Brent: thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words! I lost track of him lately in the West-Australian deserts (from where he seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s) by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him indeed). I loved (and tried to digest to some extent) his earlier 'words' - making them fundamental to my developing agnosticism.
Brent, to your short closing remark: I do not equate 'being conscious' with the domain-adjective of consciousness - it may be a certain aspect showing within the domain, pertinent to 'those lumps of matter' you mention. I aso value "structure" more than just material functioning. And I wish I had such (your?) alternative hypotheses... not only my agnosticism about it. I agree with most of Colin's un-numbered points on the figment he called "science of consciousness". What I would have added is a date of yesterday (and to support it - as I usually do - compare that level to earlier (millennia?) similar concoctions) . And - would have parethesized the territory named 'science' in them all. Well: what *- IS -* the *LAW OF NATURE *as widely believed? It is the majority of results of observed (poorly understood?) phenomena within the portion of Everything we so far got access to - and that, too, in our mind's adjustment at its actual level (inventory). (Wording mostly based on Colin's earlier writings) It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the totality. Thank you, Colins (and Brent) John Mikes On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also > made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no > progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter > becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically > performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must > exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a > form of mysticism. > > > Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some > others that are structually similar are and that some others are not. A > plausible hypothesis is that the consciousness is a consequence of the > structure. Alternative hypotheses would have to explain this coincidence. > > Brent > > -- > 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.
