On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:19:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi Alberto,
> 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?
> Hi Brent,
> How so? Do we humans have "orbital electron scattering" of photons as
> actual experiential content?
> No, but Craig thinks electrons do.
Only if electrons actually exist. I think there is a good chance that they
are only the shared experience of atoms.
> 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
> Sure, the 3p story is one we create to explain intersubjective agreement
> about 1p experience. But my point is that consciousness is not basic,
> otherwise it wouldn't need external stimuli to avoid infinite loops.
I can't find anything about infinite loops associated with sensory
deprivation. I have never heard it mentioned and even the author of this
spent 90 to 2.5 hours in there with no mention of any such thing.
> Our knowledge of physical laws, like all content of experience is 1p that
> could be defined as 3p iff possible.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
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