[ExI] CRACKPOTS (was electoral college)

[Will Steinberg]

John,

1) Give me a list of exactly what constitutes the "psi phenomenon" and I
will consider taking the bet.  I don't make bets with nebulous terms.

2) My response to the rest:

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:20 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> If I say phenomenon X causes consciousness I mean if X happens
> consciousness always follows, but you will no doubt say that doesn't
> explain it because X itself is not consciousness,
>

If it rains, wetness follows, but saying that rain causes wetness as an
explanation for wetness itself would be idiotic.  Rain is certainly one of
the things that may cause wetness.

With consciousness, it is even further removed.  You could say that a brain
always causes consciousness, however not only can you not prove any
consciousness exists (so it is hard to obtain statements of causality
already) but what you think stems from a narrow definition of
consciousness.

Your parents were conscious, no?  And they made you?  So it was
consciousness that created your brain.

If consciousness is expanded to include any system interacting with another
system and gaining information about (becoming conscious of) it, then the
entire process was facilitated by ro equal to consciousness.  Your body,
mind, and DNA is composed of myriad 'beings'--that is to say, entities that
can be fecund independently of John K Clark.  Genes, memes, endosymbionts,
thoughts, corporeal fauna, &c.  It is not my fault that you narrowly define
consciousness as a limited experience of human brains.


> but if X were consciousness that would be saying consciousness is
> consciousness and that's just a tautology and would not explain it either.
> So what is it that would satisfy you? And this is not limited to qualia, if
> you come home and find a broken window and shards of glass and a rock on
> the floor you would not hesitate to say the rock caused the broken window
> even though a rock is not a broken window.
>

Yes, and we have equations to describe PRECISELY how the rock breaks the
window.  We have a near-total mathematical understanding of at least the
macro-level events involved, and much of the micro.  Even down to the
subatomic level, we can make good guesses about what kind of equations are
needed to explain the actions of the rock on the window.

For conscious there are NO such equations postulated.  We are able to infer
the existence of many cosmological phenomena before actually observing them
directly, because of the ability to use logical inference on previous
formulae.  Black holes make sense because we can piece together equations
for them.  Consciousness does NOT follow from any current



> And of course you'll want to know what caused X, if I say Y did you'll ask
> what caused Y, if I say Z did I know what you will ask next. But either
> there is a infinite sequence of "what caused this" questions and reality is
> like a infinitely nested Matryoshka doll with one doll always inside
> another or the sequence terminates in a brute fact, there is after all no
> law of logic that demands every event have a cause. I have a hunch in this
> case the brute fact is consciousness is the way data feels like when it is
> being processed.
>

We agree for the most part.  However it is not satisfactory to me to place
consciousness as merely the way something in the universe feels, as this is
a cop-out.  We do not stop asking questions or trying to figure out causes
when it comes to gravity or electromagnetism.  We do not say:

"The brute fact is gravity is the way massive objects act when they are
proximal to one another"

but instead we delve deeper to continue finding root causes.  The three
sentences of yours directly above are some of the most anti-intelligence
statements I have read here.



> Yet another cause of confusion is science just answers how questions, a
> why question implies intent so a why question like why does consciousness
> exist would be appropriate only if science had evidence for the existence
> of God. And it doesn't
>

 Another cop-out.  Fine, let's just say "HOW does consciousness
exist?"--better?  Is there really a difference between "why do massive
objects attract each other?" and "how do massive object attract each
other"?  Not for any legitimate purposes, no.

Here are some things I will state that you may or may not address:

1) All known formulae regarding the actions of the universe have been
created by consciousness.

2) All known evidence for the existence of the universe have been gathered
by consciousness.

3) It is a paradox and logical fallacy to try and conceive of a universe
existing but without consciousness.  Without consciousness, existence may
as well not exist.

But mainly, I will point to the main fact that makes me KNOW that your
opinions on consciousness are rooted in a deep denial or reality, and not
any sort of logic.  For ANY other problem in the universe desiring an
answer--"What makes massive object attract?"; "What caused [various
instances of] symmetry breaking?"; "What causes [each of the current four]
forces?"; "What is the mathematical model for the weak force?"; "What is
dark matter?"; "What is dark energy?"; "Why does the universe to continue
to expand?"--you would agree that we should continue to seek answers.  It
is ONLY consciousness that scares you too much to attempt to comprehend.

IMAGINE if I said:

The brute fact is, dark energy is the way the universe feels when it expands

I hope you would call me out on the 'brute fact' that this statement is,
what do you call it again?

Oh right.  BULLSHIT.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20180820/286903dd/attachment.html>