OK, I think I understand you a little better. You are a vitalist who makes life its own ontological primitive. There is a difference between living things and non-living things, and the gap between them cannot be bridged. Life is magical, in the sense that it cannot be explained.
I cannot subscribe to such a "theory" because it draws a line where no more questions can be asked (like religion). Anyway, I think it's more interesting, challenging, and rewarding to consider possible theories and explanations of how living things can and do self-assemble from non-living parts. Terren On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > Craig > > -- > 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.
