Re Without going into minute differences, the vast majority of neurophysiologists and physicists would agree with Tegmark that consciousness is an emergent property of matter.
Those who argue along those lines start to talk about a material object being affected by surrounding objects. Then they talk about the object being "sensitive" to its surroundings. When the object becomes sufficiently complex the "sensitiveness" label starts to be replaced by synonyms that suggest awareness. It's all smoke and mirrors. When some arbitrary complexity level is reached : "Hey presto!" - we have consciousness. Yes, the complexity is necessary to have, say, human consciousness, but the underlying awareness/feeling on which a human's idiosyncratic perspective is built must be there from the get-go. It is irreducible - so basic. Re Again, there's no experimental evidence for the existence of "Consciousness" : Who needs experimental evidence? I'm aware. Aren't you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <yifuxero@...> wrote : No. he's saying (not me), that relating to the "hard problem" of consciousness, the feeling of the emergent properties of atoms/moleculs is consciousness; but the emergence of such must have certain necessary conditions such as Perceptronium, Computronium (which are nothing but more molecules arranged to perceive and compute); into an independent, holistic entity. He didn't mention the Hal computer who somehow emerges into an intelligent, perceptual, entity with relative self-awareness. ... Without going into minute differences, the vast majority of neurophysiologists and physicists would agree with Tegmark that consciousness is an emergent property of matter. In a nutshell, that's it. Sam Harris approaches the question of consciousness from a neurophysiological perspective (differing from Tegmark's physics); but nevertheless, the bottom line with Harris is that consciousness is an emergent property of an entity's nervous system, with some creatures being more highly evolved than others. In short, brain first, consciousness emerging from brain matter. Nader otoh, clearly states (using metaphorical analogy) of consciousness acting through the brain (like a radio transducer). Music coming from a radio doesn't originate in the radio. The radio only transmits the sound after converting it from radio wavesitheqas in a certain spectrum. Likewise, the brain is a methanism for transmission, not the origin of Consciousness Hagelin and Nader only claim to have come up with "theories": (hypotheses) and do not present any experimental evidence for the model. What they give is is a cohesive, holistic model. . Hagelin have expanded their model to include Consciousness (with a big C); but as Nader states at least 3 times in his Stanford lecture, this (the Hagelin/Nader model following MMY) is a "THEORY" (he means hypothesis). Again, there's no experimental evidence for the existence of "Consciousness" (i.e. Purusha). If so, let's see the references.
