On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:49:17 AM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:05:28 AM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> <stat...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>  
>>>> But you claim that it is impossible to conceive of consciousness
>>>>  supervening on function. A religious person would claim that it
>>>> impossible to conceive of consciousness as residing anywhere other
>>>> than in the spiritual realm. Both your positions seem to essentially
>>>> be based on the argument from incredulity: see, this lump of coal is
>>>> inert and dead, how could anything derived from it possibly have
>>>> feelings?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Craig's "theory" is essentially equivalent with explaining consciousness 
>>> in terms of the religious 'soul'.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Soul is anthropmorphic. Sense is generic and universal. I am 
>> talking physics, not religion.
>>  
>>
> It's a distinction without a difference. Making it generic and universal 
> as opposed to anthropomorphic doesn't change anything... it is still the 
> uncomputable "generator" of qualia.
>

That's like saying that there is no difference between saying that ions are 
electrically charged and saying that atoms have little invisible men 
pushing them around. Soul is a concept which lends itself to supernatural 
inhabitants of natural bodies - I am not talking about that at all. I am 
talking about perception and participation being the absolute fundamental 
meta-noumena.
 

>  
>
>>  He argues that "sense" is primary, and that the top-down causality of 
>>> intention translates to the bottom-up causality of physics, 
>>>
>>
>> Not always, not. There is bottom up, top down, inside out, outside 
>> in...all kinds of causality.
>>  
>>
> Makes no difference.
>

How do you figure? If you accuse me of stealing bread because you are the 
only baker in the world, and I insist that I also can bake bread, and so 
can many others, how does that make no difference to the presumptuousness 
of your accusation?

 
>
>>  and, crucially, that top-down intention is not computable, i.e. that it 
>>> is not possible for such top-down intention to emerge in any kind of 
>>> simulation, at any level. This is almost exactly the same thing as saying 
>>> that what animates us is our god-given soul. 
>>>
>>
>> Nope. I am saying that top-down intentions emerge from proprietary 
>> diffractions of the eternal experience. It's more Vedic or Taoist than 
>> Christian, but where I differ from Vedic or Taoist conceptions is that I do 
>> not see matter as illusion or Maya, but as the concrete public 
>> presentations which orthomodularly re-present private experiences.
>>
>> In what conceivable way does "proprietary diffractions of the eternal 
> experience" differ from something equally as ambiguous as "divine spark"? 
>

Spark of what? Divine = what?

My description is precise. The universe is an experience, our own 
experience is a nested set of sub-experiences within that. What is the big 
witchcraft here? Are you denying that experience is real? Are you offering 
an explanation for why experience would ever arise from non-experience?
 

>  
>
>>  
>>> Such stories exist in part to assuage the discomfort of uncertainty or 
>>> existential angst, and stop any further inquiry by defining the fundamental 
>>> mystery of existence in absolute terms. It is no different from saying that 
>>> the way things are is God's will.
>>>
>>
>> Haha, if you see my last response to Stathis, you will see that my story 
>> offers no comfort nor discomfort - it is pure science which merely accounts 
>> for the actual universe as it is rather than what our mechanistic or 
>> animistic compulsions tell us it cannot be. The only advantage that my view 
>> offers is that it reveals consciousness as it actually is.
>>
>>
> Pure science would give you a means to test your ideas. You are simply 
> philosophizing about metaphysics. Your view reveals nothing. It tells a 
> story. It is up to the listener to decide whether they want to place their 
> faith in the story you tell, because you provide no arguments that can be 
> tested in any empirical way.
>

If that's true, it is only because experience is not empirical. I keep 
making this point but nobody seems to comprehend it at all. Science is 
about understanding whatever phenomena can be understood. Whether you 
denigrate it as 'simply' this or 'metaphysical' that doesn't make the 
alternative non-explanations of legacy science any more plausible. It's not 
a matter of having faith in a story, it is a matter of seeing for yourself 
whether it makes more sense than all other explanations - and I submit that 
thus far is seems to do that. Further, nothing that anyone on this list has 
said gives me any confidence that they really understand the basic premises 
that I propose, since the counterarguments offered are invariably old hat 
and obvious to me. Fortunately other people do have a better idea about 
what I am talking about..

Craig
 

>
> Terren
>  
>
>> Craig 
>>
>>>
>>> Terren
>>>  
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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-li...@**googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>>>
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>> .
>>>> For more options, visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>

-- 
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