On 9/20/2012 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



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

Hi Craig,

You need to show how we can get some kind of closure in the map for this to work... Otherwise its a regress...

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
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