On 3/16/2013 3:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>> No, I think that you haven't understood it,
>>
>> That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is it
>> that you think that I don't understand? The legacy view is that if you
>> have many molecular systems working together mechanically, you will
>> naturally get emergent properties that could be mistaken for
>> teleological entities. You can't tell the difference between a brain
>> change that seems meaningful to you and a meaningful experience which
>> causes a brain change. Just because you feel like you are moving your
>> arm doesn't mean that isn't just a narrative fiction that serves a
>> valuable evolutionary purpose.
>>
>> All of that is fine, in some other theoretical universe. In our
>> universe however, it can't work. There is no evolutionary purpose for
>> consciousness or narrative fictions. The existence of the feeling that
>> you can control your body makes no sense in universe where control is
>> impersonal and involuntary. There is no possibility for teleology to
>> even be conceived in a universe of endless meaningless chain reactions
>> - no basis for proprietary attachment of any kind. It's circular to
>> imagine that it could be important for an epiphenomenal self to
>> believe it is phenomenal. Important how? It's like adding a steering
>> wheel to a mountain.
>>
>> due to whatever biases have led you to invest so much in your theory -
>> a theory which is AFAICT completely unfalsifiable and predicts nothing.
>>
>> No theory which models consciousness will ever be falsifiable, because
>> falsifiability is a quality within consciousness. As far as prediction
>> goes, one of the things it predicts that people who are bound to the
>> extremes of the philosophical spectrum will be intolerant and
>> misrepresent other perspectives. They will cling pathologically to
>> unreal abstractions while flatly denying ordinary experience.
> 
> Materialism + computationalism can lead to nihilism. But
> computationalism, per se,  does not deny ordinary experiences. It starts
> from that, as it is a principle of invariance of consciousness for a
> digital substitution made at some level.
> 


Dear Bruno,

        Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'nihilism' here?


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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