I'm not trying to sneak anything into the definition. The case that I make is that while it could be locally true that a given person could theoretically want something intentionally even if their brain were completely driven by unintentional influences, it doesn't make sense that there could be any such thing as 'intentional' if the entire universe were driven exclusively by unintentional influences. It is like saying that a dog could think that it is a cat if cats exist, but if you define the universe as having no cats, then there can be no such thing as cat-anything. No thoughts about cats, no cat-like feelings, no pictures of cats, etc. In an unintentional universe, intention is inconceivable in every way. > >> > 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. > >> > >> If something conscious can look deterministic in every empirical test > >> then that's as good as saying that the brain could be deterministic. > > > > > > No, because empirical tests are third person and consciousness is not. > > We are talking about third person observable determinism only. Who is? > The > brain could be third person observable deterministic and still > conscious. > The third person view always seems unintentional (deterministic-random). That goes along with it being a public body in space. You can't see intentions from third person. > > >> A > >> computer is deterministic in every empirical test but you could also > >> say without fear of contradiction that it is "not actually, cosmically > >> deterministic, only habitual." > > > > > > It could be in theory, but in fact, computers prove to be less than > sentient > > in every way. > > Perhaps they are as a matter of fact, but not as a theoretical > requirement, that is the point. > But the fact has to be understood before a theory can be worthwhile. I have a theory which explains the fact and it leads me to say that no assembled machine can ever have an experience which is more than the sum of its parts. > > >> I don't see the relevance of history here. How would it make any > >> difference to me if the atoms in my body were put there yesterday by a > >> fantastically improbably whirlwind? > > > > > > Because the atoms are only tokens of a history. It's like if you dropped > a > > bunch of infants into New York City. Even if they had adult bodies, > without > > the history of their experience, they have no way to integrate their > > perceptions. > > > >> > >> I'd still feel basically the same, > >> though I might have some issues if I learned of my true origin. > > > > > > That's because you think that the universe is a place filled with > objects, > > but I don't think that is possible. Objects are amputated experiences. > > So you claim that if the hydrogen atoms in my body were replaced with > other hydrogen atoms I would stop being conscious? > No, I think all hydrogen represents the same experience and capacity for experience. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.