On Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:01:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> 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/44836667412is 
> >> > 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. 

Yes, it does.

> >> 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. 

If I pickup a basketball and throw it up in the air, that result is not 
contrary to physics, but neither is it expected by physics. Physics is 
incomplete to describe how high I will decide to throw the ball.

> For if 
> they always operated in accordance with physics, then consciousness 
> would be just epiphenomenal. 

Not if every phenomenon of physics was an expression of consciousness on 
some level of description.

> >> 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. 

The extent to which they seem to be following mechanistic rules is 
proportional to the distance from our native scale of description. If you 
look at cells, it's somewhat less mechanistic than if you look at 
molecules. If you look at the brain as a whole, it is less mechanistic than 
cells.  Our consciousness is associated with our entire nervous system 
throughout a lifetime, so looking at any phenomenon smaller than that is 
only looking at a snapshot cross-section. That kind of a partial map can't 
refer to human consciousness, but only to sub-personal consciousness which 
we aren't directly aware of. On the level of cells and molecules, we don't 

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? 

Where is the evidence that shows that the content of a TV show breaks the 
rules of pixel illumination on the TV screen? Until you can conceive of the 
relation between subjective experience and objective bodies properly, you 
are going to continue to insist that for TV programs to be real, there must 
be some pixels which are not produced by the TV screen which are injecting 
the plot of the show into the other pixels. You are swallowing your naive 
view of the universe as bodies in space completely. What I propose is that 
we accept the natural partitioning that we experience personally, and 
extend that to the rest of nature on every level and description. Our mind 
is not composed of our body, but of sub-minds, just as our body is not 
composed of our mind but of sub-bodies (cells and then molecules). Each 
side appears utterly different - opposite to the other, but that is only 
the effect of consciousness itself. From the absolute perspective, there is 
only experience presented and experience re-presented (bodies).


> -- 
> 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