On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:55:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2012, at 16:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:14:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> Because we know for a fact that our consciousness correlates with neural 
>> activity ...
>>
>>
>> We don't know that. It is a theory, a belief, an assumption, ...
>>
>> Some people have believed that consciousness correlates to the state of 
>> the liver.
>>
>> We never know if a theory is "true". We can only know when a theory is 
>> false.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> I would agree that it would be only a theory that brain changes 'produce' 
> consciousness, but I would say that we can say with confidence that changes 
> in our awareness are more tightly synchronized with changes in brain 
> activity than with those of the liver, or any other thing in the universe 
> that we can observe.
>
>
> I agree, and it is close to my working *hypothesis*, although dispensable 
> by choosing a lower level.
>
> The problem is in the choice of the theory used for making sense of a 
> correlation between "changes in our awareness" and "changes in brain 
> activity".
>
>
>
>
> When we stimulate the brain magnetically, that event correlates directly 
> with subjective experience. I don't think that there is anything else we 
> could stimulate which would cause that.
>
>
> It follows from your hypothesis. With comp this would be relatively 
> occurring (in some sense, as it really occurs out of time in arithmetical 
> platonia) when you stimulate any relatively concrete universal machine 
> emulating the magnetic stimulation of the brain (where emulating means 
> simulating at the correct subst level, or below).
>
> It looks to me like a "don't ask" theory. It takes Matter ( PRIMITIVE 
> matter) for granted, it takes consciousness for granted, and it relates the 
> two by some sort of magical trick or, with all my respect,  pompous word.
>
> It is coherent, as PRIMITIVE Matter is consistent with non-comp, but it 
> looks like making both matter and mind incomprehensible at the start, and 
> then it introduces "puppets" in the picture.
>

Mind has to be incomprehensible from the start because comprehension is an 
experience which supervenes on mind. Matter isn't primitive, but rather a 
second order representation of sense. There is no magic trick that relates 
mind and matter, it is the neutral monism of sense which presents itself to 
itself as mind and presents its non-self to its (self presented as self) as 
matter. Computation arises as a third order meta-representation of relation 
between the presented and the re-presented.

Craig


> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig
>  
>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TofyxHpAp0MJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/BhXWKawYnxwJ.
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