On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:18:39 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
> On 17 October 2013 16:12, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>
> > wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:11:02 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>>> On 16 October 2013 14:05, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:51:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>>>>> On 16 October 2013 13:48, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> No, that's begging the question. A human body may be a machine, but 
>>>>>> that does not mean that a human experience can be created from the 
>>>>>> outside 
>>>>>> in. That's what all of these points are about - a machine does not build 
>>>>>> itself from a single reproducing cell. A machine does not care what it 
>>>>>> is 
>>>>>> doing, it doesn't get bored or tired. A machine is great at doing things 
>>>>>> that people are terrible at doing and vice versa. There is much more 
>>>>>> evidence to suggest that human experience is the polar opposite of 
>>>>>> mechanism than that it could be defined by mechanism.
>>>>>> So what is a human being, if not a (very complicated, 
>>>>> molecular-component-**containing**) machine? (Or is "machine" being 
>>>>> defined in a specialised sense here?) 
>>>> A human being is the collective self experience received during the 
>>>> phenomenon known as a human lifetime. The body is only one aspect of that 
>>>> experience - a reflection defined as a familiar body in the context of its 
>>>> own perception.
>>> That's cool, but if the body is a (complicated, etc) machine, then 
>>> either those experiences are part of the machine, or they're something 
>>> else. If they're part of the machine then you're wrong in some of the 
>>> above-quoted statements (and you contradicted yourself by saying that a 
>>> machine doesn't grow from a cell, by the way) If it's something else, then 
>>> - depending on the nature of that something else - it's possible that other 
>>> things have it, and we don't recognise the fact. It would be important to 
>>> know what that something else is before one can construct an argument. (For 
>>> example, I believe Bruno thinks the "something else" is an infinite sheaf 
>>> of computations.)
>> Have you considered that it might be the body which is part of a sheaf of 
>> experiences? 
> Since Bruno started trying to explain comp to me, I have indeed considered 
> that. It could be, for example, via the mechanism you mentioned in your 
> previous post:
> Bruno considers arithmetic to be behind mechanism, mechanism to be behind 
>> awareness, and awareness to be behind physics.
I would have agreed with Bruno completely a few years ago, but since then I 
think that it makes more sense that arithmetic is a kind of sense than that 
sense could be a kind of arithmetic. I think that mechanism is a kind of 
arithmetic and arithmetic is a kind of sense, as is private awareness a 
kind of sense. 

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to