AI versus Human Consciousness
Consc
that it can make nanotech neurons, etc. and duplicate the human
body and produce a self conscious being. Would it equal a human
being at all. Ok. I don't know the exact mechanism, but human
consciousness has some interactions with this unknown physics
energy or whatever known commonly as Aether, Zero Point Field
or Heaven knows what. I know there are interactions because of
several decades study with the extended faculties of man such
as clairvoyance, remote viewing, qi energy, etc. with several
hundred subjects. It looks as if human consciousness can make
use or function in the extended Aether field or Zero Point Field
or whatever.
Now if we create a self conscious machine, would it being
self conscious automatically give it an extended reach into the
Aether, ZPE field, etc. Or is it in the the constitution of our
physical body itself that has components made of Aether, ZPE,
etc.so a self conscious machine (provided we can make self
conscous machine) would not have extended faculties similar
to humans??
Also provided the above is so. Can we make machines with
extended Aether, ZPE components so that it can be
indistinguisable from the extended abilities of humans?
Note I know some unknown physics components (which
I generalized under Aether or ZPE) are involved because of
my several decades experience in the paranormal with
hundreds of subjects and categotically sure it is all not fake
but has genuine quality to it. For example, I have clairvoyant
friends who can see thoughtforms coming out of the head
of people. I can imagine any object in the planet, and the
image visualized can transfer to this unknown field (Aether?)
and can come out of my brain and this visualized image can
be seen by clairvoyants whose consciousness can extended
or reach into the Aether region. I know most of you may
say consciousness is made of the brain parts. Yes, I agree
too but somehow it can tap or extend into the Aether (or
whatever physics will call it) regions.
Consc
futuristic
every form of output the human mind is capable of.
To generate a perfectly conscious AI, one must find out every
input-output mechanism of the human mind and body, only then, and if
technology allows it, can we create an AI , which imitates it.
But for the current purposes of AI, we need it to not imitate
consciousness, becaues consciousness carries with itself a lot of
biological-survival components needed for an organism, a machine AI ,
wouldn't need such survival mechanisms, it's basic function would be to
serve as an information processing system.
Anthony Cerrato
"Consc" <consciousne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102721078.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
IMO, you're overthinking it--all consciousness is, is an
artifact of memory and the way[s] the brain accesses it.
There's no "special" energy or spatiotemporal phenomenon[a]
required to conjure it up, or power it, or do anything else.
I strongly agree with futuristic's note following yours
which says:
"A truly "conscious" AI would take all forms of inputs to
generate
every form of output the human mind is capable of.
To generate a perfectly conscious AI, one must find out
every
input-output mechanism of the human mind and body, only
then, and if technology allows it, can we create an AI ,
which imitates it."
I believe that besides memory itself (configured as exactly
the brain does it) to obtain consciousness a human has to be
raised in the usual way, being exposed to the conditioning
learning process we go through, i.e., obtaining the many
sensory experiences futuristic alludes to--and, obtaining
the memories of ones reactions to them. I would note that I
have never heard of any evidence that human consciousness
exists before about the age of two--search your own memory
and see if you recall being conscious before that age...or
have any memory at all before then. This may be a result of
the brain requiring this period to develop the critical mass
of organization and connections needed for consciousness. It
may not exist until then. I suspect that this time is
specifically necessary to develop the brain infra-structure
which allows the mental dialog which takes place (with ones
self during thinking, and which is so characteristic of
human consciousness. ...tonyC
Consc
To put it in perspective. There are many opposing theories
of consciousness. Some believe the biological brain is
sufficient to produce it. Some believe extra physics
principles is needed to understand it.
In the design of human consciousness. Are these extra
components or abilities such as clairvoyance, etc. related
to that principle or mechanism that is necessary for basic
development of consciousness. Or is it an extra in a way that
AI machines can be made to produce consciousness
without that extra principle.
Humans have Qi or aetheric particles in the body circulating
in the cells and throughout the body. What is the relationship
of Qi to consciousness. Are they related to each other. Is
Qi a requirement to the existence of basic consciousness.
If not, can consciousness be made to exist that doesn't
follow the human pathway.. that is... via silicon based
artificial intelligence?
Well. I wrote the message after reading EL message about
AI and how he is convinced AI can be produced by making
machines produce awareness algorithm of being aware.
Antonio Damasio in his 3 books, Descartes Error, Feeling of
What Happen, Looking into Spinoza talk about the neural
correlates of how the Self is produced or how the brain
has mechanism whereby awareness of being aware is made.
He even says AI can be made thru that mechanism.
So I'm wondering if AI can indeed be produced that has
self-awareness and if so, how would it differ to humans.
Is self-consciousness a unque quality of being human.
Elsewhere in the universe, can self-conscousness be
produced that doesn't follow the human pathway of
evolution. Is the human container one of the many forms
that self-consciousness can take.
Maybe I have to start from the very start.. by inquiring if
the physical brain and conventional physics is sufficient
to explain consciousness or it indeed needs a higher
not yet understood physics principles such as Aether, ZPE,
etc. Some scientists theories about quantum gravity in the
brain or like Penrose talks about quantum processes
inside microtubules in the brain. But if there is not yet
understood physics components, they can never get it
right in the first place.
Does anyone know how subjective experiences can "really"
result from neuron interactions in the brain. Oh, well. I'd better
start
in a new thread mentioning all the available theories in brief
and how no obvious answer is available yet (or perhaps there
is?)
Consc.
Raan
exist at all, it is an exercise in fantasy and futility to speculate about
their relationship to consciousness, artificial or otherwise.
--
></>
"Consc" <consciousne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102721078.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Albert
> Unless and until paranormal phenomena can be conclusively proven to even
> exist at all, it is an exercise in fantasy and futility to speculate about
> their relationship to consciousness, artificial or otherwise.
Why does science speculate about what it cannot yet prove
conclusively? The history of science is the history of speculation.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
exama...@gmail.com
in my opinion.
See Davidson's "Swamp Man" argument for an opposing view.
Regards,
--
Eray
Raan
"Albert" <albert...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8EVAd.16111$ql2.4796@okepread04...
> Raan wrote:
> > Unless and until paranormal phenomena can be conclusively proven to even
> > exist at all, it is an exercise in fantasy and futility to speculate
about
> > their relationship to consciousness, artificial or otherwise.
>
> Why does science speculate about what it cannot yet prove
> conclusively? The history of science is the history of speculation.
>
> --
Scientists speculate about actual phenomena.
--
></>
Albert
Such as the homonculus before the microscope? Or the ether
before Einstein? Or any number of other things that eventually
turned out to be non-existent?
Raan
> Raan wrote:
> > "Albert" <albert...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:8EVAd.16111$ql2.4796@okepread04...
> >
> >>Raan wrote:
> >>
> >>>Unless and until paranormal phenomena can be conclusively proven to
even
> >>>exist at all, it is an exercise in fantasy and futility to speculate
> >
> > about
> >
> >>>their relationship to consciousness, artificial or otherwise.
> >>
> >>Why does science speculate about what it cannot yet prove
> >>conclusively? The history of science is the history of speculation.
> >>
> >>--
> >
> >
> > Scientists speculate about actual phenomena.
>
> Such as the homonculus before the microscope? Or the ether
> before Einstein? Or any number of other things that eventually
> turned out to be non-existent?
The errors of scientists do not reflect on science itself and such ideas
were an effort to explain actual phenomena not speculations on events that
have not and never have been proven to exist in the first place. To
conjecture about paranormal phenomena is like imagining just how it is that
Superman can fly. Until and unless it is shown that Superman actually
exists and does fly, all speculation is pure fantasy. The pseudoscience of
paranormal phenomena has not even gotten off the ground let alone flown.
Take a step back and have a look Jimmy Olsen.
--
></>
Albert
> "Albert" <albert...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5McCd.16443$ql2.11610@okepread04...
>
>>Raan wrote:
>>
>>>"Albert" <albert...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:8EVAd.16111$ql2.4796@okepread04...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Raan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Unless and until paranormal phenomena can be conclusively proven to
>
> even
>
>>>>>exist at all, it is an exercise in fantasy and futility to speculate
>>>
>>>about
>>>
>>>
>>>>>their relationship to consciousness, artificial or otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>Why does science speculate about what it cannot yet prove
>>>>conclusively? The history of science is the history of speculation.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>>Scientists speculate about actual phenomena.
>>
>>Such as the homonculus before the microscope? Or the ether
>>before Einstein? Or any number of other things that eventually
>>turned out to be non-existent?
>
>
> The errors of scientists do not reflect on science itself
Why not? Can science exist without scientists?
> and such ideas
> were an effort to explain actual phenomena not speculations on events that
> have not and never have been proven to exist in the first place.
Events? Do 'events' exist? Why this subtle shift in your
statements?
> To
> conjecture about paranormal phenomena is like imagining just how it is that
> Superman can fly. Until and unless it is shown that Superman actually
> exists and does fly, all speculation is pure fantasy. The pseudoscience of
> paranormal phenomena has not even gotten off the ground let alone flown.
> Take a step back and have a look Jimmy Olsen.
LOL. And so, superman is your argument against phenomena that
cannot be directly observed?
Raan
When paranormal events can be shown to exist then you may have an argument
for them but until then you have no more then pure conjecture.
--
></>
Albert
<snip>
> When paranormal events can be shown to exist then you may have an argument
> for them but until then you have no more then pure conjecture.
In your zeal to attack the paranormal, you have completely
misunderstood my remarks. I do not defend the paranormal. I
have only critiqued your clumsy attack.
Anthony Cerrato
"Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
news:wUaCd.3746$7n1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I agree. But there is a problem with the application of
science to the hard problem of consciousness--a meaningful
qualitative explanation of qualia as a universal phenomena.
This is because the "feeling of red" and like things is
relative to each individual mind/brain--relative "feelings"
can never be compared between two brains by the scientific
method. Experiments cannot be repeated for one thing. Also,
no observer can observe oneself and certainly cannot compare
such feelings to those of another brain. While the physical
processes that lead to such qualia can be investigated and
cataloged for comparison, this will never tell us exactly
what the "feelings" are that they create in that other
brain. We need to be satisfied with a reasonably complete
catalog of the physical subprocesses (memory, biochemistry,
and neural organization) that create those "feelings." This
is quite
enough to define them to the extent possible.
...tonyC
Raan
> Raan wrote:
> <snip>
> > When paranormal events can be shown to exist then you may have an
argument
> > for them but until then you have no more then pure conjecture.
>
> In your zeal to attack the paranormal, you have completely
> misunderstood my remarks. I do not defend the paranormal. I
> have only critiqued your clumsy attack.
It is your attempt as deflection that is clumsy. You say you are not
defending the paranormal but you said and I quote:
" I know there are interactions because of several decades study with the
extended faculties of man such as clairvoyance, remote viewing, qi energy,
etc."
If you had any proof you could simply have provided it. So to ask if
whether or not an AI could be human in the capacity of having such abilities
is like asking if a computer has a soul, or if kryptonite can kill superman,
or how Jesus walked on water. And how.
--
></>
--
></>
Raan
"Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:sFLCd.8445$go5....@fe12.lga...
And just what is the feeling of red anyway? Can you isolate it? Is it
something you can observe apart from the perception of red? Is it in fact
in any way an observation? Or could it rather be an intention? The very
concept of qualia is ill defined at best. See my other post about the
limitations of science and the true nature of the hard problem in this
thread.
--
></>
Raan
"Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
My error it was not you who said that but the way you sought to defend it
made it seem so. My argument is very simple and plain. Until paranormal
phenomena can even be demonstrated to actually exist then any speculation
about its nature amounts to nothing but fruitless foundationless fantasy.
Nothing you have said has given me any good reason to alter that view.
--
></>
Albert
<snip>
> My error it was not you who said that but the way you sought to defend it
> made it seem so. My argument is very simple and plain. Until paranormal
> phenomena can even be demonstrated to actually exist then any speculation
> about its nature amounts to nothing but fruitless foundationless fantasy.
Just as at an earlier time you would doubtless have said: "Until
sub-atomic particles and forces can even be demonstrated to
actually exist then any speculation about their nature amounts to
nothing but fruitless foundationless fantasy." Fortunately, your
"simple and plain" arguments would have been ignored by the men
who made a new physics.
> Nothing you have said has given me any good reason to alter that view.
Of course not. You must remain consistent with your first
knee-jerk reaction or you will be struck dead. It's amazing to
me that so many like you who stand in awe of modern physics have
so little knowledge of its history.
Raan
> Raan wrote:
> <snip>
> > My error it was not you who said that but the way you sought to defend
it
> > made it seem so. My argument is very simple and plain. Until
paranormal
> > phenomena can even be demonstrated to actually exist then any
speculation
> > about its nature amounts to nothing but fruitless foundationless
fantasy.
>
> Just as at an earlier time you would doubtless have said: "Until
> sub-atomic particles and forces can even be demonstrated to
> actually exist then any speculation about their nature amounts to
> nothing but fruitless foundationless fantasy." Fortunately, your
> "simple and plain" arguments would have been ignored by the men
> who made a new physics.
>
> > Nothing you have said has given me any good reason to alter that view.
>
> Of course not. You must remain consistent with your first
> knee-jerk reaction or you will be struck dead. It's amazing to
> me that so many like you who stand in awe of modern physics have
> so little knowledge of its history.
Do you sincerely see any real comparison between the process of hypothesis
to explain actually observed phenomena, and speculation to explain the
absence of phenomena known as paranormal phenomena? What do you suppose
speculation about subatomic particles was intended to explain in the first
place? Phantoms? Get serious and stop your own knee-jerking.
--
></>
Albert
Hypothesis *is* speculation. There is no absence of paranormal
phenomena. It is the explanation that is speculated about.
> What do you suppose
> speculation about subatomic particles was intended to explain in the first
> place? Phantoms?
No. In the *first* place they explained chemistry.
> Get serious and stop your own knee-jerking.
I am serious in my original and continuing posts to convince you
to quit making wild claims and pretending that you are talking
science.
Raan
Whether or not you think I am talking about science is entirely irrelevant
to what I originally said which you finally addressed when you claim there
is no absence of paranormal phenomena. Are you now claiming to have proof
that such phenomena do in fact exist? Where when who and what but never
mind how or why before those are established as fact. Do tell.
--
></>
Albert
<snip>
> Whether or not you think I am talking about science is entirely irrelevant
> to what I originally said which you finally addressed when you claim there
> is no absence of paranormal phenomena.
There is significant statistical evidence that certain phenomena,
commonly labeled 'paranormal', does, in fact, exist. Whether or
not it is *in fact* paranormal has not been determined. It may be
simply a statistical anomaly with no explanation. It may, just
as well, indicate physical phenomena that we simply have no
current explanation for.
I note that you categorically claim that all such evidence is
statistical anomaly, yet offer no evidence for your claim.
> Are you now claiming to have proof
> that such phenomena do in fact exist?
I have never made such a claim. The real question is: Is your
reading comprehension so faulty that you think I have made such a
claim, or are you merely being devious by willfully putting words
in my mouth?
> Where when who and what but never
> mind how or why before those are established as fact.
Your sentence above cannot be parsed correctly. Perhaps you will
clarify.
Do tell.
Tell what?
Raan
> Raan wrote:
> <snip>
> > Whether or not you think I am talking about science is entirely
irrelevant
> > to what I originally said which you finally addressed when you claim
there
> > is no absence of paranormal phenomena.
>
> There is significant statistical evidence that certain phenomena,
> commonly labeled 'paranormal', does, in fact, exist. Whether or
> not it is *in fact* paranormal has not been determined. It may be
> simply a statistical anomaly with no explanation. It may, just
> as well, indicate physical phenomena that we simply have no
> current explanation for.
It has not been determined whether or not paranormal events do in fact exist
thus speculation about their nature is at the very best premature.
> I note that you categorically claim that all such evidence is
> statistical anomaly, yet offer no evidence for your claim.
Cite where I did so. Or is it not just you willfully and deviously putting
words in my mouth?
> > Are you now claiming to have proof
> > that such phenomena do in fact exist?
>
> I have never made such a claim. The real question is: Is your
> reading comprehension so faulty that you think I have made such a
> claim, or are you merely being devious by willfully putting words
> in my mouth?
It is your reading comprehension that should be questioned. You stated
categorically that there is no absence of paranormal phenomena. Without
proof how can you make such a claim? That's just common sense. Have you
taken leave of it? By your own words so far you cannot support your claim
that there is no absence of paranormal phenomena with anything more than
some statistical data that is self admittedly inconclusive.
> > Where when who and what but never
> > mind how or why before those are established as fact.
>
> Your sentence above cannot be parsed correctly. Perhaps you will
> clarify.
It was rhetorical and deliberately lacked punctuation. Are you really that
much of a literalist or just pedantic and argumentative?
> Do tell.
>
> Tell what?
Nothing and you already did.
A few statistical curiosities do not prove the case for paranormal phenomena
as you have clearly indicated. You have more than supported my case and
there is little point in continuing this line. If you have no more evidence
to back up your claim then just drop it while you have only one foot in your
mouth.
--
></>
Albert
<snip>
There are several ways of 'winning' an argument. Some are
honorable and some are not. One popular technique, that you have
used in this thread, is to simply wear down your opponent with
tedious denials and back-pedaling. This technique works
especially well with those who simply don't care to get stuck in
a tar-baby. You have lied over and over and have presented no
evidence for your claims. You have therefore tired me out and
made of yourself simply a boor. On those grounds I concede the
argument to you. Please feel free to have the last word.
Anthony Cerrato
"Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
No, that's why it is a hard problem.
> Is it
> something you can observe apart from the perception of
red? Is it in fact
> in any way an observation? Or could it rather be an
intention?
It is not an observation in my sense of the use of a word--I
take observation as a result accruing from one of the 6
known (traditional) physical senses. Maybe "[physical]
perception" would be a more general term. If you mean to
count any specific , or even general, process involved in
the activity of the brain as an "observation," then all bets
are off and anything would count. I don't know how the word
intention would possibly apply to an observation in the
scientific sense. Maybe just calling it the general sense of
things like the "feeling of red" is better.
>The very
> concept of qualia is ill defined at best. See my other
post about the
> limitations of science and the true nature of the hard
problem in this
> thread.
I'm not sure if I remember your other post, but I certainly
agree that qualia is, indeed, ill-defined. I only use it
because it is a convenient code and is widely used in the
literature, probably since, although not well-defined people
still know what it means more or less.
That's the whole point, or at least part of it, in my saying
that " 'feelings' can never be compared between two brains
by the scientific method." Science is indeed limited in this
area.
Cheers, ...tonyC
> --
> ></>
>
>
Raan
or try to wear anyone down nor especially did I lie. It seems that you are
the one to use these techniques. For example you made a claim then later
qualified it to the point that you actually contradicted the original claim.
That is back peddling. In addition to this you say I have lied over and
over which is most certainly false but may also simply be you yourself
lying. And now you are being dismissive rather than concede maturely
considering how you actually helped make my point for me. In any case it is
to the following you conceded and if you look again you will notice that it
is not an unreasonable or erroneous statement. No claim to be proven.
It has not been determined whether or not paranormal events do in fact
exist, thus speculation about their nature is at the very best premature.
--
></>
"Albert" <albert...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0ohDd.16538$ql2.4865@okepread04...
Raan
Points all well taken.
I meant to suggest that it is volition that is primary in the understanding
of consciousness and not any kind of sensation of a feeling of red. Too
many analyses make of the brain a passive receptor even those that admit of
dynamical processes within perception. To my way of thinking the brain is
driven by urge and desire and will, not some passive response to stimulus.
What has science to say about the nature of volition that does not fall into
an etiology instead of a teleology? After all the latter is only now being
considered as valid theory. The quantum notion of reverse causality is
getting more and more attention. I do not suggest some pseudoscientific
idea incorporating buzz words catch phrases and double-talk.
Any thoughts on the subject?
--
></>
Anthony Cerrato
"Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
>
> "Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in
message
> news:P0lDd.223$J%5....@fe12.lga...
> >
> > "Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
> > news:RANCd.9755$7n1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > >
> > > "Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in
> > message
> > > news:sFLCd.8445$go5....@fe12.lga...
> > > >
> > > > "Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:wUaCd.3746$7n1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Albert" <albert...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8EVAd.16111$ql2.4796@okepread04...
> > > > > > Raan wrote:
[snippage]
OK, let's consider volition--which as I take you to mean,
the putative thing which is more commonly called, "free
will/action". I believe free will/action (FW) is a total
misnomer; FW is merely an artifact of the functioning
brain--it is, in essence, an illusion. That is only an
opinion, and in fact there is no way to prove, using
science, that FW conclusively exists. (Of course, like
qualia, it can not even be well-defined.) We can only use
science, with reasoning, to support different theories which
might suggest the truth. Truth, will however, always remain
just a matter of opinion.
> Too
> many analyses make of the brain a passive receptor even
those that admit of
> dynamical processes within perception. To my way of
thinking the brain is
> driven by urge and desire and will, not some passive
response to stimulus.
But it is not at all, passive. It is only passive with
respect to the illusory artifact called FW. I propose that
responses are the result of a very complex dynamic process,
which involves the brain's optimization of responses
consistent with the survival traits inhereted through
evolution, and the experiences and events of one's lifetime
as mediated by memories, sensory perceptions, emotions (and
one's memories of them.) BTW, this is no less "noble" that
what is generally thought to be to be true FW; in fact there
is no operational difference between them.
> What has science to say about the nature of volition that
does not fall into
> an etiology instead of a teleology?
And what's wrong with that?
>After all the latter is only now being
> considered as valid theory.
No true science or scientist ever deals with
teleology--purpose in never spoken of except insofar as it
pertains to causality.
>The quantum notion of reverse causality is
> getting more and more attention. I do not suggest some
pseudoscientific
> idea incorporating buzz words catch phrases and
double-talk.
> Any thoughts on the subject?
Sounds like you are saying scientific reductionism is a
false doctrine--what exactly are you saying? Yes, there are
thys of quantum mechanics (QM) which utilize degrees of
"reverse causality," although I wouldn't call it that
exactly. The Transactional Interpretation (TI) of QM
proposes backwards-in- time-communication of waves for ex.
but I don't understand your implication though--so what?
Causality still rules in the macro- universe as far as we
know. Cheers, ...tonyC
> --
> ></>
>
>
Raan
If, as I suggest, consciousness is more a matter of volition than
perception, dynamic or otherwise, and it is based on teleological
principles, then scientists can never offer a scientific comprehension of it
unless a case can be made for a theory something like that of reverse
causality.
--
></>
Anthony Cerrato
"Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
>
> "Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in
message
> news:o3oDd.264$VB....@fe12.lga...
> >
> > "Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
> > news:OcmDd.29166$7n1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > >
> > > "Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote in
> > message
> > > news:P0lDd.223$J%5....@fe12.lga...
> > > >
> > > > "Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:RANCd.9755$7n1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Anthony Cerrato" <tcer...@optonline.net> wrote
in
> > > > message
> > > > > news:sFLCd.8445$go5....@fe12.lga...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
> > > > > >
news:wUaCd.3746$7n1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Albert" <albert...@cox.net> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > news:8EVAd.16111$ql2.4796@okepread04...
> > > > > > > > Raan wrote:
> >
> > [snippage]
> > Sounds like you are saying scientific reductionism is a
> > false doctrine--what exactly are you saying? Yes, there
are
> > thys of quantum mechanics (QM) which utilize degrees of
> > "reverse causality," although I wouldn't call it that
> > exactly. The Transactional Interpretation (TI) of QM
> > proposes backwards-in- time-communication of waves for
ex.
> > but I don't understand your implication though--so what?
> > Causality still rules in the macro- universe as far as
we
> > know. Cheers, ...tonyC
> >
>
> If, as I suggest, consciousness is more a matter of
volition than
> perception, dynamic or otherwise, and it is based on
teleological
> principles, then scientists can never offer a scientific
comprehension of it
> unless a case can be made for a theory something like that
of reverse
> causality.
Sorry, I still don't understand what you ar getting at,
unless it is simply to advance the idea of teleology. You
have not explained your idea of the connections between
consciousness and volition, and what teleological principles
you mean and why they
are any more acceptable/logical than scientific ones, and
how reverse causality specifically enters into the question
of consciousness. I'm not even sure if you are still
discussing consciousness, at all. And, as I have previously
stated, no matter what consciousness really is based on,
science itself cannot ever prove itwe can only resort to
logic and rational reasoning. Cheers,
...tonyC
> --
> ></>
Raan
Consider it food for thought. :)
--
></>