> On 16 May 2019, at 03:42, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:18 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On 14 May 2019, at 01:27, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:19 AM Telmo Menezes <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On Mon, May 13, 2019, at 22:36, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: >>> On 5/13/2019 6:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> Physicalism fails to account for consciousness. This is the worst possible >>>> failure I can imagine, given that consciousness is the only thing I can be >>>> certain to exist. >>> >>> I think this misunderstands what science does. In the words of John von >>> Neumann, "The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to >>> interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical >>> construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, >>> describes observed phenomena. >> >> I agree with you and von Neumann on this, and this is precisely why I used >> the words "account for" instead of "explain". I literally mean that >> consciousness does not fit the physicalist models, it appears as magic or >> supernatural. To be precise, and avoid empty authoritative proclamations, I >> make clear what I mean: >> >> 1) Darwinian evolution is a theory (a brilliant theory, possibly my favorite >> scientific theory of all times) that accounts for biological >> complexification. Under physicalism, it fails to account for consciousness. >> There is simply no reason for the "lights to be on". A functionally >> equivalent p-zombie does the trick. >> >> 2) So maybe it's a spandrel. But again we have the magic step, because >> spandrels must arise from something. What are the first principles? >> >> 3) Or maybe it's "what the brain does", as many physicalists like to say. My >> body as mass, because the atoms that make up my body amount to that mass. >> What amounts to my consciousness? What are the building blocks? There is no >> accounting, there is no description in yours or van Neumann's sense. >> >> It is Bruce who accuses Platonism of being a failure, even though he is not >> able to name any point where physicalism succeeds and Platonism fails. It >> goes without saying that all of modern science is compatible with Platonism. >> I am pointing out a direct observation of mine that, thus far, is not >> compatible with physicalism. >> >> Telmo. >> >> You are too quick. You have not shown that consciousness is incompatible >> with physicalism. > > Consciousness is only incompatible with physicalism + mechanism. > > So just drop mechanism!
Then I have to drop molecular biology (and re-introduce some vitalism). I have to drop quantum mechanics, or introduce a non computable hamiltonian (which one), and all this to keep an ontological universe, for which there is zero evidences (as Plato understood). There are tuns of evidences for mechanism, and none for physicalism. Or if you know one, just show it to me. I have never ceased to search for one, but as the dream arguent suggests, that would be Gard to find, and that is why I am happy finding a way to find one:compare the material modes of the Löbian machine’s self with the empirical reality, but up to now, that empirical reality confirms Mechanism. > > It is nice, because the canonical theory of consciousness given by the > machine itself explains consciousness (as best as logically possible), and > explain constructively the appearance of matter, so that we can evaluate and > test the theory by comparing with nature. > > You begin to sound like a string theorist -- we have a constructive theory > that will make predictions that can be compared with experiment -- but not > just yet. I have a great respect for String theorists. Yes sometimes simpler new theories can only rediscover what has been already discovered, but then you are wrong: mechanism is the only theory which explains both quanta and qualia, where physicalism explain quanta, but fails to explain even the qualaia of the confirmation of quanta theories. It simply does not work, except by cheating on the mind-body question, by invoking a god in the sense of Plato (an ontological commitment incompatible with mechanism). It looks like “God made it”. > We still have to work out exactly what the theory (viz. string theory/physics > via mechanism) is...... > > String theory has clearly failed. Its supposed promise has not been > fulfilled, and all the predictions that it has ever made (and there aren't > many) have failed the experimental test. Exactly the same is true of > mechanism -- your supposed prediction of quantum mechanics is rather like the > string theorists' claim that they have predicted gravity! That analogy is more correct. But Mechanism has not yet been refuted in that sense, unlike phsycialism (not physics, physicalism, the metaphysics of Aristotle). > >> Just give Brent's engineering approach some time to work. > > Read my papers. Physicalism and Mechanism cannot work together at all. You > have to abandon Mechanism to save physicalism. But the evidences favours much > more mechanism than physicalism (which seems to be only an habit of thought). > >> Platonism has not accounted for the physical universe > > That is plain false. Mechanism explains entirely, qualitatively and > qualitatively, where the belief in a physical universe comes from, where > physicalism has to make an ontological commitment, which we try to always > avoid when doing science. > > The semantic thesis of scientific realism claims that the entities posited by > our best theories are the actual "furniture of the universe" -- which is an > ontological claim. That is physical realism. I use arithmetical realism, which posit that 2+2=4 is true. > So, in that view, science is completely about ontological claims -- that is > what the scientific realist is about -- finding out what the universe is made > of (viz. its ontology)! WE cannot do metaphysics or theology with the scientific method if we start with the answer. Is start from CT and YD, then the “theory of everything” is RA, or Turing equivalent, like Sxyz = xz(yz) + Kxy =x, and some identity rules. Then can test this, and up to now, this explains consciousness and matter, where physicalist metaphysics cheat on the brain-mind identity principle. Since 1500 years. Bruno > > Only Mechanism explain why we believe in a physical universe, why that belief > is correct, despite that physical universe is no more an ontological thing. > >> -- Bruno keeps saying that this is just "a work in progress”. > Yes, but the whole propositional theories have already been found. Some > comparison have already been done, and physicalism is already refuted (when > assuming mechanism), and tested plausibly false by the experiments, notably > those already done in quantum mechanics. > > Your claims about quantum mechanics are laughable. See the comments on string > theory and gravity above. > > >> So the same for consciousness. > > Non computationalist theory of consciousness are up to now too much fuzzy to > be tested. Such things do not yet exist, and even if Mechanism is refuted, > you will need the computationalist theory of mind (Mechanism) to develop a > genuine non computationalist theory. > > Pure hubris. Then define a non-computational theory without using the notion of computation, please. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTWpcb9ED3RNA9pyZB301cHSWC7cJ-qtBaV%2BFOLbMD02Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTWpcb9ED3RNA9pyZB301cHSWC7cJ-qtBaV%2BFOLbMD02Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/255DE29D-F24F-4A4F-A6FA-9556541C7C91%40ulb.ac.be.
