On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:37:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Craig Weinberg
> <[email protected]<javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
>
My terms are:
Super-Personal Intentional
(Intuition)
|
|
|
unintentional (determinism) ------------+-------------- unintentional
(random)
|
|
|
Sub-Personal Intentional (Instinct)
+ = Free will = Personal Intentional (Voluntary Preference)
The x axis = Impersonal
> >> 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.
>
> I'm not completely sure but I think you've just said the brain could
> be deterministic and still be conscious.
>
What looks deterministic is not conscious, but what is consciousness can
have be represented publicly by activity which looks deterministic to us.
Nothing is actually, cosmically deterministic, only habitual.
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't understand what you think the fundamental difference is
> between a brain, a cloud and a computer.
>
A brain is part of an animal's body, which is the public representation of
an animal's lifetime. It is composed of cells which are the public
representation of microbiological experiences.
A cloud is part of an atmosphere, which is the public representation of
some scale of experience - could be geological, galactic, molecular...who
knows.
A computer is an assembly of objects being employed by a foreign agency for
its own motives. The objects each have their own history and nature, so
that they relate to each other on a very limited and lowest common
denominator range of coherence. It is a room full or blind people who don't
speak the same language, jostling each other around rhythmically because
that's all they can do.
The brain and body are a four billion year old highly integrated
civilization with thousands of specific common histories. The cloud is more
like farmland, passively cycling through organic phases.
Craig
> --
> 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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
