You aren't an atom so you have no idea if it 'knows where its been'. They certainly seem to know a lot about where they are when they are bunched up all together. You know where you've been though, and where you've been has a profound influence on who you are, so that is a property of some part of the universe. Which part is that do you think? > > >> The (so far) "known facts" are neither: not 'known' and not 'facts'. >> Characteristics are restricted to yesterday's inventory and many potentials >> are not even dreamed of. >> We can manipulate a lot of circumstances, but be ready for others that >> may show up tomorrow - beyond our control. >> > > There are, of course, undiscovered scientific facts. If scientists did not > believe that they would give up science. But Craig is not saying that there > are processes inside cells that are controlled by as yet undiscovered > physical effects. What he is saying is that if I decide to move my arm the > arm will move not due to the well-studied sequence of neurological events, > but "spontaneously", due to my will. > > UGH. No. I say that if I move my arm, the arm will move because I AM whatever sequence of events on whatever level - molecular, biochemical, physiological, whether well-studied or not. You may not be able to understand that what I intend is not to squeeze myself into biology, or to magically replace biology, but to present that the entirety of the physics of my body intersects with the entirety of the physics of my experience. The two aesthetics - public bodies in space and private experiences through time, are an involuted (Ouroboran, umbilical, involuted) Monism. If you don't understand what that means then you are arguing with a straw man. > He cites as evidence for this the fact that on a fMRI parts of the brain > light up "spontaneously" when the subject thinks about something. > That and also the fact that when I move my fingers to type, they move and letters are typed. > > >> I agree with Craig (in his response to this same long post): >> >> "...Nothing is absolutely identical to anything else. Nothing is even >> identical to itself from moment to moment. Identical is a local >> approximation contingent upon the comprehensiveness of sense capacities. If >> your senses aren't very discerning, then lots of things seem identical...." >> >> I would add: no TWO events have identical circumstances to face, >> even if you do no detect inividual differences in the observed data of >> participating entities, the influencing circumstances are different from >> instance to instance and call for changes in processes. Bio, or not. >> >> This is one little corner how agnosticism frees up my mind (beware: not >> "freezes"!!). >> > > No two things are identical, but they can be close enough to identical for > a particular purpose. > Exactly! That's my point. Since consciousness can have no particular purpose however, it is that which lends all purposes and cannot be simulated. > If a part in your car breaks you do not junk the whole car on the grounds > that you will not be able to obtain an *identical* part. Rather, you obtain > a part that is close enough - within engineering tolerance. > Right, but that analogy fails when you consider replacing yourself with someone who is just like you, but you won't be alive anymore. If the part is life itself, identity, awareness, then you can't get a part that is good enough. It has to be THE part which is your entire lifetime in the context of the history of the entire universe - unique, indivisible, absolute. 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 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.