On Feb 21, 11:32 am, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> So if Mary is not conscious in the deterministic scenario, she is a
> zombie. The only way to be consistent with this conclusion is to
> insist that the substitution level must be at the quantum level.
>
> If OTOH she is conscious, then consciousness does not require 1p 
> indeterminacy.
>

Or, there may be no substitution level at all, in which case the
deterministic simulation is a brain puppet, which responds 'yes' when
you pull the right string. For the other simulation, I'm not sure why
the quantum-random numbers wouldn't change 'Mary' enough to give
different answers. You have a brain puppet which is flipping
coins...what is the presumed effect of these flips?

If we consider instead that the brain (and all of physics) is more
like a mass-shadow of experienced events, then we can understand how
duplicating the shadow of a tree precisely doesn't render a living
tree as the result. To apply this metaphor to our reality, you would
have to turn it around to realize that in place of a tree and shadow,
there is a dialectic unity where Thesis = Figurative private
phenomenology (tree-like experience) and Antithesis = Literal public
empiricism (material tree).

Since the thesis is fundamental, any change to the antithesis will
simultaneously be changing the thesis, as the thesis is an
*experience* - a sensorimotive fugue. Emulating the antithesis
however, like trying to cast a shadow of a shadow, yields back only
universal generic defaults and not idiosyncratic identity grounded in
cohesive experience. There is no 'here' there. You have a hologram of
a human brain with no "I" associated with it.

The indeterminacy of 1p is caused by the authoritative authenticity of
the thesis, not by randomness. 1p awareness could even be
deterministic (and it probably is in matter below the cellular
threshold) but as awareness scales up through experience over
generations and lifetimes, it condenses as qualitative mass:
significance. This is figurative mass, not literal mass of a
pseudosubstance. It is 'importance', 'specialness', 'meaning',
'feeling', etc. If this signifying condensation is the thesis, we can
understand it by looking at the a-signifying antithesis of mass
through gravity and density. What happens to motive power and autonomy
under high gravity? It is crushed and absorbed into the collective
inertia. Separate bodies lose their power to escape the pull...they
fall. When this happens to us subjectively, our thesis falls as well -
asleep. We feel 'down'. We are 'crushed', depressed, deflated, low,
bummed, etc.

Because the thesis and antithesis are symmetrical however,
significance scales up as freedom, autonomy, high spirits, lifted
moods, grandeur, delusions of grandeur, mania, etc. As celebrity and
wealth are associated with super-power, freedom, and luxury, the
increased autonomy of living organisms is arrived at through
historical narrative. You cannot clone Beyonce and expect to make a
celebrity automatically. The celebrity-ness is not in her body
(although her body image is already part of a cultural narrative which
is being exalted at this time, so body similarity gives a head start).

What I'm getting at is that human consciousness is the latest chapter
in a long story of famous molecules that became famous cells who
became famous organisms. A simulation is a mere portrait of the fruits
of this fame. The costumes and scenery are there, but not the heroes
and heroines. The simulation is not from the right family, has not
attended the right schools, did not win American Idol. It isn't a who,
it is a pretender - a what. It has no why, only how.

Don't be fooled by the four dimensionality of matter's appearance. It
is still a shadow/antithesis of our perception of all perceptions of
it.

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.

Reply via email to