Re: The free will function

[Stephen P. King]

On 2/10/2012 8:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Feb 2012, at 13:47, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/10/2012 7:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


2012/2/10 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com 
<mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>>

    On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
    <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com
    <mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>>
    >
    > > On Feb 9, 9:49 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
    <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    > > > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com
    <mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>>
    >
    > > > > > > How does a gear or lever have an opinion?
    >
    > > > > > The problems with gears and levers is dumbness.
    >
    > > > > Does putting a billion gears and levers together in an
    arrangement
    > > > > make them less dumb? Does it start having opinions at
    some point?
    >
    > > > Does putting a billions neurons together in an arrangement
    make them less
    > > > dumb ? Does it start having opinions at some point ?
    >
    > > No, because neurons are living organisms in the first place, not
    > > gears.
    >
    > At which point does it start having an opinions ?

    At every point when it is alive. 


That's not true, does a single neuron has an opinion ? two ? a 
thousand ?

    We may not call them opinions 


Don't switch subject.

    because
    we use that word to refer to an entire human being's experience, but
    the point is that being a living cell makes it capable of having
    different capacities than it does as a dead cell. 


Yes and so what ? a dead cell *does not* behave like a living cell, 
that's enough.

    When it is dead,
    there is no biological sense going on, only chemical detection-
    reaction, which is time reversible. Biological sense isn't time
    reversible.

    > Why simulated neurons
    > couldn't have opinions at that same point ? Vitalism ?

    No, because there is no such thing as absolute simulation, 


There is no need for an "absolute" simulation... what do you mean by 
"absolute" ?

    there is
    only imitation. Simulation is an imitation


no, simulation is not imitation.

    designed to invite us to
    mistake it for genuine - which is adequate for things we don't care
    about much, but awareness cannot be a mistake. It is the absolute
    primary orientation, so it cannot ever be substituted. If you make
    synthetic neurons which are very close to natural neurons on every
    level, then you have a better chance of coming close enough that the
    resulting organism is very similar to the original. A simulation
    which
    is not made of something that forms a cell by itself (an actual
    cell,
    not a virtual sculpture of a cell) probably has no possibility of
    graduating from time reversible detection-reaction to other
    categories
    of sense, feeling, awareness, perception, and consciousness,
    just as a
    CGI picture


A CGI picture *is a picture* not a simulation.

    of a neuron has no chance of producing milliliters of
    actual serotonin, acetylcholine, glutamate,etc.


Is it needed for consciousness ? why ?


    Craig

Hi,

    How would your reasoning work for a virus? Is it "alive"? I think 
that the notion of "being alive" is not a property of the parts but 
of the whole.

Which is the very basic idea sustaining comp. But Craig seems to 
defend the opposite idea. He believes that life, sense, and 
consciousness must be present in the part to sum up in the whole. A 
mechanist will insist that it is the property of the whole which is 
responsible for the higher order aptitude, like being able to play 
chess, or having a private experience.

Hi Bruno,

    No. Craig can be considered to be exploring the implications of 
Chalmer's claim that consciousness is a fundamental property of the 
physical, like mass, spin and charge, i.e. it is not emergent from 
matter. His concept of "sense" is not much different from your 1p or the 
content of a "simulation".


Yet, the case of "living" and "conscious" are not entirely equivalent, 
and should be treated differently. The definition of life seems to me 
conventional, but being conscious is everything but conventional.

    We agree on that! "Living" does seem to be 3p definable while 
"conscious" is only 1p definable.

Onward!

Stephen

--
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.