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
There isn't anything else we (or anything else) can experience besides
> 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
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)
> > 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
> > of aesthetic phenomena though? That's Explanatory Gap. The Hard Problem
> > 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,
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > 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 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.