On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously
wrote: "Magic emergence from magic enough complexity has been
advocated for almost anything." and now you suggest that
consciousness is contingent on a level of evolution, ala: "... in
this stage of evolution a form of consciousness becomes a necessity".
How is this not an argument for emergence from complexity? What
is evolution other than a mechanism in Nature to generate increasing
stable complex structures in the physical universe? Either
consciousness is an irreducible primitive or it is not?
I agree that complexity *is* involved when we consider issues
such as "reportablity" of consciousness, but the property of "having
a subjective experience of being in the world" itself can be strongly
argued to flow at the most basic level that allows differences.
If there are no inputs from the world to perceive, e.g. a person in a
sensory deprivation tank, or the 'perceptions' are very simple
interactions, e.g. an orbital electron scattering a photon what will
be the content of this subjective experience?
How so? Do we humans have "orbital electron scattering" of photons
as actual experiential content? It seems to me that all talk of "orbital
electron scattering a photon" that is an abstract narrative that we talk
to each other about and use to make predictions of phenomena that is
within our sphere of mutual non-contradiction. Our knowledge of physical
laws, like all content of experience is 1p that could be defined as 3p
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at