On Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:44:16 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
>
> >> How could something non-living lead to something living? 
> > 
> > 
> > Non-living and living are just different qualities of experience. Living 
> > systems are nested non-living systems, which gives rise to mortality and 
> > condenses an eternal perceptual frame into a more qualitatively 
> saturated 
> > temporary perceptual frame. 
> > 
> >> 
> >> How could 
> >> something non-computational could lead to something computational? 
> > 
> > 
> > Easily. You have a bunch of junk in your closet, so you organize it. 
> That is 
> > what computation is. A system for organizing experience. 
>
> I'm not sure what you mean with your distinction between living and 
> non-living, but it seems that you can get living from living, 
> computational from non-computational and intentional from 
> non-intentional. If you want to say that the non-living, 
> non-computational and non-intentional already had a dormant form of 
> the quality they were lacking then you could say that but I don't see 
> what it adds. 
>

I think that the distinction is qualitative. To the inorganic world, 
everything is inorganic. The entire molecular level is likely blind to 
meta-molecular (bio-cellular) levels of simplicity. Certain molecules, 
through their own discovery or fate/destiny promoted themselves to a 
genetic sense and motive - or they were promoted--- on the lower levels, I 
suggest that free-will and determinism are not yet very different. Part of 
the promotion is the push toward differentiation. Each level of qualitative 
promotion > more privacy > more temporal caching = broader range of 
sensitivity frequencies > higher quality of sense > more strategic 
foresight > higher quality motive = more degrees of freedom, initiative, 
and creativity.

The key is the idea of higher octaves of simplicity - not just a sleeker 
design but a legitimately higher order based on larger primitives. The cell 
is not a collection of molecules. Molecules don't know what role they play 
in the cell necessarily, but the cell's experiences can now operate through 
molecular experiences. A new top-down conversation has begun - at least 
existentially new...the origin of this conversation is outside of time. It 
runs retro and teleo from eternity.

To recap then, the difference between non-living and living is only visible 
to the living. Biological units are vastly larger and slower, more 
vulnerable in a thousand ways than molecular units, but they are a sign of 
a nested relation of experiences. The experience that is associated with 
the cell (and this is tricky because it is not ultimately 'the cell's 
experience', like our lives are not 'our body's experience') has 'leveled 
up' from the inorganic, and enjoys a richer, more wonderful/awful range of 
sensitivities - which is the purpose of the universe (or at least the half 
of the universe that can have a purpose).


> >> Please show one piece of evidence demonstrating that a physical 
> >> process occurs in the brain that cannot be completely explained as 
> >> caused by another physical process. Note that it isn't good enough to 
> >> point to complex behaviour and say "in there somewhere". 
> > 
> > 
> > Laughing at a joke demonstrates that semantic content causes physical 
> > responses. Any activity in the brain which relates to anything in the 
> world 
> > or the mind has nothing to do with neurochemistry. Physical processes 
> can 
> > induce experiences, but only because experiences are a priori part of 
> the 
> > cosmos. There is nothing about the physical processes which you 
> recognize 
> > which could possibly relate laughter to a joke, or anger to an 
> injustice, 
> > etc. There is no way for your physics of the brain to represent anything 
> > except the brain. 
>
> The claim is that the physics explains all of the physical activity. 


That's tautological. Economics explains all of the economic activity. That 
doesn't mean that a person can be understood by their economic transactions 
alone.
 

> A 
> door does not open unless someone or something pushes it, whether it's 
> a person, a gust of wind, the reaction from a decaying  radioisotope 
> in the wood, or whatever. If the door is a little one inside the brain 
> that does NOT mean it opens without any identifiable physical cause. 
>

But all physical causes are thought to originate in quantum fluctuations 
from within. Those fluctuations are known to be probabilistic and 
self-entangling.
 

> If the little door opens in response to a joke it is because the 
> physical manifestations of the joke (sound waves) cause some other 
> physical process which makes it open. It does NOT open because the 
> joke just magically makes it open, which is what would appear to 
> happen if consciousness had a direct causal effect on matter. 
>

I understand exactly what you think that I don't understand, but you're 
wasting your time. I understand your position completely. Your view is that 
the joke is merely the decoded set of neurological patterns associated with 
whatever processed vibrations or collisions of the sense organs that have 
introduced the encoded patterns to your body. You think that, like a 
computer, there is a code input and an evolutionarily programmed response 
which generates an output.

What I am saying is that model could work in theory, but in reality, that 
is not at all what is happening with the nervous system or our awareness. 
What is happening is both simpler and more complex but you have to begin by 
throwing out the assumption that anything is ever decoded by the brain into 
an experience. There is no decoder, and none is possible. That would be 
like installing a flat screen TV inside an abacus, and then building eyes 
in the abacus to see the TV. The abacus would then have to go through this 
meaningless exercise of converting some of its calculations to the screen 
in one part of the abacus in order to receive them in another, and it would 
be ridiculous since you end up right where you started, with data turning 
into itself.

Instead of seeing the whole thing like some kind of moron's Chess game, 
where each move is a dumb response to the other in an endless chain 
reaction, we should see the Chess game as merely an extension of the game 
players and game makers. The better the Chess player, the more they can 
telegraph their moves (motives) strategically. They are playing an entire 
game at once, not just reacting. The game limits their ability to push out 
their entire vision all at once, but that doesn't mean that the entire game 
is not being advanced by an overarching desire. On every level there are 
desires, plans, and capacities. The player can only express herself through 
the game (physics) but she can add new games (chemistry, geology, genetics, 
biology, zoology, anthropology, technology) by building them from the 
simpler examples of Chess.

What you are doing is looking at the movie and telling me "If there were a 
director or producer, you would see the actors talking to them in the 
movie". Stop looking for the camera in the movie - you are the camera 
already.

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 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