QM, biochemistry, neurons, genes, the environment, psychology, and causality all contribute to why you do what you do, and you contribute to why all of those things do what they do. With all of the other phenomena, you can trace it back to this force or that Law of physics, but where you exclude your own personal perspective as a viable influence, I do not. I see that as an anthropocentric (inverted) compulsion. It is a compulsion which makes a lot of sense in the wake of the success of post-Copernican science, but in the end, the careful study of consciousness reveals this impulse to be a simple minded counter-neurosis which tells us more about how we react to fear, failure, hope, and success than the scientific reality of self and the universe. Just because God is not a giant person in the sky does not automatically mean that the universe is a giant machine with no personality. This opens the door to an entirely new dimension of the universe - perceptual relativity, significance, panpsychic or quorum mechanics, etc. Why do we disinvite ourselves from the universe? and when we do, why do we seem to take it so personally one way or the other? > > consciousness can't be a byproduct of anything because it would be >> completely unexplainable and superfluous > > > It is in the very nature of byproducts to be superfluous, otherwise they > wouldn't be byproducts; and you can't explain a byproduct until you > explaine something else. You can't explain how a spandrel came to be until > you explain a arch and you can't explain consciousness until you explain > intelligence. > Byproducts aren't superfluous, they are just unintentional. The interaction of substances and surfaces can cause 'dust' to accumulate - that is a byproduct. If instead the same dry conditions and particle shedding caused invisible semi-hypothetical alternate universes to appear and disappear, that would be unacceptably surprising. The idea of spandrels is really a relativistic term that only makes sense within a context of aesthetic teleology. We see things in terms of primary effects and side effects based on the projection of intention, but in natural selection, features can be adaptive whether they serve their presumed 'original purpose' or not. It's a strange judgment to be inserting in a process which has no purposes. > > no matter what you try to attach it to. It is completely implausible in >> every way. >> > > You're telling me something is implausible?! Craig, you continue to insist > that X being not X and X being not not X makes perfect sense, > Only in real life. There are a number of rigid logical systems in which such subtleties are not allowed. > and you say that if changing X always changes Y and changing Y always > changes X that does not in any way mean that the change in X caused the > change in Y. > Right, just like I can go East by walking either forward or backward without either one causing 'East' at the expense of the other. It all depends what direction I am facing. Moving East by walking forward doesn't mean I can't also walk forward and move West. > Having thus inoculated yourself against the disease of logic you > The logic that I am using is more flexible to accommodate the nuances of reality is all. If you are going swimming, you might want to ditch the suit of armor. are bewildered when I say you are not interested in finding the truth but > rather have first decided what you would prefer to be true and then > resolved to shut your eyes if something that contradicts your preference > should dare to enter your view. > To the contrary, nothing that I have found contradicts my view, which does not follow my preference but rather my curiosity. If you find a real world, common sense example of something which contradicts my view, then I would be interested in hearing about that. > Therefore I will let you have the last word on this thread when you reply > to this message with one of your patented "yeah but this this and this is > conscious but that that and that is not and I know this because I have free > will". > What is conscious and what seems conscious to us or what does not is a very advanced problem. I am only looking at the basics of what consciousness is in the first place and what is it doing in the universe. We only get into it because of AI, which my view reveals to be rooted in backwards assumptions about consciousness. Why this approach can't work is not about what kind of substance can or can't be conscious, but that consciousness is a unique event in time rather than a product (or byproduct) which can be reverse engineered from public form-functions. 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 email@example.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.