Re: The hypocracy of materialism
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> And subjective sensations are qualia. You need more than a dictionary >> list of synonyms and I have no idea how to get more. And if you're not >> clear about what you're trying to explain then your theory explaining that >> vague mush is unlikely to be any good. >> > > > See your own post. you ask me not to give the theory, just sketch the > idea. > I don't ask you to prove it in just a sketch, but I don't think its too much to ask to make it clear what you'd like to prove. > Qualia are private, know, uncommunicable mental state, > More synonyms. > > and much more. > More? How much more? I need to know what I'm trying to explain. >> I assume you mean a theory explaining how lower level operations of a >> system, like the firing of neurons in the brain, can lead to higher level >> attributes like intelligence and consciousness. >> > > > Higher level attribute are still third person descriptible. > Consciousness isn't but intelligence is; and that's why a intelligence theory is so hard to find and why its so unpopular with crackpots, they prefer easy stuff like consciousness theories. > The problem is more how "neuron firing", or "information handling" can > lead, or can be associated to private first person experience. > That is a much easier task because any theory will do, that is to say any consciousness theory is as good, or as bad, as any other. If you want to make your mark on the world forget consciousness and work on intelligence, that is a far harder task and for that reason far less popular with crackpots. >> And its got to be more than just arithmetic. Numerical relationships >> always have and always will exist, but the mind of John K Clark has not and >> will not. >> > > > Then comp is false, as the mind of John K Clark is determined only by an > infinity of (complex) numerical relationships. > Maybe. You've been talking about "comp" for a long time now but I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by that odd term, you seem to pack a lot more into it than just being satisfied with a digital copy of yourself, so maybe "comp" is wrong, but I am sure of one thing, my mind does not incorporate all numerical relationships but only a finite subset of them. > you need to be more familiar with the first person indterminacy, > I am very familiar with indeterminacy, and I am familiar with the fact that when a amoeba reproduces by splitting in half it makes no sense to ask which one is the original amoeba, and when X becomes 2X it's silly to ask which X is the real X. >> you have no data at all about the consciousness of anything except for >> that of Bruno Marchal and you can't develop a viable theory or even use >> induction with only one example. >> > > > ? The literature is full of data. > There is no data about consciousness, none, not one single bit! However there is lots and lots of data about the intelligent behavior of beings and machines, and some of that behavior includes making the noise "I am conscious". John K Clark -- 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 hypocracy of materialism
On 27 Aug 2012, at 17:53, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > A popular subproblem consists in explaining how a grey brain can generate the subjective color An outline would be given by 1) a theory of qualia. This just means some semi-axiomatic definition of qualia, some agreement of what characterize them, etc. (For example: qualia are subjective sensation And subjective sensations are qualia. You need more than a dictionary list of synonyms and I have no idea how to get more. And if you're not clear about what you're trying to explain then your theory explaining that vague mush is unlikely to be any good. See your own post. you ask me not to give the theory, just sketch the idea. Qualia are private, know, uncommunicable mental state, and much more. > 2) a theory of mind. this can be computationalism, or even just computer science, or even just arithmetic + a supervenience thesis. By "supervenience thesis" I assume you mean a theory explaining how lower level operations of a system, like the firing of neurons in the brain, can lead to higher level attributes like intelligence and consciousness. Higher level attribute are still third person descriptible. The problem is more how "neuron firing", or "information handling" can lead, or can be associated to private first person experience. Comp, but also QM, already shows that the psycho-parralelism thesis is not sustainable. Well yes that's the name of the game and I can see how the quest for a intelligence theory would be genuine science; but the other would not be because consciousness theories are just too easy to crank out, out of the infinite number of potential consciousness theories there is no way to experimentally determine which one is correct. This is wrong, but I can explain this only if you are able to go from step 3 to 4. Quanta are shown to be particular qualia given by a particular precise theory, so we can compare their logic qith the logic of observation. Up to now, this fits rmeakably, but of course works remains, both on the side of QM and comp to test it. That is also why consciousness theories (but not intelligence theorys!) are so popular with crackpots. And its got to be more than just arithmetic. Numerical relationships always have and always will exist, but the mind of John K Clark has not and will not. Then comp is false, as the mind of John K Clark is determined only by an infinity of (complex) numerical relationships. I think those arithmetical values must be implemented in matter to become operational. Then comp is false, but you need to be more familiar with the first person indterminacy, which you have qualified as insane, sometimes, and trivial, some other times, yet we waiting to know what you think of step 4. > 3) an embedding of the theory of qualia in the theory of mind, respecting some faithfulness conditions. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you mean the use of induction to infer the structure of something from statistical data, but you have no data at all about the consciousness of anything except for that of Bruno Marchal and you can't develop a viable theory or even use induction with only one example. ? The literature is full of data. I predicted from comp that it would be hard to get any felling of change of identity through brain perturbation, and that has been confirmed by the work of Penfield. See my long text for much more on this. There are good selected papers on pathological states of consciousness which guves a lot of original and sometimes startling information. The popular book by Oliver Sacks (the man who mistook his wife for a hat) is easy informative reading. Also, a morphism or embedding of a theory in another is not an induction. You have a theory of qualia, (inferred by induction, or just suggested by data), you have a theory of mind (inferred from reflexion, and/or induction), and then you have a embedding of one in the other, or not, but that step does not need induction. > Most religious belief, like the belief in the existence of primary matter, or of mind, or God, etc, can be seen as attempt to clarify, or hide, the mind-body problem. Religion never EVER clarifies anything, it just adds pointless wheels within wheels to the problem of mind that is already complex enough as it is. We already agree that we have an opposite opinion of what is religion. Without religion, there would be no fundamental science, as this starts from the belief in a coherent reality. Such a belief is religious as it cannot be justifiable rationally. And for both matter and mind, the consensus among experts if that such theory fails on the mind-body problem, and then comp explains why it has to fail. It is stupid religion or stupid science only when it becomes authoritative, and when it is presented as a definitive trut
Re: The hypocracy of materialism
John: I think those arithmetical values must be implemented in matter to become operational. Richard: Agreed, as long as the compactified dimensions of string theory are a form of matter and I am a crackpot. On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > A popular subproblem consists in explaining how a grey brain can >> generate the subjective color An outline would be given by >> 1) a theory of qualia. This just means some semi-axiomatic definition of >> qualia, some agreement of what characterize them, etc. (For example: qualia >> are subjective sensation >> > > > And subjective sensations are qualia. You need more than a dictionary list > of synonyms and I have no idea how to get more. And if you're not clear > about what you're trying to explain then your theory explaining that vague > mush is unlikely to be any good. > > > 2) a theory of mind. this can be computationalism, or even just computer >> science, or even just arithmetic + a supervenience thesis. >> > > By "supervenience thesis" I assume you mean a theory explaining how lower > level operations of a system, like the firing of neurons in the brain, can > lead to higher level attributes like intelligence and consciousness. Well > yes that's the name of the game and I can see how the quest for a > intelligence theory would be genuine science; but the other would not be > because consciousness theories are just too easy to crank out, out of the > infinite number of potential consciousness theories there is no way to > experimentally determine which one is correct. That is also why > consciousness theories (but not intelligence theorys!) are so popular with > crackpots. > > And its got to be more than just arithmetic. Numerical relationships > always have and always will exist, but the mind of John K Clark has not and > will not. I think those arithmetical values must be implemented in matter > to become operational. > > >> > 3) an embedding of the theory of qualia in the theory of mind, >> respecting some faithfulness conditions. >> > > Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you mean the use of induction to infer > the structure of something from statistical data, but you have no data at > all about the consciousness of anything except for that of Bruno Marchal > and you can't develop a viable theory or even use induction with only one > example. > > > Most religious belief, like the belief in the existence of primary >> matter, or of mind, or God, etc, can be seen as attempt to clarify, or >> hide, the mind-body problem. >> > > Religion never EVER clarifies anything, it just adds pointless wheels > within wheels to the problem of mind that is already complex enough as it > is. > > John K Clark > > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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 hypocracy of materialism
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > A popular subproblem consists in explaining how a grey brain can generate > the subjective color An outline would be given by > 1) a theory of qualia. This just means some semi-axiomatic definition of > qualia, some agreement of what characterize them, etc. (For example: qualia > are subjective sensation > And subjective sensations are qualia. You need more than a dictionary list of synonyms and I have no idea how to get more. And if you're not clear about what you're trying to explain then your theory explaining that vague mush is unlikely to be any good. > 2) a theory of mind. this can be computationalism, or even just computer > science, or even just arithmetic + a supervenience thesis. > By "supervenience thesis" I assume you mean a theory explaining how lower level operations of a system, like the firing of neurons in the brain, can lead to higher level attributes like intelligence and consciousness. Well yes that's the name of the game and I can see how the quest for a intelligence theory would be genuine science; but the other would not be because consciousness theories are just too easy to crank out, out of the infinite number of potential consciousness theories there is no way to experimentally determine which one is correct. That is also why consciousness theories (but not intelligence theorys!) are so popular with crackpots. And its got to be more than just arithmetic. Numerical relationships always have and always will exist, but the mind of John K Clark has not and will not. I think those arithmetical values must be implemented in matter to become operational. > > 3) an embedding of the theory of qualia in the theory of mind, > respecting some faithfulness conditions. > Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you mean the use of induction to infer the structure of something from statistical data, but you have no data at all about the consciousness of anything except for that of Bruno Marchal and you can't develop a viable theory or even use induction with only one example. > Most religious belief, like the belief in the existence of primary > matter, or of mind, or God, etc, can be seen as attempt to clarify, or > hide, the mind-body problem. > Religion never EVER clarifies anything, it just adds pointless wheels within wheels to the problem of mind that is already complex enough as it is. John K Clark -- 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 hypocracy of materialism
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM, meekerdb wrote: > In other fields, once we have an explanation that fits in with other > theories and which allows use to manipulate or predict things we call it an > explanation. > True, and we already know enough about consciousness to manipulate it with drugs or surgery or electrical stimulation of the brain in predictable repeatable ways. > > I think that when consciousness is 'explained' it will just be that we > will have solved the engineering problems of AI and robotics to such a > degree that everyone will agree that we can make conscious robots > I very much agree! > And we will just stop thinking of consciousness as "the hard problem" > because it will be seen as an ancillary question - like, how does gravity > act at a distance. > Actually gravity doesn't act at a distance, if a force is not acting on them things always move in the shortest path between two points in spacetime, its just that in the presence of mass spacetime is no longer flat. For example: no force is acting on the moon (Einstein doesn't consider gravity to be a force) so if you note that the moon is at point X in spacetime and 28 days later it is at point Y you can conclude that the path the moon took to get from one point to the other must have been the shortest possible path, and in this case that path would be a ellipse because the Earth curves spacetime in its vicinity. Matter tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter how to move. Of course you could then ask me why mass bend spacetime and I have no answer to that, I can only say that it does. John K Clark -- 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 hypocracy of materialism
On 25 Aug 2012, at 14:14, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, changes in body affect mind and vice versa. I think it was John Clark saying that, but I agree with him on this, so it is OK. But IMHO they are two different tribes, with two different languages. So either there is some translator between the two tribes, or an intelligence (perhaps mind itself) to do that. Or a dualism à-la Stephan-Pratt, or a theory in which matter does noit exist, and which explain the persistent illusion, etc. There are many possibilities, but with theories like comp, somehow the unique answer is a sum on all possibilities, a bit like what happens with the universal quantum wave. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 hypocracy of materialism
On 25 Aug 2012, at 18:50, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > A popular subproblem consists in explaining how a grey brain can generate the subjective color perception. I don't ask that you give a explanation but I do want to know what the general shape a successful explanation would be. If I said X causes Y and Y causes Z and Z causes consciousness I have the feeling you would just say "but Z is not consciousness"; and you'd be right because otherwise you'd just be saying consciousness causes consciousness which is no help at all. So if you don't like that tell me what the general outline of what a solution to the mind body problem would look like, assuming there really is a problem that needs a solution. Well the "mind-body problem" is a constellation of problems. Just above I gave the simple formulation of the qualia problem. An outline would be given by 1) a theory of qualia. This just means some semi-axiomatic definition of qualia, some agreement of what characterize them, etc. (For example: qualia are subjective sensation, which are non communicable, yet lived, etc. 2) a theory of mind. this can be computationalism, or even just computer science, or even just arithmetic + a supervenience thesis. 3) an embedding of the theory of qualia in the theory of mind, respecting some faithfulness conditions. This is more or less done, and the theory of qualia is given by some formal system, which answer question asked in philosophy of mind/ theology, and can prove them as such formal system admit univocal interpretation in arithmetic/computer science. A bit like QM answer some afterlife, or death existence questions. Note that the main part of the mind-body problem IN the comp theory, is the problem of justifying our beliefs in matter, nature, physics, etc. But for this you need to pursue the UD argument, as this is not obvious. > Most religious belief, like the belief in the existence of primary matter, or of mind, or God, etc, can be seen as attempt to clarify, or hide, the mind-body problem. If consciousness is truly fundamental, as I strongly suspect it is, then after saying consciousness is what happens when physical systems starts behaving intelligently then there is simply nothing more to be said on the subject of consciousness. However if I'm wrong and it's not fundamental then there really is a mind-body problem that needs solving, but the God theory does not even come close to solving it; saying "God did it" without saying how He did it is no more help than saying "the dog did it". I agree with you. Comp explains where God comes from and why and how he made matter and consciousness. Comp does not answer all question, but can explain why some question does not admit answer (like where the natural numbers and addition and multiplication come from, and why we have to postulate them). Comp answer to 99,9% of the questions, and "meta-answer" the remaining 1%. Somehow, and put it roughly. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 hypocracy of materialism
On 25.08.2012 23:32 meekerdb said the following: On 8/25/2012 2:26 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 25.08.2012 22:25 meekerdb said the following: On 8/23/2012 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is An explanation on how consciousness arises in the body. and what "solving" it is supposed to mean. Know how consciousness works and how it is related to the physical body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem It's useful to think of what kind of explanation we might find satisfactory. In other fields, once we have an explanation that fits in with other theories and which allows use to manipulate or predict things we call it an explanation. When Newton came up with his theory of gravity he was asked how gravity exerted a force at a distance. He replied "Hypothesi non fingo." Yet gravity was considered a good explanation of planetary motion, ballistics, and other phenomena. Eventually, Einstein found a better explanation - one that agreed with a few more observations and which answered the force-at-a-distance problem. But it still leaves the question; how does matter warp spacetime? And Einstein might have given the same answer as Newton. That's why I think that when consciousness is 'explained' it will just be that we will have solved the engineering problems of AI and robotics to such a degree that everyone will agree that we can make conscious robots and that we can make them with different personalities and we can manipulated and interconnect brains in ways that people describe as changing their consciousness, etc. And we will just stop thinking of consciousness as "the hard problem" because it will be seen as an ancillary question - like, how does gravity act at a distance. Brent Do you mean that when the evolution according to the M-theory proceeds further, then such a question will not be instantiated anymore in the brain of scientists? Evolution of what? What question? I believe that you accept the viewpoint that the physical laws are causally closed and that there are physical laws that describe the transient development of our universe including human beings. Is this correct? If yes, then my question was related to the fact that now in brains of some people the physical laws instantiate a question what is consciousness. Hence I have guessed that in the future such a question will not be instantiated anymore. Could you please apply the compatibilist viewpoint to engineers? How would you describe what a creativity of engineers is according to compatibilism? Why should I? I didn't use the word "compatibilism". What's your definition of "compatibilism"? of "creativity"? If we speak about creativity of engineers, I would say that we are back to a question of free will. Hence was my question about compatibilism. Or do you think we could separate creativity of engineers from free will problem? 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 hypocracy of materialism
On 8/25/2012 2:26 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 25.08.2012 22:25 meekerdb said the following: On 8/23/2012 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is An explanation on how consciousness arises in the body. and what "solving" it is supposed to mean. Know how consciousness works and how it is related to the physical body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem It's useful to think of what kind of explanation we might find satisfactory. In other fields, once we have an explanation that fits in with other theories and which allows use to manipulate or predict things we call it an explanation. When Newton came up with his theory of gravity he was asked how gravity exerted a force at a distance. He replied "Hypothesi non fingo." Yet gravity was considered a good explanation of planetary motion, ballistics, and other phenomena. Eventually, Einstein found a better explanation - one that agreed with a few more observations and which answered the force-at-a-distance problem. But it still leaves the question; how does matter warp spacetime? And Einstein might have given the same answer as Newton. That's why I think that when consciousness is 'explained' it will just be that we will have solved the engineering problems of AI and robotics to such a degree that everyone will agree that we can make conscious robots and that we can make them with different personalities and we can manipulated and interconnect brains in ways that people describe as changing their consciousness, etc. And we will just stop thinking of consciousness as "the hard problem" because it will be seen as an ancillary question - like, how does gravity act at a distance. Brent Do you mean that when the evolution according to the M-theory proceeds further, then such a question will not be instantiated anymore in the brain of scientists? Evolution of what? What question? Could you please apply the compatibilist viewpoint to engineers? How would you describe what a creativity of engineers is according to compatibilism? Why should I? I didn't use the word "compatibilism". What's your definition of "compatibilism"? of "creativity"? Brent 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 hypocracy of materialism
On 25.08.2012 22:25 meekerdb said the following: On 8/23/2012 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is An explanation on how consciousness arises in the body. and what "solving" it is supposed to mean. Know how consciousness works and how it is related to the physical body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem It's useful to think of what kind of explanation we might find satisfactory. In other fields, once we have an explanation that fits in with other theories and which allows use to manipulate or predict things we call it an explanation. When Newton came up with his theory of gravity he was asked how gravity exerted a force at a distance. He replied "Hypothesi non fingo." Yet gravity was considered a good explanation of planetary motion, ballistics, and other phenomena. Eventually, Einstein found a better explanation - one that agreed with a few more observations and which answered the force-at-a-distance problem. But it still leaves the question; how does matter warp spacetime? And Einstein might have given the same answer as Newton. That's why I think that when consciousness is 'explained' it will just be that we will have solved the engineering problems of AI and robotics to such a degree that everyone will agree that we can make conscious robots and that we can make them with different personalities and we can manipulated and interconnect brains in ways that people describe as changing their consciousness, etc. And we will just stop thinking of consciousness as "the hard problem" because it will be seen as an ancillary question - like, how does gravity act at a distance. Brent Do you mean that when the evolution according to the M-theory proceeds further, then such a question will not be instantiated anymore in the brain of scientists? Could you please apply the compatibilist viewpoint to engineers? How would you describe what a creativity of engineers is according to compatibilism? 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 hypocracy of materialism
On 8/23/2012 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is An explanation on how consciousness arises in the body. and what "solving" it is supposed to mean. Know how consciousness works and how it is related to the physical body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem It's useful to think of what kind of explanation we might find satisfactory. In other fields, once we have an explanation that fits in with other theories and which allows use to manipulate or predict things we call it an explanation. When Newton came up with his theory of gravity he was asked how gravity exerted a force at a distance. He replied "Hypothesi non fingo." Yet gravity was considered a good explanation of planetary motion, ballistics, and other phenomena. Eventually, Einstein found a better explanation - one that agreed with a few more observations and which answered the force-at-a-distance problem. But it still leaves the question; how does matter warp spacetime? And Einstein might have given the same answer as Newton. That's why I think that when consciousness is 'explained' it will just be that we will have solved the engineering problems of AI and robotics to such a degree that everyone will agree that we can make conscious robots and that we can make them with different personalities and we can manipulated and interconnect brains in ways that people describe as changing their consciousness, etc. And we will just stop thinking of consciousness as "the hard problem" because it will be seen as an ancillary question - like, how does gravity act at a distance. 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 hypocracy of materialism
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > A popular subproblem consists in explaining how a grey brain can > generate the subjective color perception. > I don't ask that you give a explanation but I do want to know what the general shape a successful explanation would be. If I said X causes Y and Y causes Z and Z causes consciousness I have the feeling you would just say "but Z is not consciousness"; and you'd be right because otherwise you'd just be saying consciousness causes consciousness which is no help at all. So if you don't like that tell me what the general outline of what a solution to the mind body problem would look like, assuming there really is a problem that needs a solution. > Most religious belief, like the belief in the existence of primary > matter, or of mind, or God, etc, can be seen as attempt to clarify, or > hide, the mind-body problem. > If consciousness is truly fundamental, as I strongly suspect it is, then after saying consciousness is what happens when physical systems starts behaving intelligently then there is simply nothing more to be said on the subject of consciousness. However if I'm wrong and it's not fundamental then there really is a mind-body problem that needs solving, but the God theory does not even come close to solving it; saying "God did it" without saying how He did it is no more help than saying "the dog did it". John K Clark -- 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: Re: The hypocracy of materialism
Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, changes in body affect mind and vice versa. But IMHO they are two different tribes, with two different languages. So either there is some translator between the two tribes, or an intelligence (perhaps mind itself) to do that. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/25/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-25, 07:56:44 Subject: Re: The hypocracy of materialism On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:01, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Correct. > But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological firewall > between mind and matter. I make changes in the matter of your brain and your mind changes. When your mind changes, such as when you figure the coffee cup should be at your lips and not on the table the position of the matter in the coffee cup changes. That's sounds like a pretty BAD firewall, even Microsoft can make a better firewall than that! > Naturally, it cannot solve the mind/body problem The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is and what "solving" it is supposed to mean. A popular subproblem consists in explaining how a grey brain can generate the subjective color perception. With comp a precise subproblem consists in explaining how the appearance of the physical reality emerges from relative statistics on the computations (defined and existing as a consequence of any Turing universal laws, like + and *). Most religious belief, like the belief in the existence of primary matter, or of mind, or God, etc, can be seen as attempt to clarify, or hide, the mind-body problem. Another subproblem is the relation of the soul with the body, and the question of the immortality of the souls, etc. The christian follows Plato, for the soul, and Aristotle for matter, and this leads to difficulties with respect to computer science and computationalism. Bruno > and has no clue what mind or God is, God is dog spelled backward. > but demands proof of any religious statement or concept. Science has explained a lot of things, it's true it hasn't explained everything but it's explained a lot, so I don't understand why embracing religion is supposed to help when RELIGION CAN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING. Science can't explain everything so you want to switch to something that can't explain anything. It's nuts. > Is that hypocracy or what ? Its not hypocrisy so it must be what. John K Clark -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 hypocracy of materialism
On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:01, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Correct. > But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological firewall between mind and matter. I make changes in the matter of your brain and your mind changes. When your mind changes, such as when you figure the coffee cup should be at your lips and not on the table the position of the matter in the coffee cup changes. That's sounds like a pretty BAD firewall, even Microsoft can make a better firewall than that! > Naturally, it cannot solve the mind/body problem The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is and what "solving" it is supposed to mean. A popular subproblem consists in explaining how a grey brain can generate the subjective color perception. With comp a precise subproblem consists in explaining how the appearance of the physical reality emerges from relative statistics on the computations (defined and existing as a consequence of any Turing universal laws, like + and *). Most religious belief, like the belief in the existence of primary matter, or of mind, or God, etc, can be seen as attempt to clarify, or hide, the mind-body problem. Another subproblem is the relation of the soul with the body, and the question of the immortality of the souls, etc. The christian follows Plato, for the soul, and Aristotle for matter, and this leads to difficulties with respect to computer science and computationalism. Bruno > and has no clue what mind or God is, God is dog spelled backward. > but demands proof of any religious statement or concept. Science has explained a lot of things, it's true it hasn't explained everything but it's explained a lot, so I don't understand why embracing religion is supposed to help when RELIGION CAN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING. Science can't explain everything so you want to switch to something that can't explain anything. It's nuts. > Is that hypocracy or what ? Its not hypocrisy so it must be what. John K Clark -- 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 hypocracy of materialism
Dear Roger, I tried to keep out from your 'everything' but now you address me and I do not run away; No, I am not a materialist and do not 'reject' god - I simply cannot find that concept identifiable in my (present) world view. So I do not call myself an 'atheist'. Unfortunately with the other 'John' (Clark) who replied, we are not in concert about all, although I value his thinking a lot. I appreciate the figment 'physical world' and most ideas that pertain(ed) to it, including conventional (and newer) physical branches, except the bio-conclusions based on so little we think we know about. You have lots of good replies, people inclined to join the belief system you represent may accept many of them. You are right, I have no idea what 'mind' might be, (nor matter, for that matter, the ultimate dissection of which is providing totally non-matterly ingredients - unless you call non particulate items particles and think that simply means matter). I do not intend to repeat my former post, - you did - so that is all I want to reply now. I believe one thing for sure: we do not know more than we do. We gather additional knowledge over the millennia and do that still, not knowing whether our explanations fit the explanatee at all. We use our 'mind' (logic of it) and THINK that is accurate in the 'matter'. Have a good time JohnM On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi John, > > If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to > do. > But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological > firewall between mind and matter. Naturally, it cannot solve > the mind/body problem, and has no clue what mind or God is, > but demands proof of any religious statement > or concept. Is that hypocracy or what ? > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/23/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Stephen P. King > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-08-22, 16:12:13 > *Subject:* Re: Stephen and Bruno > > Hi John, > > I have well functioning delete and spam filter buttons that I can use > if things get out of hand on my end. ;-) > > On 8/22/2012 3:23 PM, John Mikes wrote: > > Stephen, my stance as well on (even controversial) argumentation. HOWEVER > (isn't one everywhere?) > the 'advancement' one achieves by certain explanations might 'color' one's > own ideas into shades unwanted. If you read a well formulated argument it > inevitably sticks in your mind and later is hard to separate. A reason why > most religious people cannot accept logical (scientific) refutation and > fall back into old meme superstition. > > I appreciate Roger's knowledgeability in ancient (mostly idealistic) > theories but his fundamental color is biblical FAITH. I know him from > another (nonreligious) list, where I asked the moderator to curtail the > amount of those overwhelmingly religious postings - and he did. > Roger is still on, but hiding some of his true colors (mostly). (A reason > why I refrained from responding to his posts. I want to keep friendly to > that other list, too.) > > You are absolutely right about the topical invigorating by the deluge of > posts - add to it that Roger starts from a one-sided position only. Most > discussions on the Everything list are also one-sided, but as in the past - > from ANOTHER side. (Bruno is close to faithfulness, not a formal religion > though, but his mind-body is close to a 'soul' belief.) > > I used to be a Catholic, then reincarnationalistic (Ouija-board fan), now > I can't include into my ongoing worldview *(agnosticism, based on the > 'infinite complexity', - to us unknowable in toto)* WHAT may remain > after death of our (human? with trillion microbial biomes) complexity that > is destroyed - reshaped *AS a memory of ourselves*. > Which part would 'remember' and 'respond' to a destroyed complexity (us) > after "we are gone"? - Surviving parts MAY connect to different > complexities and 'live'(?) as such. > It is a pity that Adam and Eve are not 'real'. > > And do not forget my distinction for the physical world (as we pretend to > know it): *a figment of yesterday's stance*. > Leibnitz etc.? I respect those oldies of those (their) times. > > Best to you > John > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > >> On 8/21/2012 11:02 AM, John Mikes wrote: >> >> Dear Roger, >> >> (re: Brent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You, with your immense >> educational thesaurus (lit, thinking, writing skills etc.) 'occupied' this >> list now for some weeks in the controversy by a (I wish I had a better >> distinction) religious(?) faith-based mindset vs. the well established and >> decades-long working ensemble of the list - on other grounds. >> >> The participants on this list are strong minds and well established, you >> have little chance to convert them - although some of us linger int
Re: Re: The hypocracy of materialism
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Roger Clough wrote > You can simply ignore the firewall between mind and matter, > which is how materialism operates today. But you also ignore the > fact that you have cancer. You can ignore whatever you like. > Ignore?? If you change the physical state of matter in your brain then the state of your mind changes, and if you change your mind then the physical state of external matter changes. The two are so tightly interlinked that the only effective firewall between them would be death, because then there would be no working brain and no mind. John k Clark -- 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: Re: The hypocracy of materialism
Hi Quentin Anciaux Indeed, you can allow for that happening by simply saying so, and indeed in the real world what you say is true. That's essentially the engineering approach, which really isn't a scientific explanation, it's simply a fiat statement, such as "Birds can fly because gravity doesn't exist." However, I think that science needs to know how that can possibly happen on a more fundamental level rather than by just saying it happens. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/24/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Quentin Anciaux Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 16:04:51 Subject: Re: The hypocracy of materialism 2012/8/23 John Clark On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: ?> If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Correct. > But materialism is bad philosophy,?ince it ignores the ontological firewall > between mind and matter.? I make changes in the matter of your brain and your mind changes. When your mind changes, such as when you figure? the coffee cup should be at your lips and not on the table the position of the matter in the coffee cup changes. That's sounds like a pretty BAD firewall, even Microsoft can make a better firewall than that! ? > Naturally,?t cannot solve the mind/body problem The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is An explanation on how consciousness arises in the body. ? and what "solving" it is supposed to mean. Know how consciousness works and how it is related to the physical body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem Quentin ? > and has no clue what mind or God is, God is dog spelled backward.? > but demands proof of any religious statement or concept. Science has explained a lot of things, it's true it hasn't explained everything but it's explained a lot, so I don't understand why embracing religion is supposed to help when RELIGION CAN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING.? Science can't explain everything so you want to switch to something that can't explain anything. It's nuts.? > Is that hypocracy or what ? Its not hypocrisy so it must be what. ?ohn K Clark -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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. -- 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: Re: The hypocracy of materialism
Hi John Clark You can simply ignore the firewall between mind and matter, which is how materialism operates today. But you also ignore the fact that you have cancer. You can ignore whatever you like. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/24/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 16:01:33 Subject: Re: The hypocracy of materialism On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: ?> If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Correct. > But materialism is bad philosophy,?ince it ignores the ontological firewall > between mind and matter.? I make changes in the matter of your brain and your mind changes. When your mind changes, such as when you figure? the coffee cup should be at your lips and not on the table the position of the matter in the coffee cup changes. That's sounds like a pretty BAD firewall, even Microsoft can make a better firewall than that! ? > Naturally,?t cannot solve the mind/body problem The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is and what "solving" it is supposed to mean. > and has no clue what mind or God is, God is dog spelled backward.? > but demands proof of any religious statement or concept. Science has explained a lot of things, it's true it hasn't explained everything but it's explained a lot, so I don't understand why embracing religion is supposed to help when RELIGION CAN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING.? Science can't explain everything so you want to switch to something that can't explain anything. It's nuts.? > Is that hypocracy or what ? Its not hypocrisy so it must be what. ?ohn K Clark -- 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. -- 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 hypocracy of materialism
2012/8/23 John Clark > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > > If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing >> to do. >> > > Correct. > > > But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological >> firewall between mind and matter. >> > > I make changes in the matter of your brain and your mind changes. When > your mind changes, such as when you figure the coffee cup should be at > your lips and not on the table the position of the matter in the coffee cup > changes. That's sounds like a pretty BAD firewall, even Microsoft can make > a better firewall than that! > > >> > Naturally, it cannot solve the mind/body problem >> > > The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what > the mind/body problem is > An explanation on how consciousness arises in the body. > and what "solving" it is supposed to mean. > Know how consciousness works and how it is related to the physical body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem Quentin > > > and has no clue what mind or God is, >> > > God is dog spelled backward. > > > but demands proof of any religious statement or concept. >> > > Science has explained a lot of things, it's true it hasn't explained > everything but it's explained a lot, so I don't understand why embracing > religion is supposed to help when RELIGION CAN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING. Science > can't explain everything so you want to switch to something that can't > explain anything. It's nuts. > > > Is that hypocracy or what ? >> > > Its not hypocrisy so it must be what. > > John K Clark > > > > -- > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 hypocracy of materialism
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing > to do. > Correct. > But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological > firewall between mind and matter. > I make changes in the matter of your brain and your mind changes. When your mind changes, such as when you figure the coffee cup should be at your lips and not on the table the position of the matter in the coffee cup changes. That's sounds like a pretty BAD firewall, even Microsoft can make a better firewall than that! > > Naturally, it cannot solve the mind/body problem > The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is and what "solving" it is supposed to mean. > and has no clue what mind or God is, > God is dog spelled backward. > but demands proof of any religious statement or concept. > Science has explained a lot of things, it's true it hasn't explained everything but it's explained a lot, so I don't understand why embracing religion is supposed to help when RELIGION CAN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING. Science can't explain everything so you want to switch to something that can't explain anything. It's nuts. > Is that hypocracy or what ? > Its not hypocrisy so it must be what. John K Clark -- 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.
