Re: Support for Panexperientialism
On Feb 26, 12:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 24, 11:13 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Of course. They are the particular sense of epistemology which 'seems like' the opposite of 'seems like'. Phenomena are reduced to their wireframe invariance - a skeleton which seems as if it 'simply is' because it represents the most common overlap and discards all nuanced underlap. Didn;t understand that. Maybe thy this way. Black and white are the two colors that don't seem like colors. They are the skeleton of color. You can see how you can easily find black and white by mixing colors, but you can't create color if all you have is black and white. Comp is black and white. Sense is all color, including black and white. 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: Support for Panexperientialism
On Feb 24, 11:13 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Of course. They are the particular sense of epistemology which 'seems like' the opposite of 'seems like'. Phenomena are reduced to their wireframe invariance - a skeleton which seems as if it 'simply is' because it represents the most common overlap and discards all nuanced underlap. Didn;t understand that. -- 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: Support for Panexperientialism
On Feb 24, 7:52 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: He isn't saying it's special, he is asking why should we think that consciousness arises as some exceptional phenomenon in the universe. Every phenomenon is exceptional. Not in the sense that they are disconnected from all other processes of the universe. The so called disconnect just amounts to some entities being conscious and others not. But every entity has properties that some other entities don't. That isn't what he means. The disconnects are about how there is nothing we can see that accounts for any empirical difference between matter which is part of a living organism and matter that isn't. There is no 'entity' at all. Why is such an 'arising' assumed? and how we can assume that it isn't universal in some sense if we can't point to what that might be. But it isn;t at all pbvious that we don't understand consc should imply panexperientialism rather than dualism or physicalism or a dozen other options. Almost all the philosophy of mind starts with we don't understand consc That's not what he is saying. His point is that what we do understand about physics makes it obvious that consc cannot be understood as some special case that is disconnected from the rest of the universe. That isn't obvious, since there are plenty of physcialists about consc. around. And he didn;t mention physics. He didn't mention physics but when he talks about 'disconnects' he is referring to any theoretical discontinuity between consc and the natural universe. Whatever. It might be better to take as your text the writings of a notable panpsychist (Whitehead, Strawson, Chalmers) as your text, rather than Random Internet Dude. I was mainly posting the quotes. I was not expecting to have to defend the casual Tumblr comments of Random Internet Dude. Not that they aren't decent. I find them generally agreeable. $0.02 + $0.02 = $0.04 And don’t get me started on the nonsense superstition of “emergent properties” — show me one “emergent property” that is independent of the conscious observer coming to the conclusion it is emergent. The problem with emergence is that is defined so many ways. For some values of emergent, emergent properties are trivially demonstrable. Demonstrable = compels the conclusion that it is emergent to a conscious observer. Epistemologically dependent =/= ontologically dependent. The ontology of emergence is epistemological. Says who? What does emergence mean? It means it's something that *we* don't expect to see based on *what we think that we know* about the underlying causes and conditions of the emergence. Fine. Then reduction and deteminism are epistemological too. Of course. They are the particular sense of epistemology which 'seems like' the opposite of 'seems like'. Phenomena are reduced to their wireframe invariance - a skeleton which seems as if it 'simply is' because it represents the most common overlap and discards all nuanced underlap. Here, take a look at this. Trying to make it as simple and direct as I can: http://s33light.org/post/18174218821 http://s33light.org/post/18187162394 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: Support for Panexperientialism
On Feb 22, 1:10 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Could a rock have consciousness? Good answer from someone on Quora:http://www.quora.com/Could-a-rock-have-consciousness Yes, obviously. Why obviously? Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made of? Specifically, the disconnect that must occur if some parts of reality are “conscious” while others aren’t. DIsconnects exist. Some things are magnetic and others not. And many other examples. What's special about consc? That we don;t understand where or what the disconnect is? But it isn;t at all pbvious that we don't understand consc should imply panexperientialism rather than dualism or physicalism or a dozen other options. Almost all the philosophy of mind starts with we don't understand consc And don’t get me started on the nonsense superstition of “emergent properties” — show me one “emergent property” that is independent of the conscious observer coming to the conclusion it is emergent. The problem with emergence is that is defined so many ways. For some values of emergent, emergent properties are trivially demonstrable. -- 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: Support for Panexperientialism
On Feb 23, 9:34 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made of? Specifically, the disconnect that must occur if some parts of reality are “conscious” while others aren’t. DIsconnects exist. Some things are magnetic and others not. And many other examples. What's special about consc? That we don;t understand where or what the disconnect is? It doesn't make consc special, but he is saying it makes it universal. Magnetism is a good example. In our naive perception it seems to us that some things are magnetic and others not, but we know that actually all atoms have electromagnetic properties. He is asking what thing could make consc special and how we can assume that it isn't universal in some sense if we can't point to what that might be. But it isn;t at all pbvious that we don't understand consc should imply panexperientialism rather than dualism or physicalism or a dozen other options. Almost all the philosophy of mind starts with we don't understand consc That's not what he is saying. His point is that what we do understand about physics makes it obvious that consc cannot be understood as some special case that is disconnected from the rest of the universe. And don’t get me started on the nonsense superstition of “emergent properties” — show me one “emergent property” that is independent of the conscious observer coming to the conclusion it is emergent. The problem with emergence is that is defined so many ways. For some values of emergent, emergent properties are trivially demonstrable. Demonstrable = compels the conclusion that it is emergent to a conscious observer. 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: Support for Panexperientialism
On Feb 23, 3:50 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 23, 9:34 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made of? Specifically, the disconnect that must occur if some parts of reality are “conscious” while others aren’t. DIsconnects exist. Some things are magnetic and others not. And many other examples. What's special about consc? That we don;t understand where or what the disconnect is? It doesn't make consc special, but he is saying it makes it universal. Magnetism is a good example. In our naive perception it seems to us that some things are magnetic and others not, but we know that actually all atoms have electromagnetic properties. That's a bit misleading. No atom has ferromagnetic properties, such properties can only exist in bulk (they are emergent in of the umpteen senses of the word). The elcetromagnetic properites of atoms are more akin to panPROTOexperientialism.. He is asking what thing could make consc special What special? He doesn't have a ny evidence that cosnc is special beyond our inability to understand it in material terms. and how we can assume that it isn't universal in some sense if we can't point to what that might be. But it isn;t at all pbvious that we don't understand consc should imply panexperientialism rather than dualism or physicalism or a dozen other options. Almost all the philosophy of mind starts with we don't understand consc That's not what he is saying. His point is that what we do understand about physics makes it obvious that consc cannot be understood as some special case that is disconnected from the rest of the universe. That isn't obvious, since there are plenty of physcialists about consc. around. And he didn;t mention physics. And don’t get me started on the nonsense superstition of “emergent properties” — show me one “emergent property” that is independent of the conscious observer coming to the conclusion it is emergent. The problem with emergence is that is defined so many ways. For some values of emergent, emergent properties are trivially demonstrable. Demonstrable = compels the conclusion that it is emergent to a conscious observer. Epistemologically dependent =/= ontologically dependent. -- 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: Support for Panexperientialism
On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made of? Specifically, the disconnect that must occur if some parts of reality are “conscious” while others aren’t. DIsconnects exist. Some things are magnetic and others not. And many other examples. What's special about consc? That we don;t understand where or what the disconnect is? It doesn't make consc special, but he is saying it makes it universal. Magnetism is a good example. In our naive perception it seems to us that some things are magnetic and others not, but we know that actually all atoms have electromagnetic properties. That's a bit misleading. No atom has ferromagnetic properties, such properties can only exist in bulk (they are emergent in of the umpteen senses of the word). The elcetromagnetic properites of atoms are more akin to panPROTOexperientialism.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-molecule_magnet I think it's a bit misleading to distinguish ferromagnetism from electromagnetism. I wouldn't even call it emergent, it's more of a special case. Just as human consciousness is a special case of awareness. I'm ok with panprotoexperientialism though. We can't really know one way or another at what point the proto is dropped and have no particular reason to assume that there is no experience that corresponds to atoms, so it seems safer to assume that that awareness is 100% primitive instead of 100-x% primitive arbitrarily. He is asking what thing could make consc special What special? He doesn't have a ny evidence that cosnc is special beyond our inability to understand it in material terms. He isn't saying it's special, he is asking why should we think that consciousness arises as some exceptional phenomenon in the universe. Why is such an 'arising' assumed? and how we can assume that it isn't universal in some sense if we can't point to what that might be. But it isn;t at all pbvious that we don't understand consc should imply panexperientialism rather than dualism or physicalism or a dozen other options. Almost all the philosophy of mind starts with we don't understand consc That's not what he is saying. His point is that what we do understand about physics makes it obvious that consc cannot be understood as some special case that is disconnected from the rest of the universe. That isn't obvious, since there are plenty of physcialists about consc. around. And he didn;t mention physics. He didn't mention physics but when he talks about 'disconnects' he is referring to any theoretical discontinuity between consc and the natural universe. And don’t get me started on the nonsense superstition of “emergent properties” — show me one “emergent property” that is independent of the conscious observer coming to the conclusion it is emergent. The problem with emergence is that is defined so many ways. For some values of emergent, emergent properties are trivially demonstrable. Demonstrable = compels the conclusion that it is emergent to a conscious observer. Epistemologically dependent =/= ontologically dependent. The ontology of emergence is epistemological. 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: Support for Panexperientialism
On Feb 23, 8:27 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made of? Specifically, the disconnect that must occur if some parts of reality are “conscious” while others aren’t. DIsconnects exist. Some things are magnetic and others not. And many other examples. What's special about consc? That we don;t understand where or what the disconnect is? It doesn't make consc special, but he is saying it makes it universal. Magnetism is a good example. In our naive perception it seems to us that some things are magnetic and others not, but we know that actually all atoms have electromagnetic properties. That's a bit misleading. No atom has ferromagnetic properties, such properties can only exist in bulk (they are emergent in of the umpteen senses of the word). The elcetromagnetic properites of atoms are more akin to panPROTOexperientialism.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-molecule_magnet I think it's a bit misleading to distinguish ferromagnetism from electromagnetism. I wouldn't even call it emergent, it's more of a special case. Just as human consciousness is a special case of awareness. I'm ok with panprotoexperientialism though. We can't really know one way or another at what point the proto is dropped and have no particular reason to assume that there is no experience that corresponds to atoms, so it seems safer to assume that that awareness is 100% primitive instead of 100-x% primitive arbitrarily. He is asking what thing could make consc special What special? He doesn't have a ny evidence that cosnc is special beyond our inability to understand it in material terms. He isn't saying it's special, he is asking why should we think that consciousness arises as some exceptional phenomenon in the universe. Every phenomenon is exceptional. Why is such an 'arising' assumed? and how we can assume that it isn't universal in some sense if we can't point to what that might be. But it isn;t at all pbvious that we don't understand consc should imply panexperientialism rather than dualism or physicalism or a dozen other options. Almost all the philosophy of mind starts with we don't understand consc That's not what he is saying. His point is that what we do understand about physics makes it obvious that consc cannot be understood as some special case that is disconnected from the rest of the universe. That isn't obvious, since there are plenty of physcialists about consc. around. And he didn;t mention physics. He didn't mention physics but when he talks about 'disconnects' he is referring to any theoretical discontinuity between consc and the natural universe. Whatever. It might be better to take as your text the writings of a notable panpsychist (Whitehead, Strawson, Chalmers) as your text, rather than Random Internet Dude. And don’t get me started on the nonsense superstition of “emergent properties” — show me one “emergent property” that is independent of the conscious observer coming to the conclusion it is emergent. The problem with emergence is that is defined so many ways. For some values of emergent, emergent properties are trivially demonstrable. Demonstrable = compels the conclusion that it is emergent to a conscious observer. Epistemologically dependent =/= ontologically dependent. The ontology of emergence is epistemological. Says who? -- 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: Support for Panexperientialism
Dear Craig, my first step was to join Quora but it asked for my password what I denied to disclose to Facebook and other 'social' networks as well (staying private). In the quoted excerpt were wise thoughts (time-scale etc.) but it did not address my main point: whatever we THINK about that 'thing' (rather: about that process) Ccness stems from Within our past human experience (maybe replenished to the present level). In my agnostic views there is more to such a universal relation than whatever we CAN know as of today. So with a proper definition: a rock, or an idea, can have Ccness, once we imagine as 'rock' something more reliable than our ever-growing partial knowledge about the 'world' (beyond the model formed from our already achieved informational explanations). Then I subscribe to the 'obviously'. Those (and other) genius physicists quoted in your post owe us the explanation how to connect the partial human explanatory thoughts to the working technology based on the same. Although IMO our technology is ALMOST good, there are surprising mishaps occurring in all fields we have. So how would you connect the rock with Ccness? your examples (e.g. magnetism etc.) are also physically imagined phenomena, measured by instruments constructed for measuring such imagined phenomena. After the Tibetan wisdom (matter is derived from mind) you wrote: * On this, I think Bruno, Stephen, and I agree. Where I disagree with comp is that I see the stuff of the mind as not just numberstuff, but sense. * Then you postulate * How I think it works is through a multisense realism* ** and we try to 'realize' - A - realism (ONE sense) over historical fantasies. A multi sense symmetry is beyond us, even a detailed Hilbert space explanation is more than the average mind can follow. I accept the I dunno, but I cannot accept hints how it 'might' (or should) be since we don't know a better way. I wonder about your 'multisense realism. Bruno applies his arithmetical realism, others their faith-based one, but ONE. Nobody is schizophrenic enough to think in multiple realism. So I deem your postulate a wishful idea without practical content for us, humans, today. Your text is beautifully written in a style out of the world. I am not up to it. I believe there is much more to the world than our capabilities of today may cover or absorb. So I turn humble and agnostic (better than ignorant). JM On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Could a rock have consciousness? Good answer from someone on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Could-a-rock-have-consciousness Yes, obviously. Why obviously? Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made of? Specifically, the disconnect that must occur if some parts of reality are “conscious” while others aren’t. And don’t get me started on the nonsense superstition of “emergent properties” — show me one “emergent property” that is independent of the conscious observer coming to the conclusion it is emergent. Secondly, as physicists are now starting to realize (or realise if you’re English/Australian): Let’s start with Prof. Freeman Dyson: “Quantum mechanics makes matter even in the smallest pieces into an active agent, and I think that is something very fundamental. Every particle in the universe is an active agent making choices between random processes.”2 “…consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron.”3 Physicist Sir Arthur Eddington “Physics is the study of the structure of consciousness. The “stuff” of the world is mindstuff.” and “It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character.” Physicist Prof. Richard Conn Henry “In what is known as a “Renninger type experiment,” the wave function is collapsed simply by a human mind seeing nothing. No irreversible act of amplification involving the photon has taken place— yet the decision is irreversibly made. The universe is entirely mental.” Prof. Amit Goswami “we have a new integrative paradigm of science, based not on the primacy of matter as the old science, but on the primacy of consciousness. Consciousness is the ground of all being…”1 Then of course, we have been reminded by sages throughout history of this basic element: All phenomena are projections in the mind. —The Third Karmapa Matter is derived from mind, not mind from matter. —The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation The list goes on. On this, I think Bruno, Stephen, and I agree. Where I disagree with comp is that I see the stuff of the mind as not just numberstuff, but sense. Not only no
Re: Support for Panexperientialism
On Feb 23, 4:00 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: He isn't saying it's special, he is asking why should we think that consciousness arises as some exceptional phenomenon in the universe. Every phenomenon is exceptional. Not in the sense that they are disconnected from all other processes of the universe. Why is such an 'arising' assumed? and how we can assume that it isn't universal in some sense if we can't point to what that might be. But it isn;t at all pbvious that we don't understand consc should imply panexperientialism rather than dualism or physicalism or a dozen other options. Almost all the philosophy of mind starts with we don't understand consc That's not what he is saying. His point is that what we do understand about physics makes it obvious that consc cannot be understood as some special case that is disconnected from the rest of the universe. That isn't obvious, since there are plenty of physcialists about consc. around. And he didn;t mention physics. He didn't mention physics but when he talks about 'disconnects' he is referring to any theoretical discontinuity between consc and the natural universe. Whatever. It might be better to take as your text the writings of a notable panpsychist (Whitehead, Strawson, Chalmers) as your text, rather than Random Internet Dude. I was mainly posting the quotes. I was not expecting to have to defend the casual Tumblr comments of Random Internet Dude. Not that they aren't decent. I find them generally agreeable. And don’t get me started on the nonsense superstition of “emergent properties” — show me one “emergent property” that is independent of the conscious observer coming to the conclusion it is emergent. The problem with emergence is that is defined so many ways. For some values of emergent, emergent properties are trivially demonstrable. Demonstrable = compels the conclusion that it is emergent to a conscious observer. Epistemologically dependent =/= ontologically dependent. The ontology of emergence is epistemological. Says who? What does emergence mean? It means it's something that *we* don't expect to see based on *what we think that we know* about the underlying causes and conditions of the emergence. Emergence has no ontology, that's the point, it is not a chemical reaction that transforms one thing or another, it is our perception alone that compels us to consider it one thing rather than a microcosm of related things. In 'reality' we are to see that there is no eye of the hurricane, it's just an emergent property of the meteorology. 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.
