On Sun, Apr 5, 2020, at 13:18, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 7:26:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 Apr 2020, at 22:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I quite agree with Strawson that physics, and science in general, doesn't >>> tell us about the ding und sich of consciousness or anything else. But I >>> notice that he completely avoids any similar level description or >>> definition of qualia. Over and over he says "You know what I mean." So his >>> denial adds nothing. In contrast the idea that consciousness is a >>> particular kind of computation does lead somewhere...it leads to AI and >>> analysis and possibly even repair of brains. It leads to consciousness >>> engineering. >>> >>> The student questions are quite good...better than Strawson's answers. >> >> Same opinion. >> >> I would say that physics does not study consciousness, per se. It is not in >> its subject matter. But science can study consciousness and, actually, can >> be done in all domains. It is just the retrieval of metaphysics/theology >> from science which makes us believe that there subject out of science. Those >> subset are out of science to prevent people understanding the tyran tricks, >> a bit like cannabis is out of science, to steal money with inefficacious and >> expensive products instead. >> >> And you are right, the assumption that consciousness is preserved through >> digital functional substitution at some level does have many sort of >> observable consequences, from the plausibility of AI to quantum-like >> principle in Nature. >> >> Bruno >> >> > > Except for a few (Penrose, Koch, Hoffman, Matloff, ...) the scientists weigh > in on consciousness do not actually think consciousness exists (in a > Strawsonian, Russellian, ...) way. > > As you may have read already, *Sabine Hossenfelder*'s recent comments > demonstrates this: > > > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/04/what-is-emergence-what-means-emergent.html > > There is no reason to think that [consciousness is not measurable] is the > case. Indeed, scientists are devising ways of measuring consciousness as we > speak. > > Of course ["feeling"] is observable, provided you can accurately monitor the > brain. This is not even a matter of debate any more. Scientists *do* monitor > people's feelings.
People have always been able to monitor other people's feelings, for example by observing facial expressions. Do you figure there is some fundamental difference between observing muscular contraction correlates with reported feelings and observing neural activity correlates with reported feelings? Another question I have for you is this: is your computer conscious? And the follow-up question (whatever the answer) is: how do you know? Telmo. > [The] brain is made of particles and *physicists know what these particles do > very well.* *Hence, they have a theory for the brain; end of story.* If you > want to invent something that is not contained in their theory already, you > are claiming that particle physics are wrong. It's called the causal > exclusion argument, please look it up. > > > > @philipthrift > > -- > 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/b6478c5f-ea81-47c8-8a66-3b76c4a2a52a%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b6478c5f-ea81-47c8-8a66-3b76c4a2a52a%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/753c7443-0e92-491e-92a2-8b7cecd6bee6%40www.fastmail.com.
