On 10 June 2014 15:09, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/9/2014 7:49 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 10 June 2014 14:16, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/9/2014 5:55 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 10 June 2014 10:13, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 6/9/2014 2:46 PM, LizR wrote: >>> >>> I guess I could venture that it's the ontology of any TOE in which >>>> interactions are all 3p. >>>> >>>> OK, thanks. So I would guess that it's equivalent to eliminativism, >>> as I think it's called - the idea that consciousness is an illusion >>> ("albeit a persistent one"). It does seem that way to me. >>> >>> I don't think it implies eliminativism. There's still temperature >>> even though we have statistical mechanics. I think there's far too much >>> importance given to "what's fundamental" and it leads to calling everything >>> else and illusion. I doubt that Bruno thinks arithmetic is an illusion >>> just because what's fundamental is 0, S, +, and *. A correction to this >>> kind of obsession with essence is why I like my virtuous circle of >>> explanation. >>> >> >> So how can all interactions be 3p? Maybe I misunderstood. It seems to >> me that consciousness implies there's 1p stuff going on? >> >> I might be possible to know exactly what conscious thoughts are >> occurring by monitoring 3p accessible information (this is implicit in the >> idea that the brain is a classical information processor and its action >> instantiates consciousness), in which case it could be explained in 3p >> terms; but that doesn't mean the 1p stuff would suddenly cease to be any >> more that stat mech means that temperature ceases to exist. >> >> I still don't understand what you mean by "all interactions are 3p". > "All 3p" seems by definition to exclude any 1p stuff . > > Are you saying that there *are* 1p experiences, but they're just "along > for the ride" and have no interaction with the rest of the world? (But > surely 1p interacts with the outside world, even if only passively?) > > > They're "along for the ride" like temperature is alftr on the kinetic > energy of molecules. Before stat mech, heat was regarded as an immaterial > substance. It was explained by the motion of molecules; something that is > 3p observable but the explanation didn't make it vanish or make it illusory. >
OK, so if I understand you correctly*, you think consciousness is "real in some sense" but basically an epiphenomenon? *I know, what are the chances?! :-) -- 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/d/optout.
