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
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.
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
You need to show how we can get some kind of closure in the map for
this to work... Otherwise its a regress...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at