0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"The shift is from a local, reductionistic, deterministic conception of nature in which consciousness has no logical place, and can do nothing but passively watch a preprogrammed course of events, to a nonlocal, nonreductionistic, nondeterministic, conception of nature in which there is a perfectly natural place for consciousness, a place that allows each conscious event, conditioned, but not bound, by any known law of nature, to grasp a possible large-scale metastable pattern of neuronal activity in the brain, and convert its status from “possible” to “actual”."
I might be convinced to read Stapp on the subject if someone can provide a one-line quote: what is Stapp's definition of consciousness?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/01/2014 16:22:10"The shift is from a local, reductionistic, deterministic conception of nature in which consciousness has no logical place, and can do nothing but passively watch a preprogrammed course of events, to a nonlocal, nonreductionistic, nondeterministic, conception of nature in which there is a perfectly natural place for consciousness, a place that allows each conscious event, conditioned, but not bound, by any known law of nature, to grasp a possible large-scale metastable pattern of neuronal activity in the brain, and convert its status from “possible” to “actual”."(underlining mine)How that "grasping" takes place is the most interesting part, not just, as he later says "a technical matter that I do not want to enter into right here." Penrose should at least get some points for trying, instead of just dismissing those pesky details.
"The shift is from a local, reductionistic, deterministic conception of nature in which consciousness has no logical place, and can do nothing but passively watch a preprogrammed course of events, to a nonlocal, nonreductionistic, nondeterministic, conception of nature in which there is a perfectly natural place for consciousness, a place that allows each conscious event, conditioned, but not bound, by any known law of nature, to grasp a possible large-scale metastable pattern of neuronal activity in the brain, and convert its status from “possible” to “actual”."(underlining mine)How that "grasping" takes place is the most interesting part, not just, as he later says "a technical matter that I do not want to enter into right here." Penrose should at least get some points for trying, instead of just dismissing those pesky details.
The mental is just the other side of reality ,your other side as well,
date=1388683056]He's wrong : here below is why :
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/01/2014 19:20:46The mental is just the other side of reality ,your other side as well, The other side of reality......................Just what exactly is that supposed to mean?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/01/2014 19:12:56 date=1388683056]He's wrong : here below is why :Chris Carter's explanation doesn't address or explain Donald's point specifically. All he says is that "it doesn't." That's not a "why"
So, how can't they not have effects on the observed ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/01/2014 19:51:21So, how can't they not have effects on the observed ? "how can't they not" ......double negative Don. Your English leaves us a bit confused Sir Don. Was just wondering if English is your native language? Considering your constant use of copy and pasted excerpts from others, it does cause one wonder??
Quote from: Ethos_ on 02/01/2014 19:25:15Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/01/2014 19:20:46The mental is just the other side of reality ,your other side as well, The other side of reality......................Just what exactly is that supposed to mean?"The other side of the same coin" is a vague analogy that allows one to say simultaneously that A is the same as B, and A is different from B. It's vague enough, that one can just as easily apply it to the material position is that "the mental" is just other side of the same coin of physical brain processes described in different vocabulary, or how these processes are experienced subjectively on the macro level (like Searle's view) I'm surprised that Don likes that "different sides of the same coin" analogy, because it dualism doesn't seem to accept that the mental and the physical might be different ways of looking at or describing the very same phenomena.
I'm surprised that Don likes that "different sides of the same coin" analogy, because it dualism doesn't seem to accept that the mental and the physical might be different ways of looking at or describing the very same phenomena.