On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:26:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Sep 2013, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:40:27 PM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote: >> >> Thanks Craig, you've articulated quite well a number of difficulties in >> approaching the hard problem, IMHO. I was reading this article in the SEP >> and thought of your approach: >> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nishida-kitaro/ >> > > Thanks, cool > > >> >> Look especially under his glossing of the idea of 'pure experience.' It >> reminds me of your MR/PIP and seems quite congenial to it. >> >> Whaddaya think? >> > > Yes, I agree his 'pure experience' matches my 'sense' in a lot of the > important ways. I use the opposite assumption about it being 'MU' or > 'nothing'. It is tempting to conceive of the limitation of our local > experience and propose 'nothing' beyond it, but I think that it works much > better when we invert it and suppose that beyond local experience is > 'everythingness' and 'eternity'. > > I particularly recognize "Pure experience launches the dynamic process of > reality that differentiates into subjective and objective phenomena on > their way to a higher unity, and the recapture of our unitary foundation is > what Nishida means by the Good." > > This is the same as my model, although I would say that the > differentiation first diverges from pure experience to subjective qualia, > where objective qualia emerge from the public intersubjectivity (quanta). > His concept of higher unity is "Good" while mine would see good as only a > particular measure of subjective 'likeness' and the actual higher unity I > see as "Significance"...the reconciliation of diffracted sense as it is > separated from the entropy of scaled distance and time. > > Thanks, > Craig > > >> On Monday, September 16, 2013 1:35:27 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> The Hard Problem of consciousness asks why there is a gap between our >>> explanation of matter, or biology, or neurology, and our experience in the >>> first place. What is it there which even suggests to us that there should >>> be a gap, and why should there be a such thing as experience to stand apart >>> from the functions of that which we can explain. >>> >>> *Materialism only miniaturizes the gap* and relies on a machina ex deus >>> (intentionally reversed deus ex machina) of ‘complexity’ to save the day. >>> An interesting question would be, why does dualism seem to be easier to >>> overlook when we are imagining the body of a neuron, or a collection of >>> molecules? I submit that it is because miniaturization and complexity >>> challenge the limitations of our cognitive ability, we find it easy to >>> conflate that sort of quantitative incomprehensibility with the other >>> incomprehensibility being considered, namely aesthetic* awareness. What >>> consciousness does with phenomena which pertain to a distantly scaled >>> perceptual frame is to under-signify it. It becomes less important, less >>> real, less worthy of attention. >>> >>> *Idealism only fictionalizes the gap*. I argue that idealism makes more >>> sense on its face than materialism for addressing the Hard Problem, since >>> material would have no plausible excuse for becoming aware or being >>> entitled to access an unacknowledged a priori possibility of awareness. >>> Idealism however, fails at commanding the respect of a sophisticated >>> perspective since it relies on naive denial of objectivity. Why so many >>> molecules? Why so many terrible and tragic experiences? Why so much >>> enduring of suffering and injustice? The thought of an afterlife is too >>> seductive of a way to wish this all away. The concept of maya, that the >>> world is a veil of illusion is too facile to satisfy our scientific >>> curiosity. >>> >>> *Dualism multiplies the gap*. Acknowledging the gap is a good first >>> step, but without a bridge, the gap is diagonalized and stuck in infinite >>> regress. In order for experience to connect in some way with physics, some >>> kind of homunculus is invoked, some third force or function interceding on >>> behalf of the two incommensurable substances. The third force requires a >>> fourth and fifth force on either side, and so forth, as in a Zeno paradox. >>> Each homunculus has its own Explanatory Gap. >>> >>> *Dual Aspect Monism retreats from the gap*. The concept of material and >>> experience being two aspects of a continuous whole is the best one so far – >>> getting very close. The only problem is that it does not explain what this >>> monism is, or where the aspects come from. It rightfully honors the >>> importance of opposites and duality, but it does not question what they >>> actually are. Laws? Information? >>> >>> *Panpsychism toys with the gap*.Depending on what kind of panpsychism >>> is employed, it can miniaturize, multiply, or retreat from the gap. At >>> least it is committing to closing the gap in a way which does not take >>> human exceptionalism for granted, but it still does not attempt to >>> integrate qualia itself with quanta in a detailed way. Tononi’s IIT might >>> be an exception in that it is detailed, but only from the quantitative end. >>> The hard problem, which involves justifying the reason for integrated >>> information being associated with a private ‘experience’ is still only >>> picked at from a distance. >>> >>> *Primordial Identity Pansensitivity,* my candidate for nomination, uses >>> a different approach than the above. PIP solves the hard problem by putting >>> the entire universe inside the gap. >>> >> > Beyond the ambiguities, comp put the physical universe in the gap, when > the gap is modeled by the logic "*" minus the logic not-"*". >
Why just the physical universe though? Don't you think comp needs to put itself in the gap too? > > I mean G* minus G, etc. In fact physics (should) appear in Z* minus Z, X* > minus X. > G* and G don't show up in a Google search. I've never really understood what you mean by that, but you're welcome to explain if you have time. > > Like I said, beyond ambiguities, what you say fits very often comp, except > when you argue *from* what you say, that comp has to be false, of course. > Hehe, I can do what comp can't :) Craig > > Bruno > > > > > Consciousness *is* the Explanatory Gap. Naturally, it follows >>> serendipitously that consciousness is also itself *explanatory*. The >>> role of consciousness is to make plain – to bring into aesthetic evidence >>> that which can be made evident. How is that different from what physics >>> does? What does the universe do other than generate aesthetic textures and >>> narrative fragments? It is not awareness which must fit into our physics or >>> our science, our religion or philosophy, it is the totality of eternity >>> which must gain meaning and evidence through sensory presentation. >>> >>> >>> *Is awareness ‘aesthetic’? That we call a substance which causes the >>> loss of consciousness a *general anesthetic* might be a serendipitous >>> clue. If so, the term local anesthetic as an agent which deadens sensation >>> is another hint about our intuitive correlation between discrete sensations >>> and overall capacity to be ‘awake’. Between sensations (I would call >>> sub-private) and personal awareness (privacy) would be a spectrum of nested >>> channels of awareness. >>> >>> >> > -- > 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
