On 4/28/2012 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Apr 2012, at 03:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 5:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
David, IZ, Brent:
do you have some fairly acceptable (for whom?) ID
"Intelligent Design"??
about that darn 'vita'?
That would ease the problem to accept or reject EV. Some people 'ride' the Terrestrial
Biosphere churning of C-based molecules (some add: M&R = metabolism and repair) but
there may be more to it. And if there IS more to it, there may be special
circumstances (even qualia?) to get into it (EV?)
Maybe, but why suppose there's more to it before exhausting the model that has worked
so well for so long?
Because by construction it eliminates consciousness.
When biologists eliminate the elan vital, by using chemistry instead, there is a real
progress because they eliminate a spurious linguistic gap-type explanation by an
explanation from conceptually more simple notions.
But consciousness has never been proposed as an explanation of something. On the
contrary, it is more the fact that we search an explanation for.
Biologist have not make life disappearing, they have truly explained the phenomenon,
from other well accepted phenomena.
But saying that AI or brain research can dispose of the notion of consciousness is just
eliminitivism of a fact.
And this non-explanation relies on another sort of spurious "elan vital"-like notion:
primitive matter/physicalism.
Now comp explain both facts: the appearance of conscious (incommunicable but knowable
first person) truth and the appearance of the beliefs in primitive matter, and this
without need to postulate more than what we already believe in (addition and
multiplication) of numbers.
It is novel and interesting and maybe it will result in some predictive power, and I wish
you all success. But it seems to me it too is a model; there is nothing in arithmetic or
computation that says, "Here, this is conscious and that isn't". So you are saying,
suppose we identify formal proof with the feeling of belief and truth with the expression
of a fact..." It is not different than saying, "Suppose we identify these neural
processes with belief and those with fear and those with love and..."
So, if we apply your logic, it seems clear that the spurious idea is more the idea of
physicalism and materialism we should eliminate, instead of consciousness, which no
conscious being can eliminated without lying to him/herself.
If you can. But I still think this is an area in which technology will
overtake science.
Brent
--
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.
