Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>> But you have no way to know whether phenomenal scenes are created by a
>> particular computer/robot/program or not because it's just mystery
>> property defined as whatever creates phenomenal scenes. You're going
>> around in circles. At some point you need to anchor your theory to an
>> operational definition.
>
> OK. There is a proven mystery calle dthe hard problem. Documented to death
> and beyond.
It is discussed in documents - but it is not "documented" and it is not proven. It is predicted (by Bruno to take a nearby example) that a physical system that replicates the functions of a human (or dog) brain at the level of neural activity and receives will implement phenomenal consciousness. This may be false, it may take a soul or spirit, but such certainly has not be proven.
>Call it Physics X. It is the physics that _predicts_ (NOT
> DESCRIBES) phenomenal consciousness (PC). We have, through all my fiddling
> about with scientists, conclusive scientific evidence PC exists and is
> necessary for science.
>
> So what next?
>
> You say to yourself... "none of the existing laws of physics predict PC.
> Therefore my whole conception of how I understand the universe
> scientifically must be missing something fundamental. Absolutely NONE of
> what we know is part of it. What could that be?".
>
> Then you let yourself have the freedom to explore that possibiltiy. For the
> answer to is which you seek.
>
> The answer?
>
> ....is that the physics (rule set) of appearances and the physics (rule
> set) of the universe capable of generating appearances are not the same
> rule set! That the universe is NOT made of its appearance, it's made of
> something _with_ an appearance that is capable of making an appearance
> generator.
It is a commonplace that the ontology of physics may be mistaken (that's how science differs from religion) and hence one can never be sure that his theory refers to what's really real - but that's the best bet.
>
> That's it. Half the laws of physics are going neglected merely because we
> won't accept phenomenal consciousness ITSELF as evidence of anything.
We accept it as evidence of extremely complex neural activity - can you demonstrate it is not?
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Nov 26 2006 - 13:27:04 PST