On Monday, April 22, 2013 2:41:58 PM UTC-4, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: > > Any "aesthetic phenomena" or for that matter anything else we > experience
There isn't anything else we (or anything else) can experience besides aesthetic phenomena. > is described by the known laws of physics which tells you > what matters is the way information is processed. > Information can only be processed in one way - anesthetically. It makes no difference whether information travels by electricity, optics, punch cards, or keyboards. Physics has no access to aesthetics whatsoever, and neither does information processing. > > So, I'm not conviced there really exists a well defined problem here > with consciousness. We're told by philosphers that there is a problem > and for a long time I believed there was a problem but I've recently > come to the conclusion that simply identifying computational states > with experiences solves the problem. > Experiences can contain computation, but no computation can be experienced unless there already is an aesthetic participant. The identification of computational states with experience is arbitrary and doesn't explain anything as far as I can tell. What must be explained are these five problems: *1. Hard Problem* = Why is X presented as an experience? (X = “information”, logical or physical functions, calcium waves, action potentials, Bayesian integrations, etc.) *2. Explanatory Gap* = How and where is presentation accomplished with respect to X? *3. Binding Problem* = How are presented experiences segregated and combined with each other? How do presentations *cohere*? *4. Symbol Grounding* = How are experiences associated with each other on multiple levels of presentation? How do presentations *adhere*? *5. Mind Body Problem* = Why do public facing presences and private facing presences seem ontologically exclusive and aesthetically opposite to each other? My hypothesis solves or explains why each one of these problems are the result of assuming that the wrong set of phenomena (forms and functions) are fundamental. Craig > Saibal > > Citeren Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>: > > > > > > > On Friday, April 19, 2013 6:59:28 PM UTC-4, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: > >> > >> It is whatever an algorithm is computing. All the information is in the > >> computational state. If you have pain in your knee then exactly what > >> you are experiencing must be unambiguously present in the computational > >> state of your brain. > >> > > > > Why would the computational state of your brain be associated with any > kind > > of aesthetic phenomena though? That's Explanatory Gap. The Hard Problem > is > > really about "why is there any such thing as aesthetic phenomena?" > > > > Craig > > > > > >> > >> Saibal > >> > > > > -- > > 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.
