1) The qualia of black-and-white is not on the same level with the qualia of colors. The qualia of colors include the qualia of black-and-white. You cannot see a color if that color is not emergent upon black-and-white (or more specifically shades-of-gray). You cannot experience music if music is not emergent upon sounds. You cannot taste chocolate if chocolate is not emergent upon sweet. You cannot understand Pythagoras Theorem if the understanding of Pythagoras Theorem doesn't emerge upon the understandings of triangles, angles, lengths, etc. And this is real emergence, because you really get new existent entities that never existed before in the history of existence. God himself never experienced these qualia.
I don't understand your second part of the question regarding our "cognitive processes". Are you referring to our specific form of human consciousness ? I don't think this is only restricted to our human consciousness, for the reason that it happens to all qualia that we have. All qualia domains are structured in an emergent way. 2) The main ideas in my book are the emergent structure of consciousness and the self-reference which gives birth to the emergent structure. The ideas about self-reference that I have are rooted in phenomenology. First I observe that consciousness is structured in an emergent way, and then I conclude that the reason it is like this is because there is an entity called "self-reference" that looks-back-at-itself and in this process includes the previously existing self and brings a new transcendent self into existence, like in the case of colors emerging on top of black-and-white. 3) The difference is that in an emergent system you have top-down influence in levels. Electrons in simple systems like the ones in physical experiments have little input from any top level, so they behaving according to their own level and display certain laws. But when they are part of a greater holistic system, like in the brain (which is just an appearance of internal workings in consciousness) they receive top-down influence from the intentions in consciousness, and so they behave according to the will of consciousness. Is the same phenomenon when we speak, that I also gave in my presentation. When we speak, we act from the level of intending to transmit certain ideas. And this level exercises top-down influence in levels and the sentences, words and letters are coming out in accordance with the intention from the higher level. On Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:22:18 UTC+3, telmo wrote: > > Hi Cosmin, > > 1) > > Ok, I saw your presentation. We agree on several things, but I don't quite > get your qualia emergence idea. The things you describe make sense, for > example the dissolution of meaning by repetition, but what makes you think > that this is anything more than an observation in the domain of the > cognitive sciences? Or, putting it another way, and observation / model on > how our cognitive processes work? > > > 2) Consciousness is not mysterious. And this is exactly what my book is > doing: demystifying consciousness. If you decide to read my book, you will > gain at the end of it a clarity of thinking through these issues that all > people should have such that they will stop making the confusions that > robots are alive. > > > I don't mean to discourage or attack you in anyway, but one in a while > someone with a book to promote shows up in this mailing list. No problem > with me, I have promoted some of my work sometimes. My problem is with "if > you read my book...". There are many books to read, please give the main > ideas. Then I might read it. > > > 3) No, they are not extraordinarily claims. They are quite trivial. And > they start from the trivial realization that the brain does not exist. The > "brain" is just an idea in consciousness. > > > I have no problem with "the brain is just an idea in consciousess". I am > not sure if this type of claim can be verified, or if it falls into the > category of things we cannot assert, as Bruno would say. I do tend to think > privately in those terms. > > So ok, the brain does not exist. It is just a bunch of qualia in > consciousness. But this is then true of every single thing! Again, no > problem with this, but also no reason to abandon science. The machine > doesn't exist either, but its elections (that don't exist either) follow a > certain pattern of behavior that we call the laws of physics. Why not the > electrons in the brain? What's the difference? > > Telmo. > > -- 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.
