On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales <[email protected]> >> 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. 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! >>> >> >> I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am >> conscious, >> > > I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that > your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using > that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In > principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning > (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our "lump of dumb > matter" every n number of years. > > > > > > so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in >> a special way might not also be conscious. >> > > But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to > consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, > memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) > owning your body. > If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also > believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a > body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify > ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I think you accept, shows the > limit of this identification, imo. > Eventually, the UDA shows that at a very fundamental level, bodies are > only statistical machine's percepts, or statistical relative numbers > percepts. This is close to Monadology where the monads all perceive each other, and particularly perceive living beings as statistical relative numbers, but mainly perceiving and identifying them (and themselves) with a whole person. Richard > > > > > What is it about that idea >> that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? >> > > It is not what I am saying here, to be sure. > > Bruno > > > > > > 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. > -- 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.
