On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote: > > >>> On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >>>> On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > >>>>> On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following: > >>>>> ... > >>>>>> As I've posted before, when we know how look at a brain and infer what > >>>>>> it's thinking and we know how to build a brain that behaves as we want, > >>>>>> in other words when we can do consciousness engineering, the "hard > >>>>>> problem" will be bypassed as a metaphysical non-question, like "Where > >>>>>> did the elan vital go?" > >>>>>> Brent > >>>>> This is a position expressed by Jeffrey Gray as follows (he does not > >>>>> share it): > >>>>> What looks like a Hard Problem will cease to be one when we have > >>>>> understood the errors > >>>>> in our ways of speaking about the issues involved. If the route were > >>>>> successful, we > >>>>> would rejoin the normal stance: once our head have been straightened > >>>>> out, science could > >>>>> again just get on with the job of filling in the details of empirical > >>>>> knowledge. > >>>>> Evgenii > >>>>>http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/jeffrey-a-gray > >>>> I think the main mistake in formulating the 'hard problem' is thinking > >>>> that we can't > >>>> explain consciousness with mathematical theories like mechanics, > >>>> astrophysics, quantum > >>>> mechanics. The mistake isn't that we can explain consciousness, it's > >>>> supposing that we > >>>> can explain physics. We don't explain mechanics or gravity or > >>>> electrodynamics - we have > >>>> models for them that work, they are predictive and can be used to > >>>> control and design > >>>> things. Bruno points out that *primitive matter* doesn't add anything > >>>> to physics. When > >>>> asked what explained the gravitational force Newton said, "Hypothesi non > >>>> fingo". Someday, > >>>> consciousness will be looked at similarly. > >>>> Brent > >>> Is that any different to regarding cosnc. as fundamental, as dualists > >>> do? > >> I think it is. We don't regard elan vital as fundamental, we just gave up > >> looking for > >> it. We decided life is a process, not a substance. > > >> Brent > > So if I decide consc. is a process not a substance, will my pains stop > > hurting and my food stop tasing and my vision stop being colourful? > > Not unless that stops the process. > > Brent
And will ceasing to look for any kidn of cosnc. beyond the process mean i can explain why pains hurt, etc? I seem to recall that we stopped lookign for Elan Vital after we came up with better explanations, not vice versa. -- 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.
