On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your
> theory all forces give rise to sense.

It's the other way around, sense experience gives rise to all
appearance of force.

> What is special about the kinds of
> "forces" inherent in a biological organism?  It smells like vitalism.

Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to
survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't
some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious. We distinguish
biology from chemistry for a reason. It's only special to biological
organisms. They have an opinion about whether they keep living or not.

> What is especially confusing about your position is that you allow that
> structure puts limitations on subjective experience (I.e. lack of rods and
> cones will prevent one from seeing color). Based on that you are already
> close to comp. It is very hard for non-comp theories to account for the
> changes in subjectivity that occur in tandem with brain damage,
> psychoactive drugs, and so on.

The structure and the experience are opposite parts of the same thing.
If you change one, it can have an influence sometimes on the other.
Not always though. They overlap and diverge. I can consciously
breathe, or I can observe that I am breathing. I can control my body
in important ways, my body can control me in important ways.

> Somewhere in your theory must be an account of the differences between
> biological cell and a functional silicon-based equivalent, since the same
> low level forces are involved in both. Why does the substance matter when
> any physical substrate is subject to basic electromagnetic and nuclear
> forces?  If that silicon version has the proper structure (organization)
> then why in your theory wouldn't it have subjective experience?

It matters for the same reason that we can't survive on the Moon
without a space suit. Why are all cells made of carbohydrates and
amino acids and not silicates and sulfuric acid? Why is 79 protons
gold but 79 golf balls just a bucket full of balls? Because the
universe that we see as matter and machines is only the exterior. The
interior is a universe of private narratives that accumulate over
time. The carbon based story turned out to be more interesting for us.
Is it because we're made of carbon or are we lucky that carbon
happened to be interesting. My hunch is a little of both.


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