On 7/10/2021 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 5 Jul 2021, at 21:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 7/5/2021 7:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:44 AM Tomas Pales <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not, that's why you
can't measure consciousness by the pound or by the cubic inch.
/> In English language it is used as a noun. Check out a
dictionary:/
*consciousness* noun
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun>
I know, that's what my fourth grade teacher told me too, but I
long-ago realized that neither she nor the lexicographerswho wrote
that big thick book are the fonts of all wisdom.
>> Intelligence is what a brain does not what a brain is, and
because Darwinian Evolution is almost certainly correct,
consciousness must be an inevitable byproduct of
intelligence, therefore "consciousness" is not a noun, it's
a word that describes what a noun (in this case the brain)
does, in other words consciousness is an adjective.
/> You mean a verb then, no? /
I think adjective fits the bill a littlebetter,I think Tomas Palesis
the way atoms behave when they are arranged in a Tomaspalesian way.
> /consciousness is a spatiotemporal object./
I disagree, I think asking where my consciousness is located would
be like asking where the number 11 or the color yellow or "fast" is
located. If my brain is in Paris and I'm looking at a TV football
game from Detroit and I'm listening to a friend in Australia on my
telephone and I'm thinking about The Great Wall of China would it
make sense to say my consciousness is really located inside a box
made of bone mounted on my shoulders when I have no conscious
experience of being in a bone box on my shoulders? I don't think so.
Yet a sharp blow to that bone box would eliminate your conscious
experience at least temporarily.
Only from the point of view of some conscious subject. From the point
of view of the person associated to the brain in the box, that does
not make sense, as it is associated to infinitely many truing
universal relation.
That's incorrect. I've been knocked unconscious and when I regained
consciousness (it was on a few seconds) I realized the gap my conscious
experience.
The body is only a map on infinitely many histories. That can be
proved both with QM-without-collapse, or in any non trivial
combinatory algebra (like a model of arithmetic).
So there's something there that is essential to your consciousness.
What is “essential” are the infinitely many computations.
Since the 1930s we know that all computations are realised in any
model (in the logician sense) of arithmetic, or of combinatory logic
(Kxy = x, Sxyz = xz(yz)).
But not in any brain...they are only finite.
I know that this contradict 1492 years of materialist brainwashing,
but “appearance of matter” are explained in arithmetic, and get
contradictory when associated or singularised through any
supplementary axioms, even the induction axioms used to define what an
observer can be.
You assume some ontological commitment inconsistent with Mechanism here.
You assume an ontological commitment to Church-Turing infinite
computations.
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/59fe7a9a-edce-6a41-3945-8bb4104efa44%40verizon.net.
