RE: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

hal, Prophetic and Apostolic authority. That is the beginning of rationalistic Augustinian West. Evidentialist Philip Benjamin From: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of ronaldheld Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2020 4:26 PM To: Everything List Subject: Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'conscious

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

> On 5 Apr 2020, at 16:53, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 7:35:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 5 Apr 2020, at 01:11, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I agree completely with Strawson that the type of qualia-free computational >> approach

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

> On 5 Apr 2020, at 15:18, 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 >> > wrote: >> >> I quite agree with Strawson that physics, and science in general, doesn't >> tell

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 6:07:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/5/2020 7:53 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > There Roger Penrose says as much, after this point. > > > > > @58min > (approx.) Penrose: quantum-state "collapse" produces proto-consciousness, > the

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

There are many levels of consciousness.  They don't all include self-consciousness.  Depending on its program it's unlikely that your personal computer is self-aware or has any preference for being on in the future. Brent On 4/5/2020 9:32 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: If your computer was

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

On 4/5/2020 7:53 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: There Roger Penrose says as much, after this point. > @58min (approx.) Penrose: quantum-state "collapse" produces proto-consciousness, the opposite of consciousness produces the "collapse" "Roger Penrose: Physics of

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

Watched the entire video, but do not know what to make of it. It cannot be because I am a physicalist . Could it be his use of language and definitions are imprecise? On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 4:07:25 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FHLjHC-soU > >

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

If your computer was conscious as you are, then you should not turn it off, at least permanenty - never to turn it on again. Ending its elexrical flow would be like ending the blood flow to your brain. The computer would not like that for itself, as you would not like that for yourself.

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

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 >>> wrote: >>> >>> I quite agree with Strawson that physics, and science in general, doesn't >>>

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 7:35:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 5 Apr 2020, at 01:11, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > I agree completely with Strawson that the type of qualia-free > computational approach suggested by some is nothing but *zombieism*. > > > > The whole point of

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

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 < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > I quite agree with Strawson that physics, and science in general, doesn't > tell us about the ding und sich of

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

> On 5 Apr 2020, at 01:11, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > I agree completely with Strawson that the type of qualia-free computational > approach suggested by some is nothing but zombieism. The whole point of incompleteness is that it assures that the logic of []p & p, which is undefinable

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

> On 4 Apr 2020, at 22:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > 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

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

I agree completely with Strawson that the type of qualia-free computational approach suggested by some is nothing but *zombieism*. All the viable computational frameworks (like Donald Hoffmann's) - when closely examined - depend on this: *Conscious agent networks:* *Formal analysis and

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

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

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

> On 4 Apr 2020, at 10:07, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FHLjHC-soU > > > "there is no conflict between a ‘hard-nosed’ > physicalist/materialist/naturalistic scientific approach to the world and > all-out belief in

Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FHLjHC-soU "there is no conflict between a ‘hard-nosed’ physicalist/materialist/naturalistic scientific approach to the world and all-out belief in the reality of consciousness, conscious experience, good old fashioned qualia - whatever you want to call it or