On Jan 31, 5:24 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig - see below...
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> > They are part of the same thing, although perpendicular (organization
> > is material forms across volumetric space, experience is entangled
> > perceptions through sequential time...exact opposites, always.)
> This contradicts what you said earlier, when you said experience and
> organization overlap and influence each other, but not always. I can
> dig out the reference if you need me to, it was just a couple days
> ago.

They do influence each other, but they are still opposites. I might
want an app on my Droid and go seek it out and install it, or I might
get a message to update an app that causes me to install that. There
is the possibility of causal influence going in both directions, but
that doesn't mean that I am becoming software or software is becoming
me. We are still always 'opposites' in this context.

> >> We also apparently agree that it is the interactions among the parts (eg
> >> the forces), and not what the parts are made of per se, that determines the
> >> subjectivity
> > No, the interactions arise from the parts themselves, just as
> > civilization arises from a history of actual human beings living and
> > working together. The culture is not an expression of abstract forces
> > among people, it is a concrete realization of people themselves, just
> > as a coral reef is an expression of coral, not reefness.
> We are basically saying the same thing here. To disagree is to get
> caught up in semantics.

There is an important difference though. You are using the
conventional notion of 'forces' like 'laws' which govern interaction
rather than what I am talking about which is sense and motive. There
are no forces floating around free, it's all layers of different kinds
of motive capacities of different molecules, cells, bodies, brains,

> >> (granting your point that different substrates might not have
> >> identical dynamics).  If a silicon organism and a carbon based organism did
> >> hypothetically experience identical forces, as you say, they would be
> >> identical.
> > Right, because forces are figurative. All forces are experiences of
> > physical beings (person, asteroid, star, atom, etc). When we
> > experience our own forces, it's consciousness, life, work, family,
> > friends, dreams, etc. When we experience something else's forces, it
> > depends how similar that thing is to us. If it's pretty similar, we
> > say it's an animal, and it's forces are instincts. If it's a cell or
> > molecule, we say it's chemical reactions. If it's a physical substance
> > we say it's energy. It's all one thing - stuff being and doing. Not
> > beingness and doingness pretending that it's stuff. Again, it's more
> > useful to model it the wrong way, because that's how we can figure out
> > how to cheat the system, but if we want to understand what is actually
> > going on and what consciousness really is, we need to turn it inside
> > out and come to our own senses.
> OK, but I will just add my voice to the chorus and ask: how do you
> know this?

I don't know it, I suggest that it seems true.

>  Just as Bruno says, you speak as if you know the truth of
> the matter, when at best all anyone has is a nice model that explains
> what is happening, and/or simulates such a model to make predictions.
> After all this time I still don't understand your model, and you
> haven't made any predictions in spite of your religious confidence in
> your theory.

My model predicts order, life, feeling, emotion, significance,
progress, civilization, as well as randomness, chaos, meaninglessness.
I don't understand what it is that you want it to predict? It's like a
general picture of a car, showing that the interior is a certain way
and the exterior is a certain way, and how the two relate, why they
relate and why the thing as a whole is a car. It's not a manual for
manufacturing or repairing cars. As for speaking as if I know the
truth, I don't know how else I'm supposed to speak. Obviously these
are my own ideas, I have only thought experiments to support them,
should I say 'maybe' in every sentence? I'm really only interested in
the ideas, not the politics and persuasion. I'm happy to clarify
anything, answer questions, collaborate, debate, but I don't see the
relevance of my writing style or attitude. If I say something that
seems untrue, tell me why you think it's untrue, otherwise, why not
entertain the possibility that I might be right and see if makes sense
to you?

> My hunch is that you have developed strong intuitions over the years
> and formulated what, to you, feels like a cohesive integration of all
> your intuitions about the way the world is, and gave it a name. The
> funny thing, to me, is that many of your intuitions *would* make you a
> computationalist, except that you have an even stronger intuition in
> the primacy of "sense" and its assumed symmetry with electromagnetic
> force (and nuclear forces, and gravity).

I don't know that I would label them intuitions. They are thoughts,
experiences, reasoning. But yes, it feels like a fairly cohesive
integration and I gave it a name. Computationalism I think it almost
exactly true, but if you are trying for a more absolute understanding,
then comp is exactly inverted. Sense can make information but
information cannot make sense without something to make sense of it.

> However, once you make
> "sense" primary, you assume what is to be explained (as Bruno says),

Yes, because that is the explanation. You cannot explain one in terms
of the other, even though they are both symmetrical parts of the same
thing. I think that there is no better or simpler way to model the

> and just as bad, there is still the mystery of how the sense/force
> symmetry works, how it can have "bidirectional causality", and so on.

Because you are privileging the what and how over the who and why. How
do you change your mind? How do you pay attention to something? You
just do it. It doesn't matter what mechanism lies on the other side of
your feeling of doing it, the reality is that in your natural
experience of yourself, in the part of the cosmos that is you and your
life, the rules are such that this is how you think and do things. You
generate a motive impulse out of your sense of what may fulfill
various sensorimotive agendas, or you suppress your inhibition of a
motive which is already present, and the result is that the motive is
felt to be realized as a motor effect of your body. You don't need to
exercise any mechanism to do this, the mechanism follows your lead,
because it is in fact you. The chunky side of you that lives in space,
as opposed to the sentient side that lives in time.

> It has never been clear what the payoff is for going along with all
> that - it's an awful lot to assume out of the gate.

I'm not assuming anything. I only say that I may have found a new way
of reconciling the hard problem of consciousness and the explanatory
gap. Reimagining physics and the cosmos is the gravy.

> I hope it is apparent that I have made an honest attempt to understand
> your ideas, but I don't really expect you to be able to answer my
> queries in a way that satisfies my curiosity and desire for coherence,
> because my impression is that you are too invested in your worldview
> to look at it from a skeptical outsider's point of view.

It may be the case that my worldview is not possible to understand as
a skeptic. You have to at least entertain the idea and suspend
disbelief for long enough to see what it's about. This is indicated
within the theory as well of course. The universe is only half facts.
The other half requires a personal investment. You don't have to join
the circus, but you at least have to attend the show. I can't prove
that you exist, so you have to allow for yourself that what you
experience is actually part of the universe. Not that the content has
to be factual - the strong man might not actually be the strongest man
in the world, but the existence of the fiction itself, as a
phenomenon, is real.

> Instead, my
> expectation is that you will tell me I'm wrong, or that I haven't made
> the effort, or you will continue to use imprecise language and
> metaphors to explicate what is ultimately a haphazard pile of
> disconnected and fuzzy intuitions, when what would make me happy is
> some equations and some predictions.

Equations and predictions are a powerful approach in some ways, but
the weakest approach in others. The universe is not just an equation.
If I made a universe out of equations and predictions, there would be
no universe there. No stories, no meaning, no life, no show. You need
both. You cannot collapse one into the other. There may very well be
some equations and predictions from more capable minds based on my
ideas. I did a simple linguistic equation which I thought had
promising results:


> That's why Bruno's ideas are
> compelling, because he actually has equations and predictions and a
> story for the mind/body problem that doesn't assume anything but
> elementary math... pretty awesome when you think about it, wouldn't
> you say?  Even if he's wrong, that's a hell of a contribution.

Absolutely, and it's never been my intention to take anything away
from Bruno's work or comp. In fact, I would rather that nobody even
consider my ideas unless they are already familiar with comp. My ideas
come out of comp, just as empiricism came out of hermetic mysticism.
The problem with comp is that it is only one of four cardinal points
on the multisense continuum. It's logos: 50% subjective, 50%
objecitve, 99% figurative, 1% literal. You can make sense of the
universe in many other ways and the universe would not be real without
them. I'm only here because I don't know of any other place to go with
this idea. There is no audience for this idea yet because most people
are committed to some particular point or range along the continuum.
They don't want to, or can't consider the possibility of other ways of
making sense.


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