From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 11:42:52 BST
Hi Scott,
I've continued to mull over your 'consciousness' argument. So far as I can tell it holds water,
although it would be good to see it spelled out in a more rigorous form at some point, if you ever
had the time or inclination. (In particular, in the first paragraph of the presentation below, I
think there is a lot of argument condensed into "The materialist is forced to conclude that all that
nerve cell agitation is the seeing of a tree. But this is impossible, if one assumes that space and
time are the context in which all that is necessary to explain perception occurs." It would be good
to have an explicit breakdown of that argument.)
As you know I have sympathy with the mystical perspective from which you write in any case, so
perhaps that affects my judgement. What I find interesting is that, if your argument does follow, it
says very exciting things about the way consciousness relates to the cosmos. Which won't be a
surprise to you, but exploring the implications vis-a-vis the MoQ might be fertile at some point.
Cheers
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: MD Chance and natural selection
....
> Here's the argument (taken from a Jan. 10 post):
>
> Consciousness, or even sentience, *cannot*
> evolve out of non-consciousness. To see the problem, take the normally
> accepted view of how visual perception works: light bounces off an object,
> stimulates the rods and cones in the eye, which stimulate nerve cells, and
> (much complexity later) we say "I see the tree". The materialist is forced
> to conclude that all that nerve cell agitation is the seeing of a tree. But
> this is impossible, if one assumes that space and time are the context in
> which all that is necessary to explain perception occurs.
>
> To see this, ask how the excitation of one electron being hit by one photon
> can have any *connection* to any other electron that is being, or has been
> hit by another photon. For this to happen a signal must pass from the first
> to the second, but that signal cannot carry any additional information than
> that of a single photon. So unless we assume an electron has memory, and can
> distinguish between one photon and another, there can be no greater
> experience than that which an electron experiences on absorbing a photon (or
> any other single interaction it can undergo, like being annihilated by a
> positron.).
>
> This argumentation applies at whatever level of granularity one tries to
> think it through. One nerve cell excites others. But unless the nerve cell
> itself has memory and is sentient, it cannot make distinctions or note
> similarity. But how can it if it has parts (separated in space). One or more
> of these parts must be responsible for holding a piece of the memory, but
> then that piece has to be combined with others....
>
> There is one out, and that is depending on quantum non-locality. But note
> that doing so says that reality is fundamentally non-spatio-temporal, that
> *all* spatio-temporal experience arises out of eternity. So teleology just
> means causation in a different temporal direction, and Darwinism becomes
> irrelevant.
>
> [Added now:]
> I've been considering whether an appeal to fields (e.g., the electromagnetic
> field) could provide another out. I don't see it. For one thing, fields are
> just mathematical models to describe the results of action at a distance.
> That is, there is action at a distance, and that is basically saying that
> space and/or time is transcended. So if we say these fields are real in
> themselves, and that perhaps consciousness is a very complicated nexus of
> fields, well, aren't we saying that fields transcend space and time? The
> question, then, is this still materialism, or are the goal posts being
> moved?
>
> In any case, we would be saying that the electromagnetic field arising from
> one moving electron has to be conscious. Otherwise, adding and combining
> fields together won't add up to qualia.
>
> By the way, I am familiar with Dennett's and Hofstadter's "systems" response
> to Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. This is not the same. It (my
> argument) is that spacetime separation means that there can be no larger
> awareness than that of the smallest unit of matter or signal one knows
> about.
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 06 2003 - 11:57:54 BST