[MD] Mystics and Brains

[ian glendinning]

Case, Platt,

Explaining how the brain "has" an idea is one thing.
Explaining what an idea "is" is a another.

The second pint first. In the Platonic sense, yes the idea (the
concept it contains) may well be transcendent as you quote Penrose
saying. Though I have to say the idea that and idea contains something
like an independent concept is probably highly SOMist in the first
place. The very human concept of a concept is the human recognition of
a (useful, recurring) pattern in "something" - a pattern of value
somewhere we MoQists would say, surely ?

The first question is more a matter of how consciousness emerges in a
brain (or similar device). I don't believe that's necessarily hard to
do, provided no-one is looking for something elusive like "proof".
Would I be wasting my time Platt, if I attempted an explanation ?

Ian

On 1/16/07, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> [Platt]
> My view is that of Plato's and Penrose's, namely, that important ideas are
> transcendent entities. To quote Penrose, "Recall my proposal that
> consciousness, in essence, is the 'seeing' of a necessary truth; and that it
> may represent some actual contact with Plato's world of ideal mathematical
> concepts." From "The Emperor's New Mind," pp. 445-46
>
> [Case]
> As I have mentioned several times it seems to me that Plato's project was in
> some sense to add meaning to Euclid and Pythagoras. His realm of the ideal
> is clearly a reference to the "perfection" of mathematical constructions
> like points planes and solids as compared to their imperfect manifestations
> in the world of shadow.
>
> I think Penrose is pointing toward this as well. But I thought in the book
> you mention Penrose was mainly arguing against those who seek to model
> organic sentient behavior in terms of computer processing. I am not sure how
> either of these allows for the conclusion that consciousness can exist
> outside of natural processes.
>
> [Platt]
> We disagree about an event happening once not being a pattern. The place
> kick that beat Chargers not only had a pattern, but one of considerable
> value to the Patriots. Science, as I've repeatedly stated, has little to say
> about such non-repetitive events and consequently misses a lot of life's
> meaning and magic. But, that's an ax to grind on another day perhaps.
>
> [Case]
> A place kick in a football games follows not only the pattern of rules set
> forth by Newtonian physic but the rules laid down by the National Football
> Leagues. Any value a particular kick might have to Patriot fans can also be
> specified in terms of social attitudes and a host of other factors all of
> which lend themselves nicely to study by various branches of science.
>
> In the sense you are using it here any event is a one time event.
>
> [Platt]
> I agree we murder to dissect by analysis. But, explaining beauty has a long
> history in philosophy. It comes under the heading of aesthetics. Whether
> Rage Against the Machine (who?) qualifies is another matter altogether.
>
> [Case]
> Perhaps you could offer an example of a theory of esthetics that does not
> murder by dissection. Or one that enhances our understanding of beauty in
> ways that science does not. As for Rage, I date myself a bit since they
> broke up several years ago. In any event I doubt if you would like them any
> more than I care for pretentious piano pieces. But there's esthetics for
> you.
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>