Consciousness need not adhere to laws of physics. NOT!
Brent Allsop
I know the subject line isn't a true statement. However, bear
with me for a moment...
Have you ever flown an early version of the microsoft flight
simulator, turned a flying plane with a quit engine upside down, and
pushed forward on the stick? The law of gravity is broken and you
"fall up". The law of gravity isn't really broken in the real world
but within the simulator it is broken! (This feature is fixed in
later versions:(, probably to Dennett's delight.).
Just as the simulated plane doesn't exist in the real world
our consciousness doesn't exist in the nominal world! (I realize that
both of these are false statements but I don't know of words to say it
in a better way.) Almost anything is possible in our simulated
phenomenal world. Its useful if our phenomenal world tracks closely
with the laws of the nominal world. (after all if we invert a real
plane and push forward on the stick we won't fall up!) But it's also
useful for there to be things like consciousness in our phenomenal
world that may not be possible in the mechanical, deterministic and
non deterministic if you must, nominal world! (Does anyone know how
to say such stuff without saying so many things that I don't mean? Or
does Godell's(sp?) theorem make saying such self referential things
impossible?)
I'm not claiming that this is "consciousness explained". I'm
mearly saying that in our effort to discover consciousness we
shouldn't restrict ourselves to thinking only about phenomena that
follows the laws of physics and that must exist in nominal reality.
As Dennett said: "Were not conscious, it just seems that we are." Its
just that this phenomenal "seems" is just as important and real as
nominal reality itself.
Brent Allsop
P.S. Anyone know Dennett's address or some type of forum in which
he participates so I can send this directly to him to see
what he thinks?
P.P.S. Hey, this isn't a false statement: The law of gravity
isn't broken it just seems that it is.
Betteridge
>"I'm not claiming that this is "consciousness explained". I'm
>mearly saying that in our effort to discover consciousness we
>shouldn't restrict ourselves to thinking only about phenomena that
>follows the laws of physics and that must exist in nominal reality.
>As Dennett said: "Were not conscious, it just seems that we are." Its
>just that this phenomenal "seems" is just as important and real as
>nominal reality itself."
This is getting dangerously close to a kind of dualism, or, perhaps
worse, the kind of "AND THEN SOMETHING WONDEFUL HAPPENS!" model of
physical processes that Penrose talks about in _Emperor's New Mind_.
Brent, the trouble with allowing yourself to speculate beyond physics
'as we know it' is that you can 'prove' almost anything. How far do we
take it? Do we say that consciousness can be non-causal? Non-temporal?
Make banana splits without any hands? ;-)
ian
--
Ian Betteridge University of Hertfordshire,
Philosophy Group,
Hatfield, Herts
email: i.m.bet...@herts.ac.uk
Brent Allsop
Ian,
> Brent, the trouble with allowing yourself to speculate beyond physics
> 'as we know it' is that you can 'prove' almost anything.
No. Your taking my statements at the wrong level. And this
is what causes 90% of all the controversy! If we had better
terminology we wouldn't have such problems!
On the one hand you have the Dennett types saying things like:
Conscious doesn't exist it just seems to. On the other hand you have
the Searl types saying something like: "consciousness and
intentionality are intrinsic and ineliminable." One is saying the law
of gravity isn't really broken it just seems to be, and the other is
saying nothing we know of in the nominal world falls up and something
is really falling up so whatever it is that is falling up must be
something that we don't yet know about. They are both right: The law
of gravity is being broken and the law of gravity isn't being broken.
The problem is we aren't distinguishing between what we are talking
about: the nominal world or the phenomenal world.
The phenomenal world is a simulated fantasy world being
simulated via the mechanics of the nominal world (our brain). I agree
with you that there may indeed be something in the nominal world, that
we don't yet know about, that has the intrinsic ineliminable
properties of consciousness. Something like spiritual matter. I'm
just hoping this isn't the case. Our consciousness, joy's and
feelings exist in our fantasy phenomenal world. There is no reason
something in the nominal world must have these qualities. (Remember
what level I am talking about here! At your level this is a false
statement.)
Since our phenomenal worlds are simulated fantasy worlds the
only laws that exist in our phenomenal worlds are the laws of logic
themselves. So, we can't do as you say and "prove almost anything."
since logic doesn't allow this. Any such world where logic doesn't
apply is of no use. After all if, while playing a computer game, you
capture the money that it says is worth $10,000 and then you look in
your simulated money purse and for no reason it says you only have $9
this wouldn't be logical and it wouldn't be a fun game.
Sure we should study and objectively observe the nominal
world. But, we should also sore with our imaginations through the
much larger platonic, subjective, complexity space that is only
restricted by the laws of logic itself. Such wondrous places exists
in our phenomenal worlds and in our computer simulations and games.
And remember what Descart said: I think therefore I am. So we
see that the existence of our phenomenal world is more absolute than
the existence of the nominal world.
Brent (wants to be forced to only do what is better) Allsop