On 23 February 2014 12:42, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 23, 2014 12:53:00 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:05:47 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> You're assuming that precise molecular assembly will necessarily >> yield a >> >>> coherent dynamic process, but that may not be the case at all. If you >> put >> >>> random people in the proper places in a baseball diamond, and give >> the one >> >>> in the middle a baseball, they don't necessarily play a baseball >> game. >> >> >> >> >> >> If you're right then there would be something missing, something >> >> mysterious, and there would be evidence for it much simpler >> experiments than >> >> complete assembly of a human body. For example, you might be able to >> >> substitute some chemical on a cell for an equivalent chemical and >> observe >> >> the cell stop functioning even though everything seems to be >> biochemically >> >> in order. That would be direct evidence for your theory. It's >> scientifically >> >> testable. >> > >> > >> > What's missing is the entire history of experiences which relate to >> whatever >> > it is that you think you're copying. >> > >> > We don't exist on the levels of cells or molecules. If there were no >> human >> > looking down at cells in a microscope, and we had only the microcosmic >> > perspective to go from, there would be nothing that could be done to >> build a >> > human experience. No configuration of proteins and ion channels is >> going to >> > taste like strawberries to any of the molecules or cells. All of these >> > structures relate only to a particular level of description. If you >> copy the >> > sheet music of "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" you don't know if it is >> the >> > Rolling Stones version or the Devo version, and neither could be >> predicted >> > or generated purely from the notes. >> >> That's your theory, but the theory should have some straightforward >> observational consequences. For example, if some of the matter in a >> cell is replaced in a laboratory, then the cell would stop >> functioning. This would confound the scientists because according to >> current theories it ought to function normally provided all the matter >> is there in the right configuration. >> >> >> We don't see it at the sub-cellular level, we see it beginning at the >> biological level as tissue-rejection. The richer the experience, the longer >> the history, and the more important it is in defining itself exclusively. >> Biology is more proprietary than chemistry, zoology is more proprietary >> than biology, anthropology is more proprietary than zoology, etc. It's not >> that some material fragment of a cell should be irreplaceable, it's that >> living cells should be easily created from primordial soup. Your theory >> misses the whole other half of the universe which coheres from the top down. >> >> We can take out small words or skip letters of a sentence and still be >> understood, but we can't understand a sentence as a whole if we don't know >> what the bigger words in it mean. >> >> >> Tissue rejection is caused by well understood mechanisms whereby the body >> recognises foreign protein markers on the transplanted tissue. That's the >> only thing you have said above which is close to an observational >> consequence of your theory, and it doesn't support it. >> >> >> The body's recognition of foreign protein markers is a lower level >> manifestation of the mismatch of higher level zoological history. It is a >> sign that on this level of description, tissue is not naively exchangeable. >> The public side is a spatial story about bodies nested within bodies >> performing repeating functions. The private side is completely orthogonal. >> It is an phenomenal story about tension and release, identity, etc. The >> public side is a closed circuit, but it is closed by the narrowness of the >> private perspective. The universe fills in the appearance of closure and >> mechanism, just as our visual perception fills in repeating patterns. >> >> >> The body's recognition of foreign tissue is well understood: the >> mechanism, the reasons for it, and how to bypass it for the purpose of >> organ transplant. Your theory doesn't add anything to that explanatio >> > > My theory is not supposed to add anything to that, or any other physical > explanation other than to place it in a much larger context. > Then why did you raise the issue of tissue rejection? > Knowing that automobiles are actually driven by human beings with lives > that last for decades doesn't change the civil engineer's explanation of > the mechanism of traffic, the reasons for it, and how to bypass it for the > purpose of efficient commuting. If we decided to replace someone's brain, > however, with the driver of a Google car, the result would be that we have > a dead person and a computer that isn't doing anything. > > To assert that our understanding of physics is complete without having any > idea at all how consciousness could arise within it, or why it plausibly > would, is no better than any kind of religious creation myth - regardless > of the utility of the physics itself. > I agree, although I wouldn't necessarily place too much store by that agreement. Human understanding is so fallible, but I guess it's all we have. David Geocentric astronomy was ok, but heliocentric astronomy is better - not > because it provides more accurate measurements for launching rockets, but > because it is a more complete understanding - it helps us make more sense > out of everything. Your view does not help make more sense out of > everything, only the half of everything which can be measured and > quantified. > > Craig > > > >> ... > > -- > 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.
