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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
