[ExI] Science or Scientism?
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 10 15:51:57 UTC 2018
I think that whoever is going to refer to the split brain had better do
some research before posting anything. I just get these little hints that
somebody doesn't know what they are talking about.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 9:46 AM Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
> 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>
>> >>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
>>> *>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?
> * > 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
>> 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
> 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
> 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.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat