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:
    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.

Hi Craig,

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
    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 article http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/the-nothing-eaters/Content?oid=5539022 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to