mind blowing thought

[austintorn@aol.com]

Well, actually I was suggesting that Victor is wrong. Do give him my regards. He may remember me from some chats on his mailserve list. Small world. I feel he is one idea short of an advance on Democritus, but then I'm very arrogant.

Being arrogant is useless and may get in the way of the search for truth.

Victor was a good tennis player, too, and that is my sport. I become the ball, so to speak.

Well, if Victor is wrong, then why make a point of the possibility of ex nihilo with Graybeard?

(Atoms and the void list has way too much politics in it now and not enough science)

[Graybeard]

This was your initial statement that prompted me to respond .....

It's easy to say that the universe is 'made of particles', as someone did earlier, but this is not a scientific theory.

The Universe is made of particles and it not only is a scientific theory but it is, in the main, proven.

I don't really have anything else to say unless you wish to discuss the specifics of the model.

I may well be wrong, and am happy to be corrected, but your response doesn't address this issue.

I felt I did ... but to each their own.

Greg - I don't want this to get tetchy. I want to learn more about how my view interfaces with physics and maybe you can help me do this.

Perhaps you could be specific about what it is you wish to discuss. If so, I will do my best to contribute.

I agree that physics for the most part ignores consciousness. But it has yet to show that this is the right thing to do

I don't see it like this. If you propose that consciousness is not part of biological complexity, (that is: not resultant from Natural Selection) ... But has some spiritual or otherwise existence as an entity ... then the onus is not on the Laws of Physics to explain .... but the onus is on you to explain why 'consciousness' has to be considered as one of the variables that must be explained by physics. He who asserts ever must prove.

Nice talking to you Pete but I'm not interested in a circular argument ... greg

[Drifter]

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/dm_report.html

[PeteJ]

Being arrogant is useless and may get in the way of the search for truth.

Don't be so bloody patronising.

Well, if Victor is wrong, then why make a point of the possibility of ex nihilo with Graybeard?

Misunderstanding I think. I mention that some physicists took the idea seriously. I didn't say that I did.

(Atoms and the void list has way too much politics in it now and not enough science)

I was amazed when I arrived to find the whole thing given over to discussions about God, about as sophisticated as pub talk. I think Dawkins had just made a fool of himself with the publication of a very public condemnation of his profoundly naive concept of God.

[PeteJ]

I don't see it like this. If you propose that consciousness is not part of biological complexity, (that is: not resultant from Natural Selection) ... But has some spiritual or otherwise existence as an entity ... then the onus is not on the Laws of Physics to explain .... but the onus is on you to explain why 'consciousness' has to be considered as one of the variables that must be explained by physics. He who asserts ever must prove.

I am not suggesting that physcists have to consider consciousness as one of the variables. I am suggesting that until they do they will not have a fundamental theory. The onus is on physics to find one, and I doubt that it's a good idea to begin by making wild assumptions. I should have thought that the arguments made by Paul Davies, David Chalmers, Roger Penrose et al would have at least persuaded you that the idea is worth considering.

Please don't tell me to prove I'm right when you cannot prove that you are. I can prove that I'm right, and other people have proved it as well. I'm very confident that you have no idea how to prove that you are.

But I must stop here. I will start a thread to raise some of these issues soon. See you there I hope.

[melanie]

Nice talking to you Pete but I'm not interested in a circular argument ... greg

Human banter will always be circular.Thanks to the internet Life suddenly makes a whole lot of sense or not.







http://trevorkagin.com/the-circle-of-life

http://trevorkagin.com/light-matter-and-information

[austintorn@aol.com]

Input goes into a brain thought, from internal and often external, and a brain process produces consciousness, sometimes. No brain, no consciousness, that much we know. Affect the brain and it can affect what gets into consciousness, we know as well. We have localized consciousness to the brain. How it works exactly is not known. If consciousness is fundamental (given a brain), such as mass, we do not know. Chalmers thinks it could be. Science is beginning to be able to read brain's thoughts, at a very elementary level, and also direct some minds of lower creatures.

[melanie]

Input goes into a brain thought, from internal and often external, and a brain process produces consciousness, sometimes. No brain, no consciousness, that much we know. Affect the brain and it can affect what gets into consciousness, we know as well. We have localized consciousness to the brain. How it works exactly is not known. If consciousness is fundamental (given a brain), such as mass, we do not know. Chalmers thinks it could be. Science is beginning to be able to read brain's thoughts, at a very elementary level, and also direct some minds of lower creatures.

I agree.

I would also say its a self sustaining automatic feedback loop, what comes in via light photon - projects out.
Also, conscious experience evolved from simplicity to complexity as seen in human consciousness today.