On Saturday, February 16, 2013 3:22:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:48:03 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> That's what you suspect, but in order for you to be correct there >>> must >>> >> be a mysterious non-physical entity that cannot be duplicated, even >>> >> with advanced scientific methods. >>> > >>> > >>> > Not at all. All that is required for me to be correct is that >>> experience not >>> > be 100% repeatable, which, because an experience cannot ultimately be >>> > limited to anything except everything in the entire universe, is >>> > automatically true on that level. For me to be incorrect there would >>> have to >>> > be a mysterious non-physical entity which separates any particular >>> event >>> > from eternity. >>> >>> If an experience is not 100% repeatable by repeating the presumed >>> physical basis underlying it, then you are saying that there is >>> something other than a physical basis to the experience. This >>> something else is the mysterious non-physical entity. >>> >> >> No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that the idea of something >> repeating is a subjective concept. No moment can be repeated. When I was >> writing those words, it was a few seconds ago. In that time, the TV show on >> in the background has changed, a quantity of snow has fallen in my back >> yard, etc. If I say "No moment can be repeated" again, nothing as been >> repeated 100%. >> > > Do you have any theory that explains sensation? >
Explanation is already a type of sensation. We use explanation to make cognitive sense of sensations of other types or of other conceptual sensations (thoughts). > Does an infinite amount of information go into producing your conscious > experience over some finite period of time? > Information is not physically real. Formations are representations which inform our sensitivity. Our conscious experience is not produced, it is presented. > If not, then it seems plausible that whatever information needs to go > into creating some sensory experience can be duplicated. If it is non > infinite then the pigeon hole principle applies ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle ). > Sensory experience is not created by information, information is a consequence of sensory experience and conceptual-level motives. Sensory experience is private physics. Information is a conceptual abstraction of sensory experience, so that while our thoughts about information are physical events, the bits and bytes to which they refer are not physically real. Craig > > Jason > > > >> The repetition arises from our sense to compare remembered experiences >> and string them together as similar enough to be considered identical. >> >> >>> >>> >> This is equivalent to saying it is >>> >> magic. You get offended when I say this, perhaps because it has a >>> >> pejorative connotation, but that's what it is. Calling it something >>> >> else does not change the facts. >>> > >>> > >>> > I only get offended because you have no idea what I'm talking about, >>> so you >>> > strawman it as some kind of weird idealism. Everything that I refer to >>> is >>> > either Matter, Energy, Time, Space, Sense, Motive, Entropy, or >>> Significance >>> > - all of which can be ultimately reduced to sense. There is nothing >>> else, >>> > and I claim nothing else. >>> >>> Sense, motive and significance are non-physical, >> >> >> No, they are physical, but they are private. >> >> >>> but the conventional >>> view is that they supervene on the physical. You don't agree with >>> this, so must believe that some other non-physical entity is needed. >>> This would by definition be something magical, like a soul. >>> >> >> Just the opposite. It is the conventional view which requires a belief in >> a magical non-physical never-never land in which our private experience >> takes place. Once you realize that the conventional view is impossible, >> then you can begin to look for more realistic alternatives based on the >> concrete reality of experience rather than the abstract theory based on >> measuring interactions of public bodies. I say that every presence is >> physical. Thoughts, feelings, dreams, symbols - all physical, all physics. >> The relevant distinction within physics should be private time vs public >> space, not "real" vs "illusion". >> >> >>> >>> >> > Can the year 1965 be duplicated? If you wanted just one millisecond >>> from >>> >> > 1965. What I am suggesting is that the entire assumption of the >>> universe >>> >> > as >>> >> > bodies or particles be questioned. The universe is unique >>> variations of >>> >> > a >>> >> > single experience, with a continuum of 'similarity' in between, >>> >> > contingent >>> >> > upon the experiential capacity of the participant. >>> >> >>> >> There is no reason in principle why the year 1965 could not be >>> >> replicated. >>> > >>> > >>> > Except that it happened already and will never happen again - just >>> like >>> > every experience. >>> >>> If experience is caused by the brain and the brain is reproduced >>> exactly then the experience will be reproduced exactly. >>> >> >> Experience isn't caused by the brain, any more than the internet is >> caused by your computer. Reproducing your computer from 2000 won't >> resurrect Napster of 2000. Nothing, and I mean nothing at all has ever been >> reproduced exactly. >> >> >>> >>> >> In fact, in several models of cosmology it *is* >>> >> duplicated. Even if there is only one universe but it is infinite in >>> >> extent, given a large enough volume there is bound to be an exact >>> copy >>> >> of anything you care to name. >>> > >>> > >>> > You're not seeing that it begs the question though. No matter what I >>> say, >>> > you won't be able to imagine that the universe could be fundamentally >>> > experiences rather than objects. >>> > >>> > The whole notion of 'copies' or 'exact' is based purely on >>> sensitivity. If >>> > you have cataracts, it becomes harder to tell people apart and the >>> Jack of >>> > Diamonds looks like an exact copy of the Queen of Hearts. If you >>> factor out >>> > sensation from the start, everything that comes afterward is >>> misconception. >>> >>> Bruno thinks the universe is fundamentally experiences but his view is >>> consistent with science, eg. a close enough copy of an object will >>> behave like the original, even if neither the copy nor the original >>> have a basic physical existence. >>> >> >> Behave like the original to whom? There is no way to copy water without >> it being water. If I pour sulfuric acid from a pitcher into a water glass, >> I might be able to fool someone into thinking that this clear liquid is a >> perfect copy, but the smell and the severe chemical burns will reveal that >> the copy is actually very different in many other ways. Plants know it, >> even inorganic matter will not be fooled. It's only in the visual sense >> that the two liquids seem equivalent. >> >> >>> >>> >> >> So what you have to explain Craig is what you think would happen >>> if >>> >> >> you tried to duplicate a person using very advanced science, >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > If you tried to duplicate a person's body, then you get an >>> identical >>> >> > twin - >>> >> > my guess is probably a dead one. >>> >> >>> >> If it's dead then you would have made some mistake in the >>> duplication. >>> > >>> > >>> > No, your assumption of duplication is not necessarily possible. If you >>> clone >>> > everyone in New York City, and drop them into a model you have built >>> of New >>> > York, they aren't suddenly going to know where they live and how to >>> > communicate with each other. You are assuming that particles are >>> > disconnected generic entities which have no past of future. I am >>> saying that >>> > precisely the opposite is also true. >>> >>> Of course they will know where they live and how to communicate with >>> each other. The reason you know where you live and how to communicate >>> is that your brain today is a close copy of your brain yesterday. >> >> >> No, that's the same pre-affirmation you are smuggling in. If you can't >> let go of the certainty that the public shapes of the brain define >> experience, then you won't ever locate experience at all. Our brain is >> necessary but not sufficient to explain human quality of consciousness, >> just as a TV set is necessary but not sufficient to explain Spongebob >> Squarepants. We aren't inside our brain, we are inside our lifetime. >> >> If >>> something goes wrong in the copying process, like a head injury, you >>> might forget how to do these things. >>> >> >> There are no identical twins who are the same person, even when they >> share the same body. >> >> >>> >>> >> Cells and cell components are constantly being replaced yet you >>> >> survive. Therefore, it is possible to make a copy of you using >>> >> inanimate matter; for that is in fact what you are. >>> > >>> > >>> > Because you aren't cells, you are the experiences of cells, molecules, >>> > organs, people, civilizations. The cells are like the fuel which >>> experience >>> > burns. "Copying" is an intersubjective relation. It just means that in >>> our >>> > particular state of mind two things seem identical. >>> >>> But if you copy the cells you reproduce the experience, and if you >>> don't then something is missing. >>> >> >> No, you can't reproduce anything. Not a cell, not an experience. It is a >> figurative term; an expectation of local consciousness that has no absolute >> truth to it. >> >> Craig >> >> >>> >>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >> -- >> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
