Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

From: <chales1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:57:51 +1000

Hi Bruno,

> Now look at science.
>
> We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
> consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions
> of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
>
> AND THEN
>
> we deny phenomenal consciousness? Declare it unassailable by science?
> Delude ourselves that these descriptions actually contain causal
> necessity?


[Bruno]
Who does that?

[Col]
What?

The entire suite of practical empirical science does that. Walk the halls. Find _any_ scientist at the coal face and ask. What planet are you from? Before your breath has finished the asking sentence you will be told you are not being scientific.

[Bruno]
I don't think that, in this list, you will find someone
denying phenomenal consciousness.

[Col]
Since when has the data found on this list been _any_ scientific source of confirmation of anythng? This list is specifically more likely to include people admitting to a reality of phenomenal consciousness! They are not the ones that need their brains adjusted: It's mainstream science that needs the therapy ....we are the therapists.

[Bruno]
But I don't understand what you mean by causal necessity, especially
when you say that:

> We have phenomenal consciousness, the most obvious, egregious
> screaming evidence of the operation of that causal necessity - the
> same causal necessity that results in the desciption F = MA being
> found by Newton...

[Col]
I think you need to (aghast) do some physics or something with a real empirical edge to it. ALL our scientific 'laws' are tautologies in relation to statisical generalisations that don;t actually exist - like 'Ms Average'. F = MA is exactly that.

NONE of these laws say WHY. They only say WHAT. WHY = necessity/causality.
There is causal necessity behind EVERYTHING, not just consiousness. Again- are you even in the same universe as me? Whatever generates 'everything' generates phenomenal consciousness as well. You think there is one bucnh of happenstance for phenomenal consciousness and another for eveything else? = dualist delusion.
If you think the universe is run by emprical laws = rationalist delusion. If you think the universe is run by a symbolic crunching machine = computationalist delusion.

These are all unfounded ascrptions and have no evidenntiary basis other than the reconfigured brain matter that results from a belief.

I am talking about real, supportable verifyable science of the natural world.

[Bruno]
I tend to believe in some causal necessity related to consciousness,
but I have no evidence that F=MA has anything to do with that. I guess
you are postulating the existence of some "primitive" physical
universe, aren't you?

[Col]
I am talking about the natural world, in which we are embedded, of which we are made as the situation inwhich we must understand the natural world. If you think that you are 'outside' looking in: another delusion = you think you are GOD. :-)


[Bruno]
I don't pretend that this is obvious, but the missing 50% of science is
not phenomenological consciousness (in this list).
Bruno


[col]
You are making another rationalist ascription. You assume that mathematical abstractions are the object of scientific endeavours. WRONG. You assume that fiddling with computation about will somehow bestow access to the ultimate explanation. You are not talking about science of the natural world - you are talking about the science of some other world. You assume the link between them without justification and without any proof.

Proof: Just watch it come. With empirical evidence from neuroscience. I'm happy to wait until then (it may take a decade or so) and then say 'I told you so'.

BTW I used to think the same way as you..... I have been on a huge journey. I spent 25 years puting computers in control of the real world. All I can say is: deal with human embeddedness , HERE in our natural world, fully, comprehensively and you will get answers. Staring at maths and running symbols will not do it. The computer chips neede to make a conscious machine have not been invented yet and they will be VERY different to all von-neumann, parallel and quantum computing architectures.

My morning bombast session is over... time for coffee!

cheers :-)

Colin Hales
Received on Wed Jul 27 2005 - 21:00:18 PDT