From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Sat Sep 10 2005 - 08:32:09 BST
Jos,
Scott prev:
First, assume that all relevant factors are strictly spatio-temporal. (If
one denies this assumption, for example, by bringing in quantum
non-locality, then all bets are off, since the question is whether or not
consciousness arose in time.)
Jos said:
Consciousness happens in a moment of indefinable length, it occupies no
specific period of time. The relevant factors that bring it about are fairly
spatio temporal but how fast do electrical impulses travel? There may very
well be a great deal of relativistic effects possible that completely detach
biological SPOVs from static spatio-temporality, (??not qualified??). Even
if there aren't it doesn't preclude one from arising from the other.
Scott:
My phrase "consciousness arose in time" refers to the materialist belief
that the universe existed for several billion years without consciousness,
but when biological creatures reached a certain level of complexity,
consciousness came into existence.
And I am denying that there are any relevant factors that "bring
[consciousness] about". (Actually, my argument only shows that not all the
factors are spatio-temporal processes -- from that, I find it easier to
assume that consciousness brings everything else about.)
Scott prev:
The contents of perception are macroscopic, yet the spatio-temporal
processes consist of an immense activity of microscopic events.
J: Hmmm...
S: Each such event is separated from all others by space and/or time.
J: Seems likely...
S: All communication
from one event to another is just another microscopic event.
J: Yes.
S: Given the
assumption, there can be awareness of nothing bigger than these microscopic
events (and actually not even that, since awareness requires a background
against which the foreground -- the event -- is set off, hence it contains
more information than can be found in an event).
J: Isn't this a contradiction?
The awareness, is of the "macroscopic contents of perception", it is only of
big stuff, you cant see microbiology at work, you cant see atoms. The
perceived "event" includes background, foreground, subject and object, it is
macroscopic. And what other event is there?
Scott:
I am trying to show a contradiction, so why are you asking? Or did you have
some other contradiction in mind?
The "other events" are what we presume is going on at the physical level
(e.g., electrons absorbing and emitting photons). We also (if we are
materialists) presume that perception "just is" all those goings-on at the
physical level, when they get sufficiently complex. I am trying to show that
both presumptions cannot be held, and reject the second one.
Scott prev:
Hence, the assumption of
strict spatio-temporality must be wrong. Appeals to complexity theory,
recursive loops, etc. make no difference, as long as the strict
spatio-temporality assumption is made. Science can only study the biological
activity that accompany perception, somewhat like studying what a television
does. It cannot explain perception itself, what actually gets shown on
television.
Jos:
You can either say that consciousness is a biological process that you don't
understand, or you can say it is a metaphysical process that you don't
understand.
Scott:
Right, and I opt for the second, but I would restate it as follows:
consciousness (like Quality -- and in the end I hold they are the same
(non-)thing) is fundamental, is *not* a process, and so is not
understandable. We can only understand the products of consciousness (what
we perceive), not consciousness itself.
Scott prev:
Another argument: we know that the contents of our sense perceptions (trees
and such) are built out of raw (or at least rawer) sensations (color
swatches, tones, etc.), which in turn are assumed to be built out zillions
of quantum level events (e.g., electrons absorbing photons). In other words,
what we see, hear, etc., are products of perception -- they don't exist as
macroscopic objects except in the act of perception.
Jos said:
Absolutely. I feel this undermines your earlier point!
Scott:
It looks like you missed the point of my earlier point (see above).
Scott prev:
Yet in trying to
explain the processes of perception biologically, we are using those
products (e.g., glial cells) as existing prior to perception to explain
perception.
Jos said:
Quality exists before perception. And so do biological static patterns of
quality, they give rise to perception, perception calls them glial cells.
There is no contradiction here.
Scott:
The contradiction lies in that all we know of biological static patterns is
cast in spatio-temporal terms, but if consciousness produces space and time,
those patterns -- as we have cast them -- cannot produce consciousness. That
doesn't mean that they aren't irrelevant to consciousness. It just means
that we shouldn't be looking to explain consciousness in terms of
spatio-temporal processes.
Scott prev:
Combining the two arguments, there is an alternate hypothesis, that space
and time are created in the acts of perception.
Jos:
No, I think space and time are NAMED in the act of perception.
Scott:
My argument has nothing to do with claiming that space and time exist
independently of the things and events that we perceive, if that is what you
are getting at. It could all be rephrased without using the words 'space'
and 'time', (e.g., with the words 'change' and 'movement'. It is the
separation of each event from all others that matters.
-Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 10 2005 - 08:52:12 BST