(April 1, 2016 at 9:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Be explicit. What about a computer, to you, seems "woo".You are saying that physical structures are mind, while completely failing to provide a physical mechanism by which they are mind. You refer to ideas about information and processing, but have absolutely no representation of how it is that multiple physical interactions (photon absorption, etc.) are unified. You keep saying you've done this, but you never actually have.
Quote:How many times have you asked..and I answered...this very line of questioning in every form you've dreamt up for it? I stopped counting. The collection "becomes" a table when the collection fits the definition of a table.A table is a man-made artifact, and can be whatever we want it to be. We are free to define it. We have not created either QM particles or mind, and are not really free to define these as other than they are. Well, we can, but then we'd be creating a mythology of mind rather than attempting to actually explain it
Quote:The explanation of principle is -exactly- what CTM is - and whether they are or aren't a single entity, in actuality, and referent to different metrics, is irrelevant. Comp systems leverage comp principles. If our mind is not leveraging comp principle, it's not a comp mind. Why do you keep talking about magic? You say you see mind as intrinsic to matter at the most elemental level, and yet the position is not, at all, in evidence. How do you see that, exactly?I keep talking about magic because your terms, no matter how much you insist they are specific, are very much arbitrary. You have to impose on a given system your OWN ideas about processing of information, and define mind in terms of those ideas. This is because, minus the value you apply to collections of physical systems, those things are not discrete objects, but are simply part of the myriad interactions going on all over the Universe.
