On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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'. > > ** *JM: who is that agency "we"? having 'human experiences and human character'? * > 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. > > 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 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. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
