On 03 Feb 2014, at 14:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 23:29, LizR wrote:
On 3 February 2014 08:31, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota
the significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy
to disarm it as insouciantly interpolating armfuls of non-
sequiturs couched in an impenetrable private jargon. You quote
Chalmers, but you consistently dodge (or perhaps don't really get)
the point he is making. His analysis isn't merely that physics
seems to make consciousness causally irrelevant, though that in
itself would be daunting enough. The paradoxical entailment comes
from confronting the stark realisation that, despite this,
physically-instantiated bodies and brains (i.e. the appearances in
terms of which we interact both with "ourselves" and with each
other) continue to behave *as if* they were laying claim to such
conscious phenomena. Furthermore, they apparently do so by means
of a causally-closed mechanism that entails that they neither
possess these phenomena nor could plausibly have any access to them.
But the "apparently" in the above is not apparent at all. One
could just as well conclude that consciousness is a nomologically
necessary aspect of the causally-close physics; that it's no more
separable than is temperature from molecular motion.
Sounds like Max Tegmark's latest notion?
But from my reading of "Consciousness from Matter" Tegmark concludes
that matter (or physics) does not have enough bits
(EG. 37 classical bits and even fewer quantum bits) to support human
consciousness. Richard
You quote Liz here. And I am not sure what you mean by physics or
matter not having enough bits.
If you can elaborate a little bit (pun included :)
My remark (just below) was just that the analogy temperature/molecular-
kinetics == consciousness/brain is not valid, as both temperature and
kinetics are 3p, and consciousness/brain is 1p/3p. That is a general
remark which does not depend on number of bits.
Bruno
Then he should read Putnam or any philosophers of mind. The idea
that that mind is to the brain what temperature is for molecular
notion is a well known 3p/1p confusion (which by the way appears
indeed in some of Tegmark frog/bird metaphor (where 3p and 1p are
often mixed).
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.
