On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:39:50 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > sorry, that was the wrong link: http://s33light.org/post/44836667412 is
>> > the
>> > right one
>>
>> What you don't address in that list is the specific criticism I have made:
>
>
> No, I did:
>
> "Nothing that I propose here can be construed as contradicting any natural
> observation. Not only do my ideas about the relation between body and mind
> or matter and sense not require any additional force within public physics,
> but they explicitly avoid it by definition. My interpretation is a
> commentary on the umbilical-symmetric-nested nature of the relation of
> public bodies and private experience, not a squeezing of private experience
> into public mechanics. If you cannot grasp this concept, I suggest that you
> stop reading now. You will never be able to understand Multisense Realism
> and you will be wasting your time to go on."

You said it, but it does not address the problem.

>> 1. According to physics as we know it, everything in the universe
>> follows mechanistic rules.
>
>
> Physics as we know it does not include consciousness in any way, therefore
> it is incomplete. What it covers is complete, but the context of the big
> picture is not.

And it would be easy to show that physics was incomplete by
demonstrating biological systems operate contrary to physics. For if
they always operated in accordance with physics, then consciousness
would be just epiphenomenal.

>> 2. You don't believe biological systems such as brains follow mechanistic
>> rules.
>
>
> I believe that whatever rules there are follow the physical reality of
> consciousness. What this entails is a private view which can be described as
> intentional and qualitative and a public view which can be described as
> unintentional and quantitative. (I think it's really a continuum which like
> a spectrum from one to the other, but to keep it simple, I say two views).

But according to the public view biological systems follow mechanistic
rules. That means that everything you do is consistent with these
mechanistic rules. But you don't believe that everything you do is
consistent with mechanistic rules. So where is the experimental
evidence showing that these rules break down?


-- 
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 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