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 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.
>
>

-- 
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