[ExI] Science or Scientism?

[Will Steinberg]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 09:49 John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:10 PM Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>I think there is not a infinite sequence of "why" questions and after a
>>> finite number of them the sequence terminates in a brute fact. I think it's
>>> a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feel when it is being
>>> processed.
>>>
>>
>> *>Yes, we are in agreement with one another.  I am not sure how you
>> define "data" though.*
>>
>
> Date is a piece of information and to Claude Shannon information is just
> a measure of surprise, it's the same definition computer designers use and
> they couldn't make computers without Shannon's Information Theory. The
> smallest unit of information is the bit; you didn't know before receiving
> the bit if 2 things were the same or different, after receiving the bit
> to your surprise you realize they are the same.
>

Surprise?  That's the most teleological thing I've heard in this thread.
Who is being surprised?


>> Maybe I wouldn't be conscious if I didn't have a left big toe, but
>>> unless I cut off my toe I'll never know.
>>>
>>
>> > *Well it's not my fault you're not willing to cut your toe off to test
>> it, then. *
>>
>
> I'd be willing to cut off my toe if I thought I would learn how
> consciousness works by doing so, but I suspect it wouldn't be enough and
> I'd have to remove other parts of my body and by the time I reached
> enlightenment there wouldn't be any of me left.
>

I was simply doing a joke about how bad your analogy was, because the thing
you described would actually be very simple to do.


> *You can't be a solipsist, sorry; don't worry, if you were the only thing
>> that existed I would tell you.*
>>
>
>  Is this list getting a bit solipsistic or is it just me?
>

Heh.


* > I don't understand why you would think that the consciousness of one
>> human you are looking at, with two observed hemispheres in the brain that
>> are separately functional in terms of information processing but also
>> integrated, is any different in flavor from the consciousness of, two
>> humans*
>>
>
> The difference is one of degree not of kind, in particular degree of
> communication. The corpus callosum is a broadband information link between
> the left and right hemispheres of the brain, if it is cut you have a split
> brain and a split mind. You and I are communicating right now but my
> internet connection is not as information rich as what the corpus callosum
> can do, if it was then every thought I had you would have and every thought
> you had I would have and the resulting being would be named Will Clark or
> John Steinberg.
>

But you're wrong, the left hemisphere does NOT have every thought the right
has and vice versa, which is the entire point of my argument.  They can be
separated and function independently.  Furthermore, there ARE certainly
pieces of information that only exist spread across two or more brains.

I don't believe you will address this matter because you either can't
understand what I'm trying to say or just because you refuse to stop being
a vitalist and thinking the brain is a magical special unit and is the only
object in universe in which data can be processed..


> *My conception of 'God' is indeed like a Jupiter Brain,*
>>
>
> If that's what you're talking about then you should call it a Jupiter
> Brain, if you insist on calling it "God" you are begging to be
> misunderstood.
>

I don't know what you think makes a Jupiter brain that contains uploaded
humans conscious, but somehow doesn't make groups of corporal humans
jointly conscious.  It is a simple exercise to see how absurd it is to draw
lines around anything you call conscious, because of how easy it is for
consciousness to extend arbitrarily beyond those boundaries through any
manner of the ways we usually port data out of our brains, like writing
books or speaking.

You say our Internet connection is not as information rich as the corpus
callosun, so if you must respond to one thing from this message, PLEASE
tell me what the level of 'richness' must be in order for some
consciousness to be whole.  Noting of course that you are incorrect about
EVERY thought being shared between the two hemispheres.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20181110/fd5bda6f/attachment.html>