> On 24 Oct 2019, at 20:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/24/2019 6:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> And this means that we do, after all, know something about the intrinsic >>> nature of matter, over and above everything we know in knowing the >>> equations of physics. Why? Because we know the intrinsic nature of >>> consciousness and consciousness is a form of matter. >> >> That is sheer non-sense. If consciousness is a form of matter, what is its >> mass, volume, temperature, etc. That makes non sense, intuitively, and >> indeed with mechanism, we do get a “simple” theory of consciousness >> (machine’s knowledge), and we can explain the illusion of matter from this, >> in a testable way. > > It's a "form" in a metaphorical sense, as wetness is an attribute to water > and some other liquid compounds.
Wetness is typically ambiguous, like color. It can be used to denote the felling by a person of being wet, and some amount of water in some material compound. In the first case it denotes a qualia, in the second case it denotes quanta. > It appears when the matter is sufficiently complex in it's arrangement and > interactions to produce responses to its environment that are intelligent and > purposeful. That is what Chalmers could call the “easy problem of consciousness”. But the hard problem is that if the easy problem is all there is, then why should the feeling of pain exist at all, and what is it? > That's exactly the operational criterion we use to infer consciousness in > other beings. Which might be not to bad, FAPP, but that does not solve the problem of “what is matter, what is mind, and how are their related”. Mechanism do solves the problem is a complete way, making the solution testable, as it forces us to derive the laws of physics from the self-reference logics. > And it implies degrees of consciousness. Something Platonic concepts of > consciousness cannot do. On the contrary, Mechanism explains the huge variety of type of consciousness, with a complete mathematical structure attached to it, and the physical consciousnesss is testable, as the observable must be explained by the logic of certain prediction (which gives rise to the 3 usual variants of []p). Read my last papers to have all the details, which of course needs some familiarity with Gödel’s work and followers. 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/6fbc7506-1301-bb49-72c8-9f94baaafcce%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6fbc7506-1301-bb49-72c8-9f94baaafcce%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/F5F63B9D-4A26-4C10-B6E9-295B80D3BEB2%40ulb.ac.be.
