On Saturday, October 27, 2012 9:18:33 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> 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> 
>> 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.
>
>
> This is correct, but not obvious at all (for aristotelicians), and yet a 
> logical consequence of comp, with "people" replaced by Löbian universal 
> machine. 
>
> This has been be put in a constructive form, with computer science. It 
> makes comp (+ reasonable definition of knowledge, observation, in the UD 
> context) testable, and already tested on non trivial relations between what 
> is observable (quantum logic).
>
> The science and the math already exist. 
>
> All machines looking inward deep enough will develop a non comp intuition, 
> and some can go beyond.
>

All animal collectives looking outward far enough will develop a comp 
counter-intuition, and some can go beyond.

Craig
 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>  
>
>> 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.
>
> Do 
>> 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.
>
> Craig
>  
>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OCJplR--MuEJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/_zsP5jKgmhYJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to