On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26/04/2017 9:39 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Bruce Kellett >>> >>> Not at all. Physics does not assume arithmetic or mathematics, it derives >>> them. >>> >>> Give the proof, then. >>>> >>>> It's "vaporware science", just like the first principles that explain >>>> emergentism. People allude to these things, but you can never seem to >>>> find the relevant article... :) >>>> >>>> >>>> That is just an empty personal attack. I do not call it an "ad hominem" >>>> for >>>> good reason. I suggest that both you and Bruno look up the meaning of an >>>> "ad >>>> hominem" argument. >> >> I apologise for the personal attack. > > > I accept your apology. People tend to be a little thin-skinned sometimes and > read personal attacks where noe was intended. > >> Give us the meat of your arguments and I promise to read with an open >> mind. In my case, I am mostly interested in the first principles that >> allow you to claim that consciousness emerges from complex >> interactions between physical entities. > > > The issue at stake here appears to be whether arithmetic (and mathematics) > can be derived form physics, or has to have some non-physical origin. As I > said to Bruno a short time ago, the derivation of this result is > epistemological rather than logical. In other words, there is no formal > proof, but rather an observation as to how things actually happen in > practice. We just have to consider how a baby learns numbers -- by > interacting with physical objects, be they play blocks with pretty pictures > and number on them, or be they just stones in the yard. By manipulating > physical objects, we learn about numbers, and the rules that govern them. > Similarly, geometry and trigonometry arose from the necessity to measure > plots of land for competing landowner interests. Mathematics is, at base, an > intensely practical subject that arises out of our experience of the > physical world. > > The formalization of mathematics into an abstract system follows much later > from this initial epistemological encounter.
I can understand how this epstemological model can lead to the intuition that mathematics is a "by-product" of physics, but I have a hard time accepting that it is more than an intuition. I am not arguing that this is not the case, but I am arguing that you have nothing more than an intuition. I don't think it is valid to infer that X supervenes on Y because humans learn about X from studying Y. I can even offer a third option (which I don't bet on): math (and even physics) are just properties of how our brains are wired by evolution to perceive reality. > The idea that consciousness supervenes on the physical brain is, again, an > idea that arises from experience. We experience the effects of drugs such as > alcohol on our brain, and the corresponding effects on consciousness. We are > aware of the consequences of brain injury, strokes, concussion, neurological > degeneration, and so on. So the idea that consciousness supervenes on the > physical brain is not in any way controversial. If changes to the brain > affect consciousness in such a direct way, it is natural to conclude that > consciousness is associated with brain states, or, more formally, that > consciousness supervenes on the physical brain. Ok, I think you have more or less the same position as Brent on this. In my view, this type of argument uses "consciousness" with different meanings. When I say consciousness I don't mean it in the sense of "state of consciousness". In the latter case, I see "being drunk" as part of the environment you are perceiving, if you allow me to include your own brain in what I call the environment. What I refer to as "consciousness" is merely the fact that first-person experience of reality is possible. I claim this is a binary property: either it exists or it doesn't. For this thing that I am referring to, it is irrelevant how close the experiences being perceived are to a possible external reality. A philosophical zombie, wired in the same way as our brain is, could have its behaviour influenced by the mechanical effect of alcohol molecules in its neural network in the same way that we are. But why is there an internal observer? What is that thing? This is the hard question. Telmo. > > Bruce > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
