On Saturday, January 11, 2014 11:12:46 PM UTC-5, ColinHales wrote: > > RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 > > Consciousness as a State of Matter > > Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 > > > > Hi Folk, > > Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! > > I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings > with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so > pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. >
Exactly. It would be interesting to see a study that focuses on why some people can't seem to understand the blindspot. That will tell us more about consciousness than any mathematical or physical principle. > I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But > surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) > see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is > > · the “the science of the scientific observer” > > · trying to explain observing with observations > > · trying to explain experience with experiences > > · trying to explain how scientists do science. > > · a science of scientific behaviour. > > · Descriptive and never explanatory. > > · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of > nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... > > · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever > ever questioning that. > > · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. > > · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of > subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. > > · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with > objectified phenomena. > > > > 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presupposition....now gives us > exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of > matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we > are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a > view from the point of view of being a bit of it...... grrrrrrrr. The big > mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, > ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed > to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. > The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the > universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability > to scientifically observe in the first place. > > > > These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted > a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem > is. The problem is not one _*for*_ science. The problem is _*science > itself*_ ... _*us*_. > > > > Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on > this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. > > > > Happy new year! > > > > Cheers, > > > > Colin (@Dr_Cuspy, if you tweet). > > <phew rant over, feel better now> > > > -- 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.
