Craig:

Please explain a little further what you mean by *accomplished through
presentation* and in
particular, what you mean by presentation.

Your point number 5 fits clearly within the purview of semiotics.

wrb



On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> 1. We cannot doubt that we are aware.
>
> 2. Our awareness may represent realities which are independent from
> our own existence.
>
> 3. Our awareness may represent ideas and fantasies which have no
> existence independent from our experience of it (and whatever
> neurological processes are behind it)
>
> 4. Representation can only be accomplished through presentation.
>
> 5. A word or a picture has to look like something to us in order to
> remind of us of something else.
>
> 6. Saying that awareness or qualia only represents another process
> does not explain why there should be any presentation of that process
> in the first place, let alone posit a mechanism by which a physical
> process can be represented by something that does not physically
> exist.
>
> 7. The problem with the mechanistic view is that it relies on the real
> existence of awareness and choice to make a case for distrusting
> awareness and choice.
>
> A consequence of this logical contradiction is that when we begin from
> the assumption of mechanism and work backwards it almost invariably
> blinds us to the presentation of the work that we ourselves are doing
> in determining this deterministic opinion. We fool ourselves into
> thinking that there is no man even behind our own curtain, and mistake
> all authentic, concrete presentations for abstract, symbolic
> representations. That does not work for awareness because awareness
> itself can only be represented to something which is already aware.
>
> Thus the symbol grounding problem arises when we make the mistake of
> assuming first that awareness must follow the rules of the world which
> is represented within awareness. Since the experience does not show up
> on the radar of materialism, we are forced to accept the absurdities
> of ungrounded feeling which emerges somehow without mechanism or
> explanation from generic physical changes or computations. We have to
> conflate symbol and reality - either by making reality not primitively
> real (comp) or by making symbols not really real (physics).
>
> To me, the clear solution to this is not to begin from either the
> assumption of idealism or materialism but to examine the relationship
> between them. Once we notice that there is really nothing about these
> two positions which is not symmetrical, we can move on to the next
> step of examining symmetry itself. What I find is that symmetry is a
> bootstrap metaphor for metaphor.
>
> Symmetry is what makes sense - literally. How it does this is
> understandable. It presents and then re-presents itself. It
> demonstrates how significance and order can be expressed through
> reflection. It is both mathematical and aesthetic but serves no
> purpose in either a comp or physical universe. It is so fundamental
> that we miss it entirely - which makes sense since we are part of the
> universe rather than objective observers of it.
>
> --
> 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.

Reply via email to