of language as well as the physical process of optical
stimulation. Actually, my hypothesis includes the conjecture that
photons may not be physical phenomena at all: http://s33light.org/fauxton

> So If I have a model of a brain in the same state and gives it the same
> input, It'll think about Marxism and not whatever whatever whatever...

Without having a person who can tell you what they are thinking about,
how would your model tell the difference? To physics by itself, every
thought is whatever whatever whatever. The 3-p view of the brain is a-
signifying and generic. The 1-p view of the psyche is signifying and
proprietary. Your expectation that consciousness follows physics is
only based upon the a priori unexplained fact of consciousness, not
any kind of scientific insight into how consciousness could arise
physically in something. It's that expectation which needs to be
questioned, not the existence of subjectivity. The expectation of
consciousness arising automatically from physical mechanisms alone
exiles our ordinary experience of the world to some metaphysical never-
never land, an orphaned dimension without any justification or
ontology. It forces a Cartesian theater on us, but then denies it,
leaving only promissory materialism...'science will provide'. I'm not
buying it.

> I don't know where your idea of having the model of a thing could help you
> predict inputs outside of it...

I'm saying that you can't have a model for brain behavior for exactly
that reason. Too much of it comes from outside of it, continuously,
dynamically, interactively, intentionally, semantically, emotionally.
It's the other guys here who are saying that the brain behavior can be
predicted by biochemistry alone. I used to think that too, but I have
a better way of making sense of it now.


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