Sthatis, thanks for your inserted remarks. Here is a condensed copy of them to facilitate my reflection: ------------------------------- *10-24 Stathis reply entries: ================= We may not know all the physics behind the brain but we know there must be some physics, even if undiscovered. The magical theory of consciousness says that it is not due to physics or computation but to non-physical processes - a soul* * **JM*: Please: *NO "MUST BE"* it is the confession of our ignorance about anything else. Just as we could not figure out possibilities about the 'World' before they were learned (more-or-less flimsy explanations on poorly understood new information) we cannot *"suppose" *what ELSE could be acting/influencing the unknown items And I reject your simple-minded (pardon the expression, did not apply it to YOU) injection of some "SOUL" into an educated discussion. (Is it only a 'name'?) With 'consciousness' I did not go further than "response (acknowledgement?) to information" - later: response to relations, no matter if someone calls it 'magical'. It is BEYOND our *present* knowledge (base) and capabilities to know. Just as many other items were beyond such circumstances earlier in the course of culture(s). *---------------------------* ** *It may be a physical cause we don't yet know, but that is not the same as a supernatural cause. The history of science is that the number of things considered unexplainable, and previously magical, is diminishing all the time.* ** *JM: *Did I say 'supernatural'? I said NOT *"A" cause*, but *many,* most of them not yet even detected by us. Again the postulation of *ONE* 'maybe', whatever physical may mean. Like "a" cause for 'disliking a person's face'. Or: feeling guilty. Do you have (anticipate?) a schedule when that list of 'unexplainables' will disappear so we gain omniscience with our feeble 'brain'? I don't, in the contrary: I think we do not even imagine what *KIND OF* aspects to consider in the unknown infinity of the 'world' beyond our knowledge. And: in what relations of a total complexity? *--------------------------- It is still hard but *nothing* would offer a satisfactory explanation. If you say the explanation for consciousness is x someone can still ask, But why should x be associated with consciousness?* ** *JM: *with WHAT? see my question above if consciousness is only a noumenon (= x?) That c-word is a historic mish-mash of items put together to satisfy the (scientific?) needs of the actual author. I followed that only since 1992 (Tucson conferences). This was the time when I generalized the phenomena/processes considered under this fancy 'name' and arrived at the above given identification (information - later relations). It may not be perfect, I would be happy to accept a better one. *---------------------------- Saying "I dunno" is OK. It's the scientific way. Saying "I dunno, so it must be magic" is not OK.*
*JM: *agree. (see above). Unfortunately conventional science tries to explain everything within the framework of the so far formulated 'scientific' knowledge and has frown away from "I dunno" which is not Nobel-stuff. *-- Stathis Papaioannou ========================== --John Mikes* > -- > 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. > > -- 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.