On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:17:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb 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. > > > That analogy is limited. You can explain temperature from molecules > cinetics by remaining entirely in the 3p account. The mind-body problem is > that if you can explain the whole 3p of the 1p, then the mind seems having > no role at all. > Now with comp we take the mind seriously and can explain its necessity and > role (like with the hypostases), but we lost any ontic place for matter, so > we lost primitive physics, and we have to recover it by a statistics on the > 1p brought by all computations. > > It is not a problem (except for Aristotelian fundamentalists) because > nobody has ever provided evidences for primitive matter or physicalism. It > is only a big assumption in metaphysics. >
Is there a good resource online which explains the eight hypostases and their relevance to connecting consciousness to computation? Craig > Bruno > > > > > > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > 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.
