Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA20632 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:04:37 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A5E@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: the conscious universe Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:02:04 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>That is truely untestable, entirely a matter of opinion. I don't
claim
>that example is perfect, but I believe that any disinterested party
>would see it as serving its purpose well enough.
That's just your opinion :-)
> Alternative uses are irrelevant.
Why? If you don't know what it's for then why favour one presumed usage
over another?
> > You deliberately deny the possibility of actually holding and testing
> the
> > pencil for possible use, and thus you deny rational testing.
>
>It's an analogy, OK? We're really talking about consciousness.
Now
>explain how that can be tested.
There seem to be two distinct elements of consciousness here. One is the
physical location of consciousness- i.e. in what physical material does it
reside. The other is whether or not consciousness can be inferred from an
object's behaviour. Just because we haven't necessarily got the answers to
these questions empirically yet, and I'm not saying we haven't it's just way
beyond my field, doesn't mean we won't or that alternatives are valid in the
mean time.
>Skepticism leads to the wrong conclusion: that there's two pieces
of
>graphite, one at each end. How sensible is that?
How do you know skepticism leads to this conclusion, or that alternative
approaches lead to the 'correct' conclusion? If you can't touch the pencil
how do you know that any conclusion is correct?
>Whether you care about the pencil or not is absolutely irrelevant.
It's an
>analogy, remember?
Oh, so in an analogy anything goes does it?
>It seems very obvious to me that you think you understand, but do
not.
What a surpirse for you to say this.
>Perhaps Joe or Wade can come up with an empirical test of who is
correct
>on this.
Would you accept their answer if they did?
>With the best will in the world, I do not have the time to fight on
>three fronts. Those who are inclined to read no response as a win,
>will probably soon be wallowing in their own "success".
And those who expect their postings to not receive responses will be sorely
disappointed. That's the whole point of a discussion list- to throw ideas
out there to see if they stand up to scrutiny. If people don't want their
deeply held beliefs dragged over the coals of rationality then they should
keep them to themselves.
Vincent
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 13:05:52 BST