> On 28 May 2019, at 08:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/27/2019 11:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> > It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard" problem, >> > as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know what dark >> > matter and dark energy are. >> >> The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most important question in >> physics beaten only by "What is Dark Energy?". We don't know the answer to >> either one but as least the question is clear so in that sense they are >> easy. But nobody even knows what the "hard" question of consciousness is >> much less have a answer, by that I mean nobody even knows the general form >> an answer would take that would allow people like Bruno to say it has been >> solved. >> >> For example, if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous that >> its mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter in the >> universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it can be >> proven that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a negative >> pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what would >> allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been answered? I >> have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> My main point is we don't know what gravity is either. Witness all the >> physicists today - some say it is "emergent" (not fundamental) and a dozen >> other options for what gravity is. >> >> We observe both the existence of consciousness (in ourselves) and phenomenal >> gravity (in everything, recording how things move) but there is still a hard >> problem of gravity. There is no accepted final theory of gravity. And no >> "problem" of science (including gravity) will ever be "solved". That idea is >> a form of theology. Science just comes up with theories that might be useful >> in some way. > > On the other hand, the solutions science finds work better than the solutions > provided by every other disciplines...like theology.
That is simply wrong. Physics predicts very well, but only by its speculation of some yet unknown non computationalist theory of mind. If you don’t believe this, you have to explain me how you related the 3p prediction with the 1p confirmation, and this will require some God singling out a computation from all computations. The situation is very similar with the reaction of the wave packet. It would makes sense only with a criteria telling us where QM get wrong in between the observer and the observed. Wigner and von Neuman suggest that it is at the level of consciousness, which is at least coherent with the incompatibly between Mechanism and physicalism. 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15f028cc-9a50-cf72-0445-a61bae556c23%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15f028cc-9a50-cf72-0445-a61bae556c23%40verizon.net?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/4F48A120-FCF7-4581-AB7B-E4E5C59648C9%40ulb.ac.be.
