Re: MD life is an emergent property

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 15 2003 - 19:16:33 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?"

    Scott:
    My view is that the
    brain serves as a multi-dimensional metronome: keeping all the senses in
    temporal synch, and not much more.

    I like this. You really should read my philosophical novel by the way.

    regards
    David M
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 4:31 AM
    Subject: Re: MD life is an emergent property

    > Nathan,
    >
    > > I am unclear. Do you not agree that the human brain gives meaning to
    > > information?
    >
    > I do not agree with it, as I reject the mind/brain identity hypothesis.
    >
    > >
    > > You look at the screen and see a white background with black markings.
    > This
    > > is information or data, is it not? The fact that you can interpret these
    > > symbols means that you have a functioning brain. It is your brain that
    > > allows you make sense out of the input from the world, no?
    >
    > Why do you assume the brain is responsible? It is a part of the process,
    but
    > it cannot be the whole of the process, since the ability to merge the dots
    > into objects requires the transcendence of space and time, while the brain
    > is a spatio-temporal mechanism. A somewhat more elaborate argument can be
    > found below (something I posted here about a year ago). My view is that
    the
    > brain serves as a multi-dimensional metronome: keeping all the senses in
    > temporal synch, and not much more.
    >
    > >
    > > Where did you study cognitive science? This is a field that I am
    > fascinated
    > > by. Do you know that work of Ramachadran? And what do you think of
    Steven
    > > Pinker?
    >
    > At the University of Oregon, but I dropped out after realizing what I
    > describe below. The field of cognitive science is ruled by materialist
    > dogma, which is worse than religious dogma, since it thinks it isn't
    > dogmatic. I don't know the work of Ramachadran. I haven't read Pinker, but
    > what I've read about him sounds like he's just another materialist.
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    > [From an earlier 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 Nov 15 2003 - 19:18:56 GMT