On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:34:36 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/6/2013 11:42 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 2:29:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 2/6/2013 5:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:13:03 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/2/5 Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net>
>>>
>>>>  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
>>>>  
>>>> Your concept is incomplete, because geometry is what Plato called forms,
>>>> which he gave the Greek name of ideas.  So you have a thought without a 
>>>> thinker.
>>>>   
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>> Yes, the greeks did not conceive an empty space without forms. For them 
>>> it was the forms what created the space. 
>>>   
>>
>> I think that they were right. What I propose about light, and all forms 
>> of energy, is that they do not literally radiate through space as waves or 
>> projectiles independently of forms, but that what we experience as light is 
>> exactly what it seems to be: how we sense the world visually. 
>>
>>
>> A rather useless model of light.  The EM field in spacetime also predicts 
>> the existence of lasers, infrared radiation, radio, light pressure, the 
>> CMB, atomic spectra, and thousands of other phenomena that are just 'magic' 
>> in your 'sensory-motor' theory.
>>  
>
> It's not intended to replace EM field equations, only to interpret them in 
> a way which better reflect nature. We can explain many things about human 
> civilization without noting the existence of emotion or sensation. 
> Political theories, economic theories, industrial production, etc can all 
> be understood without modeling emotion but using impersonal theoretical 
> drivers 'supply and demand', individual and state, raw materials and 
> finished products. This is a perfectly adequate level of description for 
> engineering or control of a process, but it is not the whole story. Why my 
> theory offers is the last link which makes sense of the whole story. 
>
>
> Your 'theory' just amounts to a bald assertion that somewhere, somehow 
> when some nerves/molecules/atoms/quarks in a human being get perturbed by 
> some energy 
>

No. The human being is the top level experience. The 
nerves/molecules/atoms/quarks are associated with lower level, sub-personal 
experiences. Nothing gets perturbed by energy as energy is nothing but the 
will of sub-persons.
 

> that came from a photon that vision magically takes place.
>

You aren't listening to me. My hypothesis is that photons are not literally 
real, just as 'money' isn't literally real.
 

>   It doesn't explain why vision doesn't happen in a camera 
>

Optical stimulation happens in a camera, but it may or may not be 
experienced in something resembling a visual way. When light hits our skin, 
we feel warmth. There could be some similar tactile stimulation on a 
sub-personal level of a camera's sensor, bit that stimulation never scales 
up to a more deeply subjective level. Not only can it not see, but it can't 
evolve into anything which sees.
 

> or why people dont' see infrared 
>

People don't see infrared because it is beyond the range of our 
specifications as humans. Same reason why we can't eat planets.
 

> or why the same neurons are active when imagining something as when seeing 
> it. 
>

Why wouldn't they be? If you turn on a TV, the same circuits are active 
regardless of the content of what you are watching.
 

> It makes no testable predictions.
>

You don't know that. One possible test would be to see if people who had 
PTSD could alleviate their symptoms by focusing on the objects in front of 
them, specifically their spatial arrangement and three dimensionality. My 
hypothesis is that subjects who do this will have reduced suffering and 
that subjects who focus on their own memories of their life, even happy 
unrelated memories, or their future and time passing...they will be more 
stuck in reliving their traumas more.

It's not a comprehensive scientific test, but many such experiments could 
very well be developed. The thing is though, I don't care about that. My 
hypothesis only seeks to understand the relation of subjectivity to 
physics. Since subjectivity cannot be tested, the expectations of a theory 
of this kind to be testable are really borne of ignorance and prejudice.

Craig 


> Brent
>
>  There is no other way to get from matter to mind. We can use different 
> terms, but in the end, it is only through sense that matter and 
> 'information' come to exist.
>  
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to