On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com<javascript:;>> wrote:
> 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 small set of rules I was referring to are the low level rules, the laws of physics. More complex higher level rules are generated from these. "Do whatever you like, whenever you have the chance" is an example of such a higher level rule, and it could not occur unless it was consistent with the laws of physics. >> 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. It doesn't matter for the purposes of the discussion if there is no basic physical universe at all: you just add "apparently" in front of every statement about what happens. Apparently there is a set of physical laws, and everything that apparently happens is consistent with these laws. >> 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. It seems that you do not understand the meaning of the term "consistent with the laws of physics". It means that when you decide to play tennis the neurons in your brain will depolarise because of the ionic gradients, the permeability of the membrane to different ions, the way the ion channels change their conformation in response to an electric field, and many other such physical factors. It is these physical factors which result in your decision to play tennis and then your getting up to retrieve your tennis racquet. If it were the other way around - your decision causes neurons to depolarise - then we would observe miraculous events in your brain, ion channels opening in the absence of any electric field or neurotransmitter change, and so on. >> 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? Yes, but this is an empty statement unless you claim that your consciousness causes miraculous events. Otherwise the physical events play out for you in the same way as they do for everything else on the universe, and the consciousness is just a supervemient effect. >> 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 a meaningless statement unless it leads to testable predictions. >> 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. Again, empty of meaning. >> 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. Cells don't defy entropy and planes don't defy gravity. Their respective behaviour is consistent with our theories about entropy and gravity. >> 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. How the computer was made would have no effect on its behaviour or consciousness. >> 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. If the created human had a similar structure to a naturally developed human he would have similar behaviour and similar experiences. How could it possibly be otherwise? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
