> On 25 Jul 2019, at 04:20, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 1:28:34 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Jul 2019, at 01:02, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:06 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> On 23 Jul 2019, at 06:45, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 2:30 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected] >>> <javascript:>> wrote: >>> >>> The inputs serve to put the brain in a particular state, but the brain >>> could go into the same state without the inputs. This can be a practical >>> problem in patients with schizophrenia: the may hear voices and are >>> convinced that the voices are real, to the point where they might assault >>> someone because of what they believe he said. >>> >>> And I believe that if a particular small area of the brain is stimulated, >>> the subject experiences the colour red. Similarly, if the colour red is >>> shown, that same area of the brain shows activity. So quailia are nothing >>> but particular brain activity. There is no additional "magic sauce" in >>> consciousness. >>> >>> These same areas of the brain could be excited at random, as in your >>> schizophrenic example. All that goes to show is that consciousness is >>> nothing more than brain activity. Absent brain activity, there is no >>> consciousness. >> >> But absence of consciousness does not entail absence of brain activity. >> >> It is not claimed that consciousness and brain activity are coextensive. So >> you can have brain activity without consciousness (as in a vegetative >> state), but there is no consciousness without brain activity. > > > There is no human consciousness without brain activity. But with mechanism > things are like this: > > NUMBER => CONSCIOUSNESS => PHYSICAL REALITY => BRAINS => HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS > > All of which not only exist but have been implemented in laws for thousands > of years, enabling you to play e.g. philosopher king on this very list. > > What is believed to be "primary" is everybody's personal business.
I think this is false, and a remnant of he idea that in religion we can believe what we want, but is a consequence of the separation of science (modesty in the means) and religion (humility with resect of fundamental knowledge). > Our democracies leave much to be desired; mostly avoiding self-destruction in > the search for sustainability.... but platonic degrees of freedom, preserving > and expanding them without killing ourselves, what you call "mechanism" is > democratic business as usual of conflicting interests due to simultaneous > existence. Plato isn't buried for a thousand years. > > I don't see much philosophically noteworthy attributes that these thought > experiments add to discourse. A hierarchy of primacy runs into intractability > and ignorance, "we don't know" as authoritative argument is exploitable, as > everybody can see on this list for years; it's not a vaccine but seems an > unnecessary liability/commitment that rationally bars folks from enjoying > life's mystery. > Good point. > Every joy shared or not, merely deterministic, delusional. No, with mechanism the “illusions" and phenomenologies are real, and the most important issue, given that the ontology is extremely simple and sober. > Every degree of freedom merely phenomenological. All laughter an escape > mechanism exploited. All lives tears in the rain. Life negating and cynical. > That's just one thing you add to "2+2=4". The walls of this list are full of > the rest of it for 2 decades.Simplest theory, huh? > > Oscar Wilde would reply that such schools of thought, hyper rationality with > Christian ethical-theological primary components: Propagated by those who > don't know beauty, becoming slaves of their fanatical relation to > nomenclature. > > You want me to show you a full theory of everything without all the body mind > language woo woo? We do this in music and the arts for thousands of years. > Every piece. Every person. The following piece of music is but one of many. > All histories and ages, classical politeness discourses, romantic rumination > and introspection, party enjoyment to Quantum superposition insanity at the > end: progressing with every piece in that order... are represented by this > sequence of flute and guitar notes convincingly in my humble opinion: Lay > down or be comfortable, close our eyes, and hear for ourselves or not: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=852jpjmSR8Q > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=852jpjmSR8Q> > > Arguments are in the doing and experiencing, That is correct. Bruno > not the explaining, nor the reports, which even though they should be done > are just that: reports by people. Just people. > > I guess I should quit bitching and publish. "The interesting sexy stuff. Who > got it? I want some. Procedural notes and algorithms. Discourse with balls." > PGC > > > -- > 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/f16fcead-651f-4f30-997a-91793ba06673%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f16fcead-651f-4f30-997a-91793ba06673%40googlegroups.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/CC3324B9-EB0B-4FB0-B610-D3DE0C1F48D0%40ulb.ac.be.
