On Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:44:21 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>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.  
>

But they require thinking, which you are saying is nothing but the brain.
 

>  
>
>> > 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 act of looking is to see out of your eyes.  Are you saying that 
electrical signals look out of your eyes?


>  > 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.
>

You might have a psychological block about it. It shouldn't be difficult to 
understand. Do you understand what is meant by 'the map is not the 
territory'?
 

>  
>
>> > 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 'the thing'. There is only qualia in the universe, it's just 
hierarchically characterized so that the most common qualia are the most 
impersonal seeming types.
 

>
> > there IS NO thing itself.
>>
>  
> Then the qualia of a thing IS the thing. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
>

No, there is no thing. There is qualia. Experiences.
 

>
> > 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! 
>

What thing do you think that there is other than qualia?
 

>
> 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. 
>

No, I'm saying there are no electromagnetic waves. There is just 
experiences of cells and molecules and atoms which we interpret as being 
wavy.
 

> 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.   
>

There are lots of things that are difficult to figure out, but that doesn't 
mean they are interesting.
 

>  
>
>> > 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!
>

There's the qualia of a memory of an apple and there's the qualia of an 
experience of an apple with your body. They are both qualia, there is no 
'thing'. I don't know why you think that I'm contradicting myself, I'm not. 

>  
>
>> > 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. 
>

Why couldn't they? Neurons are physical experiences which interact with 
others physically. Numbers are figures - contents of those experiences.

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. 
>

But the vector calculus won't be able to manipulate you without your 
participation.
 

>
> > 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! 
>

My mind is made up. There are no electromagnetic waves, there is only 
atomic qualia.
 

>
>  >>> 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.
>

They refers to the qualia, the interpretations.
 

>  
>
>> > 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.
>

It's not possible for spatial presentation to have any effect at all. It 
doesn't do anything functional. If something works perfectly fine with no 
consciousness or presentation, how could anything like that improve it? You 
won't be able to understand that though because you can't think in 
prospective terms instead of retrospective terms. You would have to be able 
to remove all references to awareness first in how you are thinking of it, 
but you take awareness for granted in every respect and don't seem to know 
that you are doing it.


>  > 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. 
>

I agree 3D space is all about numerical relations, but it is the numbers 
which are derived from the spatial experiences. The numbers aren't 
fundamental, they are just figures that we use for counting.
 

>
> > 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.    
>

They can if you cut a wedge out of it.
 

>   
>
>> >>> 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, 
>

No, a VGA is a physical device. It requires physical space and in 
instrument which illuminates in a way that we can sense visually.
 

> 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.
>

Behavior is overrated. A movie can duplicate the behavior of John Wayne. So 
what?
 

>
> > 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?
>

Why didn't I become a living being by myself?
 

>   
>
>> > 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.
>

Why do you think I would I wish for it to be true? What benefit would I 
derive from it?

Craig 


>   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