On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:23:08 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  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...
>

Hi Stephen,

If sense is truly primordial, then it is beyond both closure and regress.

Craig
 

> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/6hcmySxPbTEJ.
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