On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:37:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<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 
unintentional (determinism) ------------+-------------- unintentional 
                                   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 

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.


> -- 
> 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