Many modern behavioral scientists think consciousness is an epiphenomenon - has no role other than noting what we do. Passive observer.But what if it's this: our C observes what we do and acts to give the unconscious feedback as to the effectiveness of what it just did? If we did good, then the response is strengthened; if bad, weakened (in a simple example).What other mechanism can give the unconscious (in my thinking the sole reservoir of all potential actions of all kinds) the feedback it needs? Not just observing, but reporting. Otherwise the unconscious doesn't know what it did in effect; only what was intended. bill w
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAO%2BxQEYVK3b8kt%3DGFHSXp50bJcit4NCbWp4Z4hsXmU_7%3D6Lb9w%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/803DEB64-BE33-4C43-89F6-A1F0C6671456%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAO%2BxQEZ03SEXVsZxDjZMwhUnZ0aHNci4hGbWfPQUm61SJiypdw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/033CE32C-D83B-4FDB-82B0-3EDEF0254732%40gmail.com.
> Looking back several hundred years and more at the mind/body problem, I find it fascinating that it has endured. I am a materialist, so nothing literally metaphysical exists in my view.
> I don't know why people want to hold on to a view where the main subject of interest has no physical existence and cannot be measured.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv1jHYMv%2BaVZBFEiAVYgyx5DH1LUL0hNq%3DFEEjW2ng0H1g%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/033CE32C-D83B-4FDB-82B0-3EDEF0254732%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAKrqSyHszV68cYArV4KTiG%2B5B1sacooXyzP42B6cyj18fQgRCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
> The "brute fact" that John refers to doesn't help us to understand, for example, why some data processing feels good, and other data processing feels bad. Data processing, in and of itself, is a neutral act,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAKrqSyHszV68cYArV4KTiG%2B5B1sacooXyzP42B6cyj18fQgRCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
> That's kinda nonsensical to me. Qualia do reject our current model of physics. They have absolutely nothing in common, it appears, with charge, spin, mass, etc. They are a fundamentally different thing.
> I think the 'consciousness is an illusion' camp is cowardly.
> There are plenty of other things we don't understand right now--dark matter or energy, the beginning or end of the universe, even something like black holes. Do we call them ILLUSIONS? No.
> People need to stop ignoring it.
> Even John, who calls it a 'brute fact' that consciousness is how data feels to be processed, seems reticent to include that with those other brute facts of the universe like the compositions and behaviors of space, time, energy, matter, etc.
> Rejection of the hard problem is a fear of understanding what the fuck life is.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAMy3ZA89divg9yQ97Nd8Y6L0z7%2B29buPibEJSAL%2BPTczYRJhVA%40mail.gmail.com.
why some data processing feels good, and other data processing feels bad. Data processing, in and of itself, is a neutral act, but the way things feel is not. terrenEmotions were simply not taught when I went to grad school (1960s). Epiphenomena, they were called. But consider this: when data enter our senses they are compared to stored data to see if we recognize the input. Stored data includes our emotions, if any (almost always some), and so we know from memory (our emotional conditioned responses) even before that data stream becomes conscious, whether it evokes positive or negative emotions, as well as any similarities to previous stimuli..bill w
> You're starting from the premise that data processing exists as a material process
> and that consciousness is how data processing feels.
> What you're sweeping under the rug is how you get an aesthetic valence out of a process that has no valence.
> I'm talking about data processing as the objective process of processing information. How can feelings of any kind pop out of an objective process?
> There is one more move available to you - start with a new set of axioms. Instead of assuming that the universe is made of stuff. you assume the primary ontology is consciousness.
> That's the brute fact - that an ontology that makes stuff primary is impossible.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:09 AM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:> There is one more move available to you - start with a new set of axioms. Instead of assuming that the universe is made of stuff. you assume the primary ontology is consciousness.It's impossible to prove that an axiom is correct but you can prove an axiom is wrong, all you need is one counter-example and in this case there are lots. Your axiom conflicts with the fact that consciousness changes when the arrangement of matter changes, your consciousness changes dramatically when you take a sleeping pill, or a powerful anesthetic, or a deadly poison. And the atoms that make up a book on number theory are unable to add 2+2, but if the same atoms that were in the book are arranged in a different way, such as in the form of a simple adding machine or any other sort of Turing Machine, they can.
> That's the brute fact - that an ontology that makes stuff primary is impossible.
I don't understand what that means.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0gjZtbrkS69xNnPz4XNWc7X%2BJKsCDsnhWtcoi_17VFnw%40mail.gmail.com.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 9:12 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:09 AM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:> There is one more move available to you - start with a new set of axioms. Instead of assuming that the universe is made of stuff. you assume the primary ontology is consciousness.It's impossible to prove that an axiom is correct but you can prove an axiom is wrong, all you need is one counter-example and in this case there are lots. Your axiom conflicts with the fact that consciousness changes when the arrangement of matter changes, your consciousness changes dramatically when you take a sleeping pill, or a powerful anesthetic, or a deadly poison. And the atoms that make up a book on number theory are unable to add 2+2, but if the same atoms that were in the book are arranged in a different way, such as in the form of a simple adding machine or any other sort of Turing Machine, they can.None of those are necessarily problems for idealism. They just highlight that with idealism, you have to do the work of explaining why our world appears to be lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics, but there's no inherent contradiction there, just a failure to imagine how/why that could be the case. The point is that you don't have this basic contradiction at the core of the ontology like you do with physicalism.> That's the brute fact - that an ontology that makes stuff primary is impossible.I don't understand what that means.John K ClarkIt's just saying that the Hard Problem is a proof that the axioms at the heart of physicalism are wrong.
Terren
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0gjZtbrkS69xNnPz4XNWc7X%2BJKsCDsnhWtcoi_17VFnw%40mail.gmail.com.
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAMy3ZA8sAim%3D_GGOp5dqcHfLtaBeQs%3DxbTH9yG_iHqbjB%2BFNpQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAMy3ZA9JMwbvarafJTAFK9AaEc3Bg81TskZa5NzbL%2B3LGXa4-Q%40mail.gmail.com.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 9:12 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:09 AM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:> There is one more move available to you - start with a new set of axioms. Instead of assuming that the universe is made of stuff. you assume the primary ontology is consciousness.It's impossible to prove that an axiom is correct but you can prove an axiom is wrong, all you need is one counter-example and in this case there are lots. Your axiom conflicts with the fact that consciousness changes when the arrangement of matter changes, your consciousness changes dramatically when you take a sleeping pill, or a powerful anesthetic, or a deadly poison. And the atoms that make up a book on number theory are unable to add 2+2, but if the same atoms that were in the book are arranged in a different way, such as in the form of a simple adding machine or any other sort of Turing Machine, they can.> None of those are necessarily problems for idealism. They just highlight that with idealism, you have to do the work of explaining why our world appears to be lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics,
>>> That's the brute fact - that an ontology that makes stuff primary is impossible.>> I don't understand what that means.
> It's just saying that the Hard Problem is a proof that the axioms at the heart of physicalism are wrong.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAMy3ZA_WZ%3DubKtyDZfgCuXhnK_GhOPGgeNdLNiTke41ZUT%3D1ew%40mail.gmail.com.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 9:25 AM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 9:12 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:09 AM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:> There is one more move available to you - start with a new set of axioms. Instead of assuming that the universe is made of stuff. you assume the primary ontology is consciousness.It's impossible to prove that an axiom is correct but you can prove an axiom is wrong, all you need is one counter-example and in this case there are lots. Your axiom conflicts with the fact that consciousness changes when the arrangement of matter changes, your consciousness changes dramatically when you take a sleeping pill, or a powerful anesthetic, or a deadly poison. And the atoms that make up a book on number theory are unable to add 2+2, but if the same atoms that were in the book are arranged in a different way, such as in the form of a simple adding machine or any other sort of Turing Machine, they can.> None of those are necessarily problems for idealism. They just highlight that with idealism, you have to do the work of explaining why our world appears to be lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics,The obvious answer is that our world appears to be lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics because our universe IS lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics. And Occam's razor says the simplest explanation that explains an observation is the best.
>>> That's the brute fact - that an ontology that makes stuff primary is impossible.>> I don't understand what that means.> It's just saying that the Hard Problem is a proof that the axioms at the heart of physicalism are wrong.If I knew exactly what the hard problem was maybe I'd agree I don't know. But at least tell me this, tell me what sort of thing would convince you that the "hard problem" had been solved? If somebody said X produces consciousness then what sort of thing would X have to be, could it be complex and made of many parts or would it have to be simple and be all of one thing and not have parts at all? I'm assuming you would demand that X be pure objective stuff since you're trying to figure out how to jump over the huge subjective/objective gap. Is my assumption correct?
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv07MvkdYvbmutC9q57_UzJP%3D3Y8pqGOoV1c5v-s1ETkQw%40mail.gmail.com.
>> The obvious answer is that our world appears to be lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics because our universe IS lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics. And Occam's razor says the simplest explanation that explains an observation is the best.> Yes, that is the obvious answer, but sometimes the obvious answers are wrong.
>>> It's just saying that the Hard Problem is a proof that the axioms at the heart of physicalism are wrong.>>If I knew exactly what the hard problem was maybe I'd agree I don't know. But at least tell me this, tell me what sort of thing would convince you that the "hard problem" had been solved? If somebody said X produces consciousness then what sort of thing would X have to be, could it be complex and made of many parts or would it have to be simple and be all of one thing and not have parts at all? I'm assuming you would demand that X be pure objective stuff since you're trying to figure out how to jump over the huge subjective/objective gap. Is my assumption correct?> I don't think the hard problem can be solved, that's why I'm no longer a physicalist. I think the "Hard Problem" is actually a poor name for what it's describing, because calling something a problem suggests there's a solution. It's more of a category error. Idealism makes the category error go away. Nothing "produces" consciousness. Consciousness is primary.
> There HAS TO be a better explanation for consciousness than "it's magic ok don't talk about it".
> It exists.
> Things that exist have explanations for how they work.
> No, we might not understand WHY the universe exists, but we know some of how a lot of parts of it move.
> We have equations that can accurately predict motion, charge, etc. There's no reason that consciousness shouldn't at least have rigorous details for how it interfaces with energy and matter.
> It's shying away from things that are hard to explain by saying they're magic, or impossible to explain.
> That kind of attitude is what has always prevented people from gaining knowledge. Reducing disease to some general bad vibes or miasma.
> Consciousness CAN be explained.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:44 AM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:>> The obvious answer is that our world appears to be lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics because our universe IS lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics. And Occam's razor says the simplest explanation that explains an observation is the best.> Yes, that is the obvious answer, but sometimes the obvious answers are wrong.But usually they are not, usually Occam's razor is a very effective strategy and I see absolutely no reason to deviate from it in this case.
>>> It's just saying that the Hard Problem is a proof that the axioms at the heart of physicalism are wrong.>>If I knew exactly what the hard problem was maybe I'd agree I don't know. But at least tell me this, tell me what sort of thing would convince you that the "hard problem" had been solved? If somebody said X produces consciousness then what sort of thing would X have to be, could it be complex and made of many parts or would it have to be simple and be all of one thing and not have parts at all? I'm assuming you would demand that X be pure objective stuff since you're trying to figure out how to jump over the huge subjective/objective gap. Is my assumption correct?> I don't think the hard problem can be solved, that's why I'm no longer a physicalist. I think the "Hard Problem" is actually a poor name for what it's describing, because calling something a problem suggests there's a solution. It's more of a category error. Idealism makes the category error go away. Nothing "produces" consciousness. Consciousness is primary.So your brute fact is that something as wonderful and complex as consciousness just is, and that's that. My brute fact is that something as wonderful and complex as consciousness is the result of the simplest thing conceivable, something that can have only 2 states, for example on or off. I like my brute fact better and I'm pretty sure William of Ockham would too, and as an added bonus it agrees with experimental results (the effects of anesthesia and poison) which your brute fact does not.
--John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0nDYP5q6PzqdkT%3DjWtbDBr_JoBvE%2BmkFR3A_sGZgW%3DJA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAMy3ZA9%3DM6Sx_qnnv0LSrG5ktcXu%3D-zf%2BvXA4%2B8uVT5eFNvCJg%40mail.gmail.com.
>> The obvious answer is that our world appears to be lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics because our universe IS lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics. And Occam's razor says the simplest explanation that explains an observation is the best.> Yes, that is the obvious answer, but sometimes the obvious answers are wrong.>>But usually they are not, usually Occam's razor is a very effective strategy and I see absolutely no reason to deviate from it in this case.> But you said yourself that you need to sweep some inconvenient facts under the rug to make physicalism work.
> Your brute fact is a category error and a base contradiction.
> It's saying the ghost is the machine,
> and yet physicalism only allows machines.
> For physicalists who allow consciousness, they are at complete odds with the rest of their metaphysics.
> They allow it because they have to (unless they're courageous enough to deny consciousness),
> but it's a terribly inconvenient fact that consciousness exists, which is why most physicalists would really rather not talk about it.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 2:09 PM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:>> The obvious answer is that our world appears to be lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics because our universe IS lawfully ordered and constrained by the laws of physics. And Occam's razor says the simplest explanation that explains an observation is the best.> Yes, that is the obvious answer, but sometimes the obvious answers are wrong.>>But usually they are not, usually Occam's razor is a very effective strategy and I see absolutely no reason to deviate from it in this case.> But you said yourself that you need to sweep some inconvenient facts under the rug to make physicalism work.There's nothing special about physics in that regard, with EVERY theory about anything eventually you either hit a brute fact or you keep on asking "why" questions forever. But with physics the amount of dust you need to sweep under the rug is much less than with religion or or any other sort of voodoo.
> Your brute fact is a category error and a base contradiction.Philosophers say "category error" when they have no other rebuttal hoping that the other guy doesn't know what it means so he'll just shut up.
> It's saying the ghost is the machine,It's saying the ghost is information, it's not the machine and it's not even the atoms in the machine, it's the way the atoms in the machine are put together. So no machine is unique.
> and yet physicalism only allows machines.And it says there are basically only 2 different types of machines, cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels . Are you proposing a third type?
> For physicalists who allow consciousness, they are at complete odds with the rest of their metaphysics.Not if a part of their metaphysics is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently.
> They allow it because they have to (unless they're courageous enough to deny consciousness),Courageous? Some philosophy professors may say that in their first year philosophy course in order to sound provocative, but I don't believe for one second they really believe that consciousness doesn't exist. But if they do then they're imbeciles.
> but it's a terribly inconvenient fact that consciousness exists, which is why most physicalists would really rather not talk about it.Physicists would rather not talk about consciousness because people have been talking about it for thousands of years and at the end of all that babble we learned precisely nothing. You said as much yourself, you said "I don't think the hard problem can be solved" so what is there to talk about? I think it's time to move on to something that can be solved.
John K Clark
>> There's nothing special about physics in that regard, with EVERY theory about anything eventually you either hit a brute fact or you keep on asking "why" questions forever. But with physics the amount of dust you need to sweep under the rug is much less than with religion or or any other sort of voodoo.>With physics you have multiple brute facts - the one we've been discussing about how consciousness magically pops out of stuff, and also the traditional "where does stuff come from in the first place?"
>> It's saying the ghost is information, it's not the machine and it's not even the atoms in the machine, it's the way the atoms in the machine are put together. So no machine is unique.> And information is objective... right?
> In other words, information is lawful, it can be described, quantified, etc. Machines can be realized in terms of software, or information processing, so I don't think the distinction between machines and information is all that important.
>> Not if a part of their metaphysics is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently.> The metaphysics of physicalism is that stuff (i.e. objective, quantifiable, measurable) is all that exists.
> That's at odds with consciousness, which is not stuff.
> Nor is it information (which is objective).
> As you say, it somehow pops out as the feeling of information being processed, but that's unquantifiable and immeasurable.
> So it's at odds with the metaphysics of physicalism.
>I believe that ultimately, it's possible to explain anesthesia, poison, and mind-altering drugs starting from an idealist metaphysics,
> You think waving it away with a "brute fact" cuts the mustard
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv3t42-kectj2NgZyAH0Q20C5ivyjRBYYpY74FX1p1FmWQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Your brute fact stops much further out than it should. We don't just say an electron is a magic sphere with negative charge. We used to, but we know a bit more about how they are actually formed now.There is a 100% chance imo that qualia have specific binding properties to physical reality. If it wasn't objective, all sorts of absurdities and contradictions would occur.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAKrqSyEbEHMjBEU6xRBRaEvF-rYnKTha%2BwiMmxqxVvXJTZ8ucQ%40mail.gmail.com.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 3:23 PM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:>> There's nothing special about physics in that regard, with EVERY theory about anything eventually you either hit a brute fact or you keep on asking "why" questions forever. But with physics the amount of dust you need to sweep under the rug is much less than with religion or or any other sort of voodoo.>With physics you have multiple brute facts - the one we've been discussing about how consciousness magically pops out of stuff, and also the traditional "where does stuff come from in the first place?"Unlike religion, physics never claimed to have solved every problem in existence like "where does stuff come from in the first place?" And as far as consciousness is concerned, it's irrelevant. If science hasn't solved every problem it has at least solved quite a few, but religion has never solved any.
> As you say, it somehow pops out as the feeling of information being processed, but that's unquantifiable and immeasurable.Yep, that's why it's an axiom.
> So it's at odds with the metaphysics of physicalism.Not if a part of the metaphysics is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently.
>I believe that ultimately, it's possible to explain anesthesia, poison, and mind-altering drugs starting from an idealist metaphysics,You believe you can look at the chemical formula for Propofol (C12H18O) and obtain from that an intuitive understanding of how it will change consciousness. Don't hold your breath.
On Jan 10, 2023, at 1:59 PM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
…
However valuable consciousness may be to us it's completely useless to evolution, but intelligence is not.
So far my experience suggests consciousness and intelligence are correlated and codevelop even. Both/either may be the point of evolution—continued development of knowledge of self. Gene pool success will be superior among the most intelligent individuals eventually.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/B221E81D-894C-472D-A214-0D194CF9271A%40gmail.com.
> There is a 100% chance imo that qualia have specific binding properties to physical reality.
> Suppose we find that there are fundamental qualia particles that we can measure with instruments, and work out which entities have qualia and what qualia they have.
> Well, WHY do these qualia particles produce qualia?
> Why aren’t we just zombies?
>>> So it's at odds with the metaphysics of physicalism.>> Not if a part of the metaphysics is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently.> That's not central to physicalism. That's a move you (and others) make. But that doesn't mean it's not at odds with the core of physicalism.
>>>I believe that ultimately, it's possible to explain anesthesia, poison, and mind-altering drugs starting from an idealist metaphysics,>> You believe you can look at the chemical formula for Propofol (C12H18O) and obtain from that an intuitive understanding of how it will change consciousness. Don't hold your breath.> I'm not asserting that. I'm not really sure what kinds of explanations are possible with an idealist metaphysics (as I am wrapping my head around it),
>> You believe you can look at the chemical formula for Propofol (C12H18O) and obtain from that an intuitive understanding of how it will change consciousness. Don't hold your breath.> I'm not asserting that. I'm not really sure what kinds of explanations are possible with an idealist metaphysics (as I am wrapping my head around it),
>> It's conceivable that if you study chemistry and biology a lot you might get an intuitive understanding of why the chemical (C12H18O) interferes with the brain's data processing and retards intelligent activity, however if you don't make use of my axiom that there is a relationship between data processing and consciousness it won't help you in establishing an intuitive understanding of consciousness.
>There's 100% a relationship there.
> If one is using idealist metaphysics though, you invert that claim: matter and information processing is how consciousness manifests as separate from itself.
> Interestingly, there are some folks at the Qualia Research Institute who are working with the idea that qualia is isomorphic to mathematical objects realized in the neural dynamics of the brain,
> but why does symmetry feel good and anti-symmetry feel bad?
> Why is there subjectivity at all?
> You still have to explain propofol
> OK, let's everybody jump on me: how about this: consciousness is the private experiences of a person's inner and outer world.
> It is nothing more than an awareness of incoming stimuli
> Simple things like EEG can determine the level of awareness
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv2YUvc3tREyLQu%2BdcyVGV0H3f_0T%2BoLkQWCpKQkn%2BK9ew%40mail.gmail.com.