[MD] On Time?

[Scott Roberts]

Case,

Scott said:
1. I am not down on mathematics. On the contrary, I agree with the mystics
Plotinus, Rudolf Steiner, and Franklin Merrell-Wolff who say that studying
mathematics is great training for self-transformation (though not the only
thing needed). My only point was that the mathematics of points and
continuity do not seem to be the right mathematics for quantum gravity
theories. Other mathematics will be needed.

[Case]
Beyond their value as a mental pull-ups, mathematical discoveries have
shaped history; all of it. If you like mathematical mystics why not the
Pythagoreans?

Scott:
Who said I didn't like the Pythagoreans? On the contrary, I consider them 
the first mathematicians (prior to that there was only trial and error 
calculation), and honor them for it. And I agree that mathematical 
discoveries have shaped history, and I hope it continues to do so.

Scott said:
2. I am not down on science. I am only down on those who think that there is
scientific evidence for the belief that consciousness emerged from a world
without it.

[Case]
Such evidence abounds.

Scott:
How can science detect consciousness, or a lack of it?

Scott said:
4. I am not a solipsist. All I am saying is that the unperceived world is
not spatio-temporal. I say this because if one assumes that it is, then
there is no possibility of awareness. I have given my argument for why I
think this, and you do everything but respond to it. I also gave my spiel on
modern physics to show that it indicates that there is good reason to think
that space and time are not fundamental. All you say is that if the brain
can contain a representation of the past then it can be aware of the past.
That does not follow. Just having multiple representations in the same place
does not mean that there is awareness. One representation will be in one set
of synapses (or whatever), and another in another. This does not address my
objection, which is (again):

[Case}
I have said over and over that I do not think this world it limited to those
dimension either. I don't know how many dimensions there are but we have
access to more than space and time. All of my speculation on brain function
was to show how the brain might accomplish this. The brain is sufficiently
complex to overcome you one synapse at a time business. This is a limitation
you suppose out of nowhere.

Scott:
The limitation comes from referring to the *spatiotemporal activity* of the 
brain. If you are appealing to higher dimensions, then all the neuroscience 
and cognitive science is worthless in explaining consciousness, since that 
only covers activity in 3 dimensions of space and one of time. Maybe someday 
quantum physics will have something to say.


-----------------------------------------------
Scott said:
What you call a temporal buffer is nothing more than a set of synapses or
neurons in some state, right? So how is that set seen as a whole -- as a
color splotch, for example? Well, all there is one signal from one synapse,
another from another, etc., all resulting in some other set of synapses
being in some other state. So the fact that various representations coexist
internally does not solve the problem. In other words, there is no
difference as far as *consciousness* is concerned between the brain or any
strictly spatio-temporal system, and the amoeba.

Case concluded:
But, exactly how does your conception of consciousness overcome this?

Scott said:
By not assuming that the world is fundamentally spatio-temporal. Instead I
think that consciousness creates the spatio-temporality of things. As a
bonus, this theory provides an interesting interpretation of quantum
physics.

[Case]
I am not now nor have I ever said that the world is fundamentally
spacio-temporal. I think that neither the external world nor our internal
representations are limited to the spacio-temporal and that any assumptions
based on this being the case are wrong. Despite my denials, you keep saying
it must be so limited and therefore... What I have been saying is that
brains are sufficiently complex to generate representations in some number
of dimensions greater than whatever number time is and that there is no
reason to postulate something unseen and undefined to account for this. I am
perfectly willing to call the brain a black box, stop speculating on how it
does it and just note that it does. Not only do these black boxes transcend
the spacio-temporal but the progressive development of this capacity is well
documented in the fossil record and in the variation of species living
today.

Scott:
Would you agree, then, that a computer (which is designed to operate in a 
strictly spatio-temporal manner) could not be conscious?

Why can't an amoeba be operating -- consciously -- in those other dimensions 
as well? How do you know that the progressive development is what leads to 
the production of consciousness, and not its regulation?

Note that everything you (and I) know about the brain, and amoebas, and the 
fossil record and so on is based on the contents of these representations, 
and while the representations may have an underlying reality of more than 
spacetime dimensions, what they represent IS in spacetime dimensions. Now 
you are using the *contents* of the representations to make a narrative 
about "progressive development". Well, that is a good narrative about the 
spacetime *product* of consciousness, but tells us nothing about 
consciousness itself, which produces these representations in the first 
place. Basically, what I am saying is since the only thing we know as 
spacetime is the product of perception (the representations), then why 
should we assume that perception emerged *in time*.

Case said:
But this business about there being no difference between the brain
(presumably a human brain but for these purposes any brain will do) and an
amoeba is just silliness based on fallacy.

Scott:
I didn't say there was no difference between a brain and an amoeba. I said 
"there is no difference as far as *consciousness* is concerned between the 
brain or any
strictly spatio-temporal system, and the amoeba". (To which I should add: 
the amoeba, considered in strictly spatiotemporal terms). You are saying 
that the brain is not a strictly spatio-temporal system. But you still seem 
to be assuming that it came to be a more than spatio-temporal system as a 
consequence of strictly spatio-temporal operations. Or are you? You said you 
weren't claiming that the external world was strictly spatio-temporal. Yet 
you are implicitly assuming it is when you cite the evidence for 
"progressive development" as evidence for the emergence of consciousness in 
time. In short, by not assuming that the external world is strictly 
spatio-temporal, the argument that consciousness emerged in time falls 
apart.

- Scott