On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 19:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > > On 9/16/2019 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 09:32, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: >>> Any consciousness that invents that idea in itself. >> >> Ok, but we clearly have some common ground. I can send you this message and >> you can read it. >> >> Here's my simplistic / informal understanding of what is going on... Like >> you, I tend to believe that consciousness is more fundamental than physics, >> and I also agree that "human physics" is just an idea in consciousness. > > I think this equivocates on "fundamental". Consciousness is epistemically > fundamental. It's the basis of knowledge and specifically of the knowledge > that is sharable (objective). But based on that knowledge we have developed a > theory of the world in which physics seems to be fundamental in the > ontological sense.
Ok. To be clear, when I write "I tend to believe", I meant it. I don't claim any knowledge. I also agree that physics has been spectacularly successful in producing theories of our shared reality. I would just point out that these theories are both incomplete (e.g. dark matter) and incompatible with each other (QM vs Relativity). Maybe this will be fixed in due time, but it could also be the case that there is some fundamental epistemological limit. Maybe a model that fits certain things makes other things irreducibly mysterious. Maybe Hawking's model realism is the best we can do. This could be because of fundamental limits in ourselves, the same way that you can't teach a cat to speak, maybe it is impossible for a human being to understand certain things. It could also be the case that fundamental reality really works like that, and this is one of the reasons why I find Bruno's ideas compelling (as well as Hofstadter's strange loops, for example). > This theory implies that consciousness is a phenomenon emergent from certain > complex processes, probably of the kind called computations. There is a lot > of empirical (sharable, objective) support for this, i.e. physical effects on > the brain change the consciousness. I agree with all of this evidence, and also with all of my direct experience, which at points contradicts this evidence. This is why, again, I like theories that embrace the paradox instead of trying to get rid of it. Telmo. > > Brent > > > >> I think that we might diverge in that I also believe that science points to >> something real, as in, real phenomena with discernible patterns that you and >> me can agree with. My understanding is that you, me, everyone else are >> "windows" through which reality can be experienced. As far as I am >> concerned, first person experience is REALLY REAL(tm) and independent third >> person reality is a useful model with an unknown (perhaps unknowable) >> ontological status. >> >> My point: why wouldn't an algorithm become such a "window" from which >> reality can be experienced? What's special about wet brains? This seems >> particularly obvious to me given that I have never even met you in person. >> You could be an algorithm running in silicon, as far as I am concerned. >> >> Telmo. >> >>> >>> On Sunday, 15 September 2019 23:28:11 UTC+3, [email protected] wrote: >>>> You mean human consciousness or something bigger? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <[email protected]> >>>> To: Everything List <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2019 7:39 am >>>> Subject: Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic >>>> >>>> >>>> The reason is much simpler: "Physics" is just an idea in consciousness. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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/83cd060e-aad2-4f17-ad6a-be72abb4aa08%40googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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/0dc1035f-25f8-4d60-a5c1-53bf4ff04381%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dc1035f-25f8-4d60-a5c1-53bf4ff04381%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/3f4f7c65-f2e6-432d-a209-4dc5b46133d4%40www.fastmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3f4f7c65-f2e6-432d-a209-4dc5b46133d4%40www.fastmail.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/5ef9f4d6-757f-be7d-311c-10e67159ee33%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5ef9f4d6-757f-be7d-311c-10e67159ee33%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/bbd2b1c4-99a0-46e6-8bb3-35acfe9cb448%40www.fastmail.com.
