On Thu, Feb 21, 2013  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What physical mechanism is there available that could allow for
> experience?
>

The laws of physics as I understand them neither forbid nor demand any form
of consciousness, they simply have nothing of interest to say on the
subject, just like most members of this list.

> Why do you exempt mathematics?
>

Because unlike the other sciences or even art mathematics does not require
experimentation.


> > Are you saying math has a backdoor to your mind that skips the brain?
>

No.

> Who says that the electrical signal is the experience of looking?
>

I do because looking is the act of inputting and the only thing being
inputted is a sequence of electrical signals.

> The signal is a sign of an experience taking place, and taking place on
> several levels, but the brain level activity has very little to do with the
> experience other than to announce its occurrence. Am I communicating that
> well enough that you can tell the difference?
>

No, you are not communicating well at all, I don't know what the hell
you're talking about.


> > The apple, I am saying is actually more what you think you're looking at
>

Then the qualia of a thing is NOT the thing. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

> there IS NO thing itself.
>

Then the qualia of a thing IS the thing. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

> How a apple looks to you is NOT an apple.
>>
>
> >Yes it actually is. [...] how an apple smells to you IS an apple. There
> is no experience of an apple beyond whatever
>

Then the qualia of a thing IS the thing. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

If your right this time around then the qualia of a thing is the thing
itself and electromagnetic waves 7700 angstroms long ARE the color red and
the "hard problem" has been solved. Well that was easy, now we have to move
on to something REALLY hard, solving the "easy problem", figuring out how
intelligence works; 2 bit armchair philosophizing won't help in solving
that.


> > I am imagining a red apple right now, yet there are no red apples being
> projected in my brain.
>

Then the qualia of a thing is NOT the thing. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!


> > Complex numbers provide me with nothing at all that matters to me about
> 3D space.
>

If complex numbers were not logically capable of manipulating the positions
of things in 3D space then the neurons in your brain could not do it
either. And in fact if those neural networks in your brain take a course in
vector calculus they will be able to manipulate 3D and even 4D space in
ways they were incapable of doing before.

> the color red is not dependent on electromagnetic waves.
>

Then the qualia of a thing is not the same as the thing itself. MAKE UP
YOUR MIND!

>>> Why should any signals be interpreted as 3D space?
>>>
>>
>> >> Because it can be without contradiction, and because Evolution has
>> determined that this interpretation helps in getting genes into the next
>> generation.
>>
>
> > That's meaningless. You have no idea at all why they should be
> interpreted in that way
>

I'll tell you what I have no idea of, does "they" refers to dimensions or
genes? I don't know so I can't respond further.


> > Evolution has no reason for or method by which anything such as a
> 'spatial presentation' could come to be.
>

If genes for spatial presentation allowed a animal to survive longer in the
environment, by for example being able to dodge when a predator lunges at
him, then those genes will be more likely to make it into the next
generation than the genes in a animal without spatial presentation.

 > Why would space come from complex numbers probably?
>

I don't know if 3D space comes from complex numbers or not but the qualia
of 3D space does, or at least if complex numbers were incapable of making
spacial calculations then the neural network in your head couldn't imagine
3D space either. Probably.

> Why not from apple pies?
>

Because unlike complex numbers symmetrical apple pies may be able to
signify a arbitrary magnitude but they can not simultaneously signify a
arbitrary unique direction.


> >>> Please give me an example of any arithmetic process which generates
>>> physical or experiential consequences.
>>>
>>
>> >> Email, MPEGS, JPEGS.
>>
>
> > Sorry, need a Video Graphic Array for thems to have consequences
>

A Video Graphic Array is a Turing Machine, or if you prefer its behavior
can be duplicated by a Turing Machine, and so can the behavior of John K
Clark or Craig Weinberg.

> which would be a physical device.
>

Yes, a computer is physical and so is a brain, but what a brain does, mind,
is not.

>> You did not "become a living being by itself" anymore than Watson did.
>>
>
> > Why not?
>

I stated a true historical fact and you responded with "why not?". I don't
understand the question, why not what?


> > The reality that my position is completely honest, unbiased
>

I repeat, I do not believe that for one single second! Nobody, absolutely
positively nobody would find your vague convoluted and contradictory
arguments convincing unless they had already decided that they very much
wished for it to be true.

  John K Clark

-- 
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