On 10/16/2012 4:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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:
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
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?
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.
Well, we differ on that point! If we accept atoms, we also have to
accept electrons! Best not go there!
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
I can't find anything about infinite loops associated with sensory
deprivation. I have never heard it mentioned and even the author of
spent 90 to 2.5 hours in there with no mention of any such thing.
It follows from the necessary definition of self-representation. As
some might say, "it's in the math, man!".
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at