On 13 Mar 2015, at 19:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2015 10:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:44 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/13/2015 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:25 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/12/2015 1:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Not me. I'm the opposite, I was always confused by the idea that
rocks are not conscious.
If you ever have an operation, I suggest you check to see that
your anesthesiologist is not confused.
There's maybe a difference between being a conscious entity and
being conscious of something.
Telmo.
So you think you could be conscious without being conscious *of*
something?
I'm not sure, as per my response to Bruno. But this is not what I
meant to suggest here. My argument is simply that anaesthetics
appear to allow one to not be conscious of the external
environment. We can only speculate if one remains conscious of some
internal environment.
That's just mystification. We don't "only speculate". We can
monitor brain waves, hormone levels, blood pressure, reflexes.
I say "appear to allow", because in fact there is only two thing we
know for sure about this:
1) one is not capable of controlling one's muscles
2) one is not capable of forming memories
There seems to be a lack of consistency on this list as to what or
who "one" or "you" refers to.
I disagree. On this list some of us are more precise on this than
anywhere else.
In the math part, all "you" are defined mathematically, and all the
relations between the yous are too.
In the UDA, you need nothing more than what you need to say yes or no
to a doctor. It is bad philosophy to introduce non relevant
complications. The diary distinction between the 1-you and the 3-ypu
are tyipical 3p simple notion, so that kids can verify the proposition.
On the one hand it's asserted that "one" is just a sequence of
"observer moments" or a bundle of such sequences. And there is
always a "next moment" which is determined just by which of the many
observer moments is most consistent with the indicial one.
No, the one brought by a computation in arithmetic. The problem is
that there is an infinity of computations which brings the state, but
the measure is on the computations, not the states. It is not a proble
in arithmetic, because the sigma_1 true sentences verify p <->[]p, so
the computations are themselves described by sigma_1 true arithmetical
sentences.
No one dies because there is, in everythingism, always *some* next
moment. But in that model there's no reason there should not be
gaps, i.e. places where the next moment, even the most consistent
next moment, has discontinuities - i.e. you weren't just
unconscious, you didn't exist (relative to other more continuous
sequences).
If this is an attempt to refute computationalism, you need to compute
the relative measure of that state, and this by choosing some
substitution level.
We assume and hope that:
3) one is not capable of perceiving the environment, namely the
pain from the surgery
Suppose there were such observer moments in which pain was
experienced. If you formed no memories, in what sense was it YOUR
pain? This seems to invoke a magic spirit that links the
observer moments - exactly the thing that was supposed to be
explained away.
But unfortunately we cannot be sure about 3). Some horror movie
scenarios can be true.
We can assume that there is a correspondence between consciousness
and intelligent action, but we re already on shaky grounds because
of dreaming, as you mention. With dreaming 1) holds but not 2). If
states exist where both 1) and 2) holds, we have no means to know
about them for sure.
That we don't know something for sure, doesn't entail that we don't
know it.
Yes. That's the base of the idea of Theaetetus; knowledge is just when
our rational beliefs are true.
This leads me to my doubt about rocks beings conscious, that I had
since I was a little kid.
I think that's wrong and that's why I think consciousness requires
physics - dreams not withstanding.
Or physics requires consciousness.
That's what Dennett calls a deepity. I've been unconscious several
times in my life. Are you proposing that the physical world was
affected by this? Did the world cease to exist? Or are you just
referring to physics = the theory of how matter and energy work, and
theories are the inventions of conscious beings?
It is more that physics, as a metaphysics, explains consciousness and
matter-appearance away. He does not address the question. When honest
and lucid, it admits to eliminate the person. For computationalism,
the person is the main existent, with the numbers which incarnate them
relatively in dreams.
Then the question of the unicity or unifiability of our collective
dreams remain an hard open question.
There is no problem at all with the physical science. There is only a
problem when the metaphysical assumption of the existence of a
physical universe is presented as a dogma, instead of an hypothesis. I
mean if we want to do science.
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].
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.
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/d/optout.
