On 10/16/2012 4:19 PM, meekerdb 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.

Hi Brent,

So do I, it is very primitive, but present. The reasoning is simple, there must be something that it is like to be an electron. My belief in this follows from my agreement with panprotopsychism and explained in David Chalmers book /The Conscious Mind/. I don't have time to defend the idea now, but you might read Chalmers book and decide for yourself.

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.

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.

Who claims that it needs to avoid endless loops? In fact, endless looping is required! At our level, we need external stimuli just to stay coherent with each other. Consciousness is, on its own, solipsistic and thus lost in its "hall of mirrors". Interactions are a break in this symmetry of ME ME ME ME ME ME....


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to