> On 29 Mar 2021, at 17:04, Philip Benjamin <medinucl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > general_the...@googlegroups.com <mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com> > Subject: RE: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake > > [Philip Benjamin] > There is no need for confounding the self-evident physical reality with an > illusion,
It seems to me that only consciousness is self-evident. The term “physical reality” is ambiguous as it has not the same meaning in Plato and in Aristotle, when we do metaphysics. This is not important when doing physics (local prediction), but it is important when doing metaphysics/theology. > if and only if two different physical realities exist: 1. Ordinary > materialism of ordinary light matter with its chemistry (chemical bonds); 2. > Extraordinary materialism of extraordinary dark-: matter with its chemistry. Hmm… (I am already quite skeptical on any primitive (in need to be assumed) matter. Adding a second one will not help). > As to which one is primary or secondary is a matter of philosophic choice!! I don’t believe there is any choice when studying theories, except choosing which theories to test and discarded if shown wrong. Philosophic choice is a red herring which might come from the bad idea to separate theology from science (bad for theology and science, but good for the pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientist I guess). > (Note: Chemical bonds are spin governed particle configurations of duets and > octets). Mathematics of Computer and computation will not explain the > invisible (dark) consciousness. I think it does. I can give references to my papers, where I show that mechanism is incompatible with Materialism, in a constructive way: explaining how to derive quanta and qualia from what *any¨universal machine discover from “honest” or “sound” introspection. > Feeling a sense of loss for free-will is not the same as understanding > the reality that something within is external to the ordinary natural realm, > and subject to influence from outside which can be an extraordinarily > physical realm of dark-matter with its chemistry. This may be the source of > the “hard” part of free-will and consciousness. I doubt we can explain something by speculating on more complicated and mysterious things. Free-will is easy to explain for the machine, once we understand that they are aware of their incompleteness and suffer from hesitation in front of the partial character of knowledge due to that incompleteness. Free-will is felt, and real, from the machine self-indetermination due to her inability to access its whole history at the right mechanist level. This is related to the fact that she cannot know which computations are running her, among infinitely many. > Then, there is no contradiction between the reality and the phenomenology of > the “free will including psychology, morality and law, and the discoveries of > science. From the very moment of conception, the resonant “dark” & “light” > twins are formed recognizing each other—the basis for at least > self-awareness. Resonance is rudimentary recognition. Light matter bodies are > electric, entropic and decaying. Dark-matter bodies are non-electric, > nonentropic and undying. The chasm between death and life is obviously > abysmal and beyond the scope of science. When a light matter twin dies, the > dark twin will be left at a negative energy state of at least -E = - mC^2 > where m is the mass of the light twin. Only an external source of power much > greater than that can bring the dark twin back to any operational level. > There is “The Additional Mass of Life” for a living organism in a > hermitically sealed system, which disappears at death reported by Amrit S. > Sorli, Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia, > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary > <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary>; doi=10.1.1.218.573; > https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122 <https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122>. > 2012, Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-2). Honestly, I will wait for some proof that this is testable, but I doubt that invoking even one notion of matter can help, as I said above. You will need a non computationalist theory of mind, and that is already hard to conceive. > > A failure to distinguish an illusory but rigidly misunderstood concept > from the actuality will not explain consciousness. A “real” sunset is not > the illusion of sun splashing into the water, it is ultimately the motion of > the earth and gravity. The natural order of time, motion, matter and space > are all in intact. A mirage is likewise a “real” physical phenomenon from > refracted light, heat and materiality, only the effects of the realities are > illusory. Dark-matter bodies are likewise real but operate invisibly. OK. > It is really in the nature of the actual moral behavior of people or in the > nature of actual subjective experience to be unaccountable for known > behaviors. Because, no conceptual analysis by a dying “light” body can be > precise clarification of the intents of an undying ‘dark” body. ? > The concepts we use can become dangerously misleading not because of any > illusionary or faulty or inadequate and misleading notions and intuitions of > realities, but because of the atavistic and innate dissonance between dying > and undying “twins”. The increase of biophoton emission rates under stress > or trauma of living cells, with a burst at death of the cells, is a measure > of this dissonance. (It must be noted here that there is an increase of > biophoton emission rates by an order of magnitude across the taxa from human > to plants, indicating taxonomic differences between interactions of light and > dark chemical bonds. Ref: "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible > Doppelgänger" Sunbury Press 2013) . Spiritual body is more plausible, if not mandatory with mechanism, than a physical spirit. I tend to believe only in natural numbers. It is easier to explain the illusion of matter to a conscious machine/number than to explain an illusion of consciousness to a piece of matter. Bruno > Philip Benjamin > > CC. Carlo Rovelli PhD, Theoretical Physicist, “The Old Fisherman’s > Mistake” http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf > <http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf>. > > From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List Saturday, March 27, 2021 6:35 PM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> Subject: Fwd: Carlo Rovelli: The > Old Fisherman's Mistake > -------- Forwarded Message -------- The Old Fisherman's Mistake ROVELLI, > Carlo (2021) > > Abstract > > A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free will, the clash of > the manifest and scientific images, the possibility of a naturalistic > foundation of morality, and perhaps even the possibility of accounting for > consciousness in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be plagued by the > conceptual confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old fisherman's > mistake. > > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fphilsci-archive.pitt.edu%2F18837%2F1%2FPescatore.pdf&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cd4249d833cd4401af3e208d8f1790064%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637524849281363333%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=GOGWqhjXMUHLkX%2FZrnwo3yWqAyemTb4GgIvy%2BEcNAjk%3D&reserved=0> > > > Rovelli has it exactly right. > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB47043B295F09EB5B1805F150A87E9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB47043B295F09EB5B1805F150A87E9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9D4B2CC0-4BD2-4C26-8438-C8B9A08F9EA7%40ulb.ac.be.
