Bruno: No problem, Richard. But then UDA shows that our bodies are not machines. You better have to say "no" to the doctor.
Richard: Indeed I would. But I wonder how UDA shows that our bodies are not machines. What else could they be? Bruno: Then, "physics first", or its idealist counterpart "sense or consciousness first" take what I want to understand for granted. Richard: A "physics first" theory implies an infinite regress as the Indra net of numbers implies the need for a higher order net for its implication, whereas a "numbers first" theory appears to have a starting point in arithmetic and logic that could be called God, not that God is pejorative. My primary concern is also to understand consciousness. Bruno: Also, your own theory seems to take the number for granted. So .. Richard: Not sure what you mean by that. I say that comp takes arithmetic and logic for granted. I suggest that the real difference between us, other than the fact that you have developed a theory whereas my model is entirely conjecture, is that I conjecture a Metaverse (or Megaverse) that is sufficiently "complete" to compute physical matter along with a Universe (for which comp seems to apply) that computes a MWI dream-world that is conscious and interacts (rather than coheres) with the pre-existing SWI matter-world in a mind-matter dualism. Thank you for your continuing interest. On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: > Come on Craig, admit you wrote that. It's the last paragraph that is the > dead give-away. > > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:07:59 PM UTC+11, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here >> probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. >> >> >>> Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you >>> conscious as >>> yourself?<http://www.quora.com/Philosophy/If-human-beings-are-nothing-more-than-matter-why-are-you-conscious-as-yourself> >>> The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots, >>> without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and we are >>> conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical reactions have >>> "consciousness" to some degree? If the human mind is just an extremely >>> advanced computer, then at what point does "consciousness" occur? >>> >> >> We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious, but if they were, >> then it makes sense that the entire universe would also be unconscious. It >> is very tricky to examine the issue of consciousness and to draw parallels >> within common experience without unintentionally smuggling in our own >> expectations from consciousness itself. This is the Petito principii or >> circular reasoning which derails most fair considerations of consciousness >> before they even begin in earnest. >> >> Unlike a clock which is made up of gears, or a particular sized pile of >> hay, the addition of consciousness has no conceivable consequence to the >> physical function of a body. While we can observe a haystack burst into >> flames because it has grown too hot, we cannot look at the behavior of a >> human body see any special difference from the behavior of any other >> physical body. There is complexity, but complexity alone need not point to >> anything beyond an adjacency of simple parts and isolated chains of effects. >> >> Just as no degree of complication within a clock’s mechanism would >> suddenly turn into a Shakespearean sonnet, the assumption of universal >> substitution is not necessarily appropriate for all phenomena, and for >> consciousness in particular. To get a color image, for instance, we need to >> print in colored dots, not black and white. Color TV programs cannot be >> broadcast over a monochrome display without losing their color. >> >> Unlike chemical or mechanical transformation, the nature of awareness is >> not implicated in the shuffling of material particles from one place or >> another. Any natural force can be used to do that. We have no scientific >> reason to insist that conscious participation and aesthetic appreciation is >> derived from some simpler functioning of complex systems. To the contrary, >> ‘complexity’, and ‘system’ can only make sense in the context of a window >> of perception and attention. Without some teleological intent to see one >> part as part of a whole, and to compare remembered events with current >> perceptions, there is no such thing as ‘function’ at all. >> >> There are several important points wrapped up in this question, which I >> will try to sum up. >> >> *1. The failure to consider consciousness metaphysically.* >> >> This is the most important and most intractable issue, for three reasons: >> >> >> - because it is difficult for anyone to try to put their mind outside >> of mind. It’s annoying, and winds up feeling foolish and disoriented. >> - because it is difficult in particular for the very people who need >> most to get past the difficulty. I have found that most people who are >> good >> with logic and scientific reasoning are not necessarily capable of doing >> what others can. The skillset appears to be neurological, like handedness >> or gender orientation. >> - because those who do have difficulty with thinking this way are >> often not used to intellectual challenges that escape their grasp, their >> reaction is so defensive that they react with intolerance. It’s not their >> fault, but it cannot be cured it seems. Some people cannot see 3-D Magic >> Eye art. Some cannot program their way out of a paper bag. In this case it >> is the ability to consider consciousness from a prospective rather than a >> retrospective view which can prove so inaccessible to so many people, that >> frothing at the mouth and babbling about unicorns, magic, and the >> supernatural is considered a reasonable and scientific, skeptical >> response. >> Of course, it is none of those things, but it takes a lot of patience and >> courage to be able to recognize one’s own prejudices, especially when we >> are used to being the ones telling others about their biases. >> >> >> *2. The taboo against metaphysics, panpsychism, and transrationality* >> >> Long after Einstein, Gödel, and Heisenberg shattered the Humpty Dumpty >> certainties of classical math and physics, we are still trying to piece him >> back together. Regardless of how much we learn about the strange properties >> of matter, time, energy, biology, and neurology, there are a huge number of >> very intelligent people who are convinced that we will only know the truth >> about the universe when it all looks like a vast deterministic mechanism. >> >> The compulsion to reduce awareness to passive mathematical or physical >> states is ironic, given that the defense of automaticity is often >> accompanied by very hands on personal intention. Even when it is pointed >> out that arguing against free will is futile (since someone without free >> will could not change their own opinion about it even if they wanted to, >> let alone someone else’s opinion), the mind of the determined determinist >> will always find a way of insist upon being in the right, even when they >> are ultimately sawing of the limb that they are sitting on. >> >> When it comes to anything that suggests the possibility of non-human >> awareness, many people not only become personally uncomfortable, but they >> become socially uncomfortable as well. The taboo against unconventional >> views on science (even when backed by anthropological universality) is so >> pervasive and xenophobic that it is career suicide for a working scientist >> to publicly acknowledge them in any but the most condescending tones. >> >> *3. The pathetic fallacy* >> >> The pathetic fallacy is to take a metaphor in which some inanimate object >> is given a human quality (“The camera loves you”), and take it literally. >> While I count myself among those who once saw computation and pattern as >> being the only ingredient necessary for awareness or life, my understanding >> now is that no pattern can exist without a capacity for pattern >> recognition. The ability to receive and make sense of the real world is not >> a matter of generic relations of disembodied bits of “information”, but is >> in fact the concrete reality of the cosmos. The universe does not exist for >> us humans, but it cannot exist as silent, unconscious, intangible physics >> for billions of years and then suddenly invent the whole of sensation, >> emotion, intuition, cognition, etc, just for some hominids on this >> backwater planet. It now strikes me as profoundly anthropocentric to >> imagine that the entire universe could be devoid of perceptual content >> until life evolved. >> >> In my view, the universe itself is nothing but a continuum of qualities >> of consciousness. These qualities, however, relate to experienced contexts. >> We cannot take the human-ness out of a human and put it into a machine. >> Biology has mechanisms and performs computation, but if that’s it was doing >> then the inside of the brain would look like logic, not like sex and >> violence and musical theater. >> > -- > 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. > -- 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.
