Re: models and physical laws
On 28.04.2012 17:49 meekerdb said the following: On 4/28/2012 12:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what physical laws are. For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model, then its interpretation, for example MWI, in my view, does not make too much sense. Evgenii It's a model - not 'just a model' (as if it weren't a model *of* something). Newtonian physics is a model. Does that mean it's interpretation doesn't make sense? Brent A model, in my view, is a pragmatic instrument to interpolate and with some luck extrapolate measurements. Why one should be interested in interpretation of a model? Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: models and physical laws
John, according to your agnostic view, is a model a good term to describe our knowledge? Evgenii On 28.04.2012 22:37 John Mikes said the following: Evgenii: MWI is great, I just cannot follow the logic why ALL 'worlds' should be identical with this one we are doomed to live in (except for playing with the 'transport' folly). This one is so lousy that ONE is more than enough of it. I derived a narrative for (my) Bigbang (one word) with innumerable universes, All of them with their own qualia - no restrictions, reaching into ample marvels what we cannot even fancy about. On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote: If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what physical laws are. For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model, then its interpretation, for example MWI, in my view, does not make too much sense. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies. Brent A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to a human. An AI will be made out of silicon or something, which could naturalsitically explain its lack of qualia. That is a different matter. With the possible exception of Craig, we all think our toasters are zombies. But if our robots behave as intelligently as humans we (except Craig) will suppose they have qualia too. Brent I don't see e why. We already don't, i n several senses. We don't attribute qualia to gadget that are smarter than us at specific tasks such as playing chess. We also don't expect sci fi AIs such as Mr Data to havea emotions or qualia...in fact we seem to have the intuition that they are qualiless *because* they are so one sidedly logical. Why would qualia help with intelligence anyway? If our AIs showed aesthetic flair, empathy, artistic creatviity etc, that would be another matter. How could you be a great painter without colour qualia? But that's not exactly intelligence. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Apr 27, 9:16 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/27/2012 12:00 PM, 1Z wrote: On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came from. We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'. And the EV is supposed to be analgous to qualia? But that paralell doens;t work. The EV is dismissable because there was never prima facie evidence for it. Then why was it widely believed to exist?...because somethings were alive and other seemingly identical things weren't. Which is the PF evidence. EV was supposed to exist becuase of absence of other explanations for the evidene. Until other exlanations came along. However, qualia are prima facie evidence for everything else. I can;t just pretend that my pains don't hurt, etc. We don't pretend things aren't alive either. Yep. Qualia are parallel to obvious signs of lfe. They are not parallel to the posited hidden motivating factor of life. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Apr 27, 9:29 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 27, 11:38 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is? Some priori brain state. What could make a brain state cause a feeling? A psychophsical law or identity. An omnipotence law could cause omnipotence too. so? So it's a fallacy to say that X can exist because there could be a Law of X that allows it to exist. That doens't follow, and it isn't. Even if there is some specific problem with X=omnipotence, that doens;t mean there is for other values of X. I used X to show specifically that the whole principle of justifying something by saying maybe there is a law which makes it so is a fallacy. There is no evidene of omnipotence. There is evidence for feelings. The notion of a cause is an idea - a feeling about order and sequence. That doesn't mean a cause itself is. I think that it does. Without the possible perception of causality, what is 'cause'? What the perception is a perception of. A cat is what a perception of a cat is a perception of, etc. What makes you think that that it is possible for something to exist without being perceived by something (including itself)? It seems likelier than things, such as the dark side of the moon, just springig into existence the first time they are seen. It's a common assumption, but I think it's totally empty. Existence, in reality, is nothing more or less than perception. I think that is based on the kind of confusion you made above, between X and perception-of-X. To have cause you have to have memory and narrative pattern recognition. To *recognise* a cause you have to have memory and narrative pattern recognition I'm not talking about human recognition in particular, I'm saying that ontologically you cannot have a 'cause' without something that remembers the initial condition and can detect that a change has occurred. Says who? Otherwise there is only a perpetual now, uncaused, with no memory. Says who? What difference does it make who says it? Can you refute it in some way? I think it is more a case of can you support your exraordinary claims. There is no time, no changes, no events at all, just a perpetual forgetting and incomprehensible fragments. Says who? If I say that a square has four sides, will you ask the same thing? That's not an extaordinary claim. Only disconnected fragments. Who told you that the universe absent huamns is disconnected? God? Who told you that perception requires humans? Nothing that I am talking about is limited to humans, other than the fact that we can only comment with certainty on our own perception. You presumamnly need some kind of panpsychism to prop up your perception driven view of relaity. You need some kind of mechanemorphism to prop up your prejudice against panpsychism. OTOH, people who think that things Just Are, don't need that posit. Of course they do, since their 'thinking' makes them completely different from any 'thing' that ever 'Just Was'. Not completely different, since we can solve some problems in AI. This is the delusion of mechanism - that faith in disbelief somehow escapes the epistemological bankruptcy of faith in belief. I believe that you think that, but I can't see how. When we say the word I followed by any verb, we are saying ' this self does X of it's own free will'. Naah. Eg I trip over and break my arm. I trip is still free will compared to 'I was pushed'. Why would want to break my arm? Accidents can still be willed, and with different degrees of consciousness. How do you know that isn't deterministic? A lot of people would say that your desires cause your action, and you can't choose your desires. There is bi-directional feedback. You can choose which of your many desires to privilege with attention, action, etc. We tell our body what to do, it tells us what to do. There are various theories. You don't know it isn;t deterministic. I know that it doesn't make sense for it to exist if it were deterministic. You don't know that things can only exist if they need to. According to you nobody can say anything except what they are determined to say, I am not sayign determinism is true, just that FW isn;t true apropri in the way you keep saying. I'm saying the opposite, that the fact FW is even conceivable means that determinism is not true. That arguemnt doens't work. That somehting is conceivable does not make it really possible let alone actual. I didn't say that it did. I say that it means determinism is not universally true. If color didn't exist, you could not conceive of color. If you can conceive of color - that means that the universe can't only be black and white. That argument doens't
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's standard use of language that if something is not determined it is random. I have never heard of that in my life. Did you say that because you had no choice or was it random? If something is determined it follows necessarily from the antecedents; if it does not follow necessarily from the antecedents then it is uncaused or indeterminate or random. That's how people use these words. Note that something can be determined but unpredictable, or random but highly predictable. Most complex natural phenomena are determined but unpredictable; radioactive decay is random but highly predictable. Determined means it's not random and random means it's not determined. Why? Random is determined randomly. Free will is determined intentionally. So what? Word games. The above definitions of determined and random I mentioned above are well-understood and agreed to by most participants in debates about free will. Choice, free will, intentionality are not so well defined. For example, some would say that people have a choice in a deterministic universe and some would say that they don't. When someone is found guilty of a crime that has nothing to do with whether their behaviour is determined or random. That would be news to attorneys and judges who spend their lives splitting hairs over liability. The question is whether the understood what he was doing and was in a position to make a different decision. This does not necessarily have anything to do with whether the brain functions on deterministic or random processes. The consideration the legal system uses is, essentially, whether punishing the crime would make a difference. What are you talking about? Designations such as Murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence, etc have nothing whatsoever to do with the effects intended by punishment and everything to do with ascertaining liability. The criminal justice system is designed to do one thing only: assess guilt, ie degree of intentionality in a criminal act, and punish accordingly. One of the main purposes of punishment is deterrence. If a person has no understanding or control over his actions, there is no deterrence, so (usually) the criminal justice system does not punish them. The sleepwalker is one example: knowing that sleepwalkers who commit crimes will be punished is not going to deter sleepwalkers from committing crimes. It will deter a criminal if he knows he will be punished since the fear of punishment will enter the deterministic or probabilistic equation, swaying the decision in favour of not offending. You are mistaking your philosophy for the criminal justice system. Can you find any example in any legal code which implies these kinds of considerations? Yes, people who would not be deterred by punishment because they don't understand or can't control their actions are usually not punished, or at least not punished so severely. This is the law being pragmatic as well as just. On the other hand, it is pointless to punish a sleepwalker: sleepwalkers do make decisions, but they are probably not the kinds of decisions that are influenced by fear of consequences. Without free will, we are all sleepwalkers. Consequences can only impact our behavior if we are able to choose what our behavior will be. An interesting example is seen in schizophrenia. Some patients experience auditory hallucinations of a command nature and feel they are unable to resist them. Terrible things have happened as a result, including murder. The patient says that he did not want to do what the voices said, knew it was wrong, struggled against it but still did it. In a sense, they suffer from a disease of their free will, and they are usually found not guilty on the grounds of insanity if their story is considered credible. We don't really understand what the deficit is in schizophrenia, but it seems unlikely that it affects the fundamental physics of the brain. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote: On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies. Brent A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to a human. An AI will be made out of silicon or something, which could naturalsitically explain its lack of qualia. That is a different matter. With the possible exception of Craig, we all think our toasters are zombies. But if our robots behave as intelligently as humans we (except Craig) will suppose they have qualia too. Brent I don't see e why. We already don't, i n several senses. We don't attribute qualia to gadget that are smarter than us at specific tasks such as playing chess. We also don't expect sci fi AIs such as Mr Data to havea emotions or qualia...in fact we seem to have the intuition that they are qualiless *because* they are so one sidedly logical. Why would qualia help with intelligence anyway? If our AIs showed aesthetic flair, empathy, artistic creatviity etc, that would be another matter. How could you be a great painter without colour qualia? But that's not exactly intelligence. By 'behave intelligently' I intended to convey 'with purpose and reflection' and just 'logical'. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Apr 29, 1:26 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: How many times do you want me to restate the obvious third alternative 42. YOU CREATE the reason to act. OK, then you create the reason to act for a reason OR you create the reason to act for no reason, there is no third alternative. You create the reason to act for many reasons, but you may not be determined by any one of them to make the choice you make. Your own capacity to create a reason (ie to 'reason') is as causally efficacious as any of the outside influences. Your preference can count as much as any other consideration. You are saying that whatever is done in a non-systematic way has no cause. Yes. That is a the most basic logical fallacy there is. Bullshit. That isn't a rebuttal. You are erroneously assuming that all causes are systematic If it was caused then something about it must be systematic. I understand that you believe that, but I think that it's an unexamined assumption. I have no system for writing these words. I am writing them in real time based on nothing whatsoever other than what makes sense to me at the moment. Why do you have to make that systematic? Can't you just let it be what it is? If not, if it's a miracle and not repeatable If it's a miracle it's quite an ordinary miracle, as every living person and many animals participate in it continuously. Exercising your will may not be as repeatable as a machine, but it's repeatable enough for most purposes. and you still insist on calling it a cause then the word cause has no meaning, or at least it becomes operationally indistinguishable from the word random. Not random. Not systematically determined. Spontaneously generated from consciousness. This is the primary function of consciousness. To change the self and the world from the inside out, countering the random and systematic changes imposed from the outside in. If you had to make the universe from scratch, that is the way you would have to do it if you wanted to create experiences like we have. My point is that intention is neither caused entirely by a system nor it is entirely without a system - will is the creation of system; a third option. So you think X is not Y and you also think X is not not Y, now THAT sort of doublethink is the most basic logical fallacy there is. A Yellow traffic light is not Go and it isn't Stop, but doesn't mean 'don't stop' or 'don't go' either. Your assumption of black and white thinking is the problem, not reality. I am only describing common, ordinary reality in the simplest and most straightforward terms I know. You are determined by your will? Yes, or at least you want to be determined by your will, but sometimes events conspire in such a way that you can't always get what you want; a great Rolling Stones song by the way. But are you a passive spectator of an alien force or can you influence some things in some ways? So you think we should say I am walked across the street by my will. Obviously, although that's a rather awkward way of phrasing it; I usually just say I'm walking across the street because I want to, of course just like everything else I want to for a reason OR I want to for no reason. It doesn't work. Why did the chicken cross the road? Because road crossing determined to express itself as a chicken. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote: On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies. Brent A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to a human. An AI will be made out of silicon or something, which could naturalsitically explain its lack of qualia. That is a different matter. With the possible exception of Craig, we all think our toasters are zombies. But if our robots behave as intelligently as humans we (except Craig) will suppose they have qualia too. Brent I don't see e why. We already don't, i n several senses. We don't attribute qualia to gadget that are smarter than us at specific tasks such as playing chess. We also don't expect sci fi AIs such as Mr DataA to havea emotions or qualia...in fact we seem to have the intuition that they are qualiless *because* they are so one sidedly logical. Why would qualia help with intelligence anyway? If our AIs showed aesthetic flair, empathy, artistic creatviity etc, that would be another matter. How could you be a great painter without colour qualia? But that's not exactly intelligence. By 'behave intelligently' I intended to convey 'with purpose and reflection' and just 'logical'. Why would reflection (higher order thought), or purpose, require qualia? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote: On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote: On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies. Brent A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to a human. An AI will be made out of silicon or something, which could naturalsitically explain its lack of qualia. That is a different matter. With the possible exception of Craig, we all think our toasters are zombies. But if our robots behave as intelligently as humans we (except Craig) will suppose they have qualia too. Brent I don't see e why. We already don't, i n several senses. We don't attribute qualia to gadget that are smarter than us at specific tasks such as playing chess. We also don't expect sci fi AIs such as Mr DataA to havea emotions or qualia...in fact we seem to have the intuition that they are qualiless *because* they are so one sidedly logical. Why would qualia help with intelligence anyway? If our AIs showed aesthetic flair, empathy, artistic creatviity etc, that would be another matter. How could you be a great painter without colour qualia? But that's not exactly intelligence. By 'behave intelligently' I intended to convey 'with purpose and reflection' and just 'logical'. Why would reflection (higher order thought), or purpose, require qualia? I didn't say they would, I said we will suppose they have qualia. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Apr 30, 2:30 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote: On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote: On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies. Brent A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to a human. An AI will be made out of silicon or something, which could naturalsitically explain its lack of qualia. That is a different matter. With the possible exception of Craig, we all think our toasters are zombies. But if our robots behave as intelligently as humans we (except Craig) will suppose they have qualia too. Brent I don't see e why. We already don't, i n several senses. We don't attribute qualia to gadget that are smarter than us at specific tasks such as playing chess. We also don't expect sci fi AIs such as Mr DataA to havea emotions or qualia...in fact we seem to have the intuition that they are qualiless *because* they are so one sidedly logical. Why would qualia help with intelligence anyway? If our AIs showed aesthetic flair, empathy, artistic creatviity etc, that would be another matter. How could you be a great painter without colour qualia? But that's not exactly intelligence. By 'behave intelligently' I intended to convey 'with purpose and reflection' and just 'logical'. Why would reflection (higher order thought), or purpose, require qualia? I didn't say they would, I said we will suppose they have qualia. Brent I don;t think we would infer qualia from intelligence, because we seem not to at the moment. And if qualia are not needed for intellgence, it would not work as an abductive argument anyway. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On 4/29/2012 6:37 PM, 1Z wrote: On Apr 30, 2:30 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote: On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote: On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies. Brent A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to a human. An AI will be made out of silicon or something, which could naturalsitically explain its lack of qualia. That is a different matter. With the possible exception of Craig, we all think our toasters are zombies. But if our robots behave as intelligently as humans we (except Craig) will suppose they have qualia too. Brent I don't see e why. We already don't, i n several senses. We don't attribute qualia to gadget that are smarter than us at specific tasks such as playing chess. We also don't expect sci fi AIs such as Mr DataA to havea emotions or qualia...in fact we seem to have the intuition that they are qualiless *because* they are so one sidedly logical. Why would qualia help with intelligence anyway? If our AIs showed aesthetic flair, empathy, artistic creatviity etc, that would be another matter. How could you be a great painter without colour qualia? But that's not exactly intelligence. By 'behave intelligently' I intended to convey 'with purpose and reflection' and just 'logical'. Why would reflection (higher order thought), or purpose, require qualia? I didn't say they would, I said we will suppose they have qualia. Brent I don;t think we would infer qualia from intelligence, because we seem not to at the moment. I think we do. My dog acts intelligently and most people suppose he experiences qualia. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Apr 29, 9:53 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I think we do. My dog acts intelligently and most people suppose he experiences qualia. Do we think a stupid dog experiences qualia which is not as rich as that of a smart dog? Pain does not hurt as much for a dog that doesn't know how to roll over on command? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On 4/29/2012 8:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Apr 29, 9:53 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: I think we do. My dog acts intelligently and most people suppose he experiences qualia. Do we think a stupid dog experiences qualia which is not as rich as that of a smart dog? No, but I suppose that an oyster does not experience qualia as rich as that of a dog. Pain does not hurt as much for a dog that doesn't know how to roll over on command? Pain is pretty basic. But it is evolutionarily related to possible reactions. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Apr 29, 11:17 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2012 8:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Apr 29, 9:53 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: I think we do. My dog acts intelligently and most people suppose he experiences qualia. Do we think a stupid dog experiences qualia which is not as rich as that of a smart dog? No, but I suppose that an oyster does not experience qualia as rich as that of a dog. I agree, but not necessarily because the oyster isn't intelligent as much as it more phylogenetically distant from Homo sapiens than a dog. For instance, cetaceans are more intelligent than fish but I don't have an intuitive feel for how the qualia a dolphin experiences from that of a shark. I suspect that how I relate to both species as a member of Homo sapiens is to blame for that. I imagine that a dolphin might be offended to be compared to a shark (well, I don't know if dolphins have the ego to feel offended in that way, but still). Pain does not hurt as much for a dog that doesn't know how to roll over on command? Pain is pretty basic. But it is evolutionarily related to possible reactions. I don't think it can be evolutionarily related to anything. Not biological evolution anyhow. Pain in and of itself has no functional connection to any reactions. Our experience of pain influences us, but there is no mechanical reason that would be the case. It could be a feeling of dizzyness or no feeling at all that influences us instead. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On 4/29/2012 8:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Apr 29, 11:17 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2012 8:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Apr 29, 9:53 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote: I think we do. My dog acts intelligently and most people suppose he experiences qualia. Do we think a stupid dog experiences qualia which is not as rich as that of a smart dog? No, but I suppose that an oyster does not experience qualia as rich as that of a dog. I agree, but not necessarily because the oyster isn't intelligent as much as it more phylogenetically distant from Homo sapiens than a dog. For instance, cetaceans are more intelligent than fish but I don't have an intuitive feel for how the qualia a dolphin experiences from that of a shark. I suspect that how I relate to both species as a member of Homo sapiens is to blame for that. I imagine that a dolphin might be offended to be compared to a shark (well, I don't know if dolphins have the ego to feel offended in that way, but still). Pain does not hurt as much for a dog that doesn't know how to roll over on command? Pain is pretty basic. But it is evolutionarily related to possible reactions. I don't think it can be evolutionarily related to anything. Not biological evolution anyhow. Pain in and of itself has no functional connection to any reactions. Our experience of pain influences us, but there is no mechanical reason that would be the case. So why is it that some people don't feel pain? Brent It could be a feeling of dizzyness or no feeling at all that influences us instead. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Apr 29, 11:40 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So why is it that some people don't feel pain? You mean physiologically, like Leprosy or a spinal cord injury? If your receiving instrument is damaged, you can't properly access the experiences that others can. Lose your internet connection, no email. It doesn't mean that email is produced by router for it's own purposes. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On 4/29/2012 8:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Apr 29, 11:40 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: So why is it that some people don't feel pain? You mean physiologically, like Leprosy or a spinal cord injury? No, genetically. There is no specific 'receiving instrument' for pain. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
