On Monday, March 18, 2013 9:05:13 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >> If you say that free will is compatible with determinism then you are
> >> an compatibilist, otherwise you are an incompatibilist. Why do you try
> >> to make the discussion difficult by refusing to agree on terminology?
> > Because the terminology is ideologically loaded and makes the truth
> > impossible to address, obviously. It's like you are demanding that I
> > that electricity is either the work of God or the Devil.
> We need to agree on terminology if we're going to have a discussion at
> all. Have aliens visited the Earth? We need to agree that an "alien"
> is a being born on another planet. It doesn't mean we agree on the
> facts, but we need to at least speak the same language!
I'm not opposed to agreeing on terminology, but that means we both agree,
not that I agree to your terms.
> >> It seems, again, that you believe it is a priori impossible for
> >> consciousness and determinism to co-exist. If we can't get beyond this
> >> then there is not much point in further debate.
> > Determinism is what consciousness looks like from the crippled third
> > perspective. They coexist in the sense that the old woman and the young
> > woman coexist in the famous ambiguous drawing.
> So, do you believe that it possible that an entity which is
> deterministic from a third person perspective could be conscious, or
> do you believe that an entity which is deterministic from a third
> person perspective could not possibly be conscious?
Yes, I think all deterministic looking systems represent sensory-motor
participation of some kind, but not necessarily on the level that we
assume. What we see as a cloud may have sensory-motor participation as
droplets of water molecules, and as a wisp in the atmosphere as a whole,
but not at all as a coherent cloud that we perceive. The cloud is a human
scale emblem, not the native entity. The native awareness may reside in a
much faster or much slower frequency range or sample rate than our own, so
there is little hope of our relating to it personally. It's like Flatland
only with perceptual relativity rather than quant dimension.
This is also why computers are not conscious. The native entity is
microelectronic or geological, not mechanical. The machine as a whole is
again an emblem, not an organic, self-invested whole.
> 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 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.