On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > We are atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, and organisms. Whatever we do 
> is 
> > what the laws of physics *actually are*. Your assumptions about the laws 
> of 
> > physics are 20th century legacy ideas based on exterior manipulations of 
> > exterior instruments to measure other exterior phenomena. 
> Whatever we do is determined by a small set of rules,

No. What we as humans do is determined by human experiences and human 
character, which is not completely ruled externally. We participate 
directly. It could only be a small set of rules if those rules include 'do 
whatever you like, whenever you have the chance'.

> the rules being 
> as you say what matter actually does and not imposed by people or 
> divine whim. 

Matter is a reduced shadow of experiences. Matter is ruled by people and 
people are ruled by matter. Of the two, people are the more directly and 
completely real phenomena.

> I really don't understand where you disagree with me, 
> since you keep making statements then pulling back if challenged. 

I don't see where I am pulling back. I disagree with you in that to you any 
description of the universe which is not matter in space primarily is 
inconceivable. I am saying that what matter is and does is not important to 
understanding consciousness itself. It is important to understanding 
personal access to human consciousness, i.e. brain health, etc, but 
otherwise it is consciousness, on many levels and ranges of quality, which 
gives rise to the appearance of matter and not the other way around.

> you think the molecules in your brain follow the laws of physics, such 
> as they may be?

The laws of physics have no preference one way or another whether this part 
of my brain or that part of my brain is active. I am choosing that directly 
by what I think about. If I think about playing tennis, then the 
appropriate cells in my brain will depolarize and molecules will change 
positions. They are following my laws. Physics is my servant in this case. 
Of course, if someone gives me a strong drink, then physics is influencing 
me instead and I am more of a follower of that particular chemical event 
than a leader.

> If so, then the behaviour of each molecule is 
> determined or follows probabilistic laws, and hence the behaviour of 
> the collection of molecules also follows deterministic or 
> probabilistic laws. 

I am determining the probabilities myself, directly. They are me. How could 
it be otherwise?

> If consciousness, sense, will, or whatever else is 
> at play in addition to this then we would notice a deviation from 
> these laws. 

Not in addition to, sense and will are the whole thing. All activity in the 
universe is sense and will and nothing else. Matter is only the sense and 
will of something else besides yourself.

> That is what it would MEAN for consciousness, sense, will 
> or whatever else to have a separate causal efficacy; 

No. I don't know how many different ways to say this: Sense is the only 
causal efficacy there ever was, is, or will be. Sense is primordial and 
universal. Electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak forces are only 
examples of our impersonal view of the sense of whatever it is we are 
studying secondhand.

> absent this, the 
> physical laws, whatever they are, determine absolutely everything that 
> happens, everywhere, for all time. Which part of this do you not agree 
> with? 

None of it. I am saying there are no physical laws at all. There is no law 
book. That is all figurative. What we have thought of as physics is as 
crude and simplistic as any ancient mythology. What we see as physical laws 
are the outermost, longest lasting conventions of sense. Nothing more. I 
think that the way sense works is that it can't contradict itself, so that 
these oldest ways of relating, once they are established, are no longer 
easy to change, but higher levels of sense arise out of the loopholes and 
can influence lower levels of sense directly. Hence, molecules build living 
cells defy entropy, human beings build airplanes to defy gravity.

> > You can't see 
> > consciousness that way. From far enough a way, our cities look like 
> nothing 
> > more than glowing colonies of mold. It's not programming that makes us 
> one 
> > way or another, it is perception which makes things seem one way or 
> another. 
> > 
> > The only thing that makes computers different is that they don't exist 
> > without our putting them together. They don't know how to exist. This 
> makes 
> > them no different than letters that we write on a page or cartoons we 
> watch 
> > on a screen. 
> If the computer came about through an amazing accident would that make 
> any difference to its consciousness or intelligence?

Yes. If a computer assembled itself by accident, I would give it the 
benefit of the doubt just like any other organism. But would it heal itself 
too? Would it reproduce? Would it lie and cheat and steal to get what it 
needs for it's computer family? If not, then the accidental computer would 
not last very long in the wild.

> If a biological 
> human were put together from raw materials by advanced aliens would 
> that make any difference to his consciousness or intelligence? 

It would if we were automaton servants of their agendas.


> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 

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

Reply via email to