On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:51:58 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > >> Continuity and the idea that physical laws will be consistent in > >> different times and places are definitely assumptions. They could turn > >> out to be false tomorrow. > > > > > > The possibility of continuity seems like it is implicit in almost every > kind > > of experience. A mouse has an expectation of continuity. The idea of > > physical laws though is a much more sophisticated intellectual > construct. > > Arguably psychological continuity isn't real for either mice or > people. If you were destroyed last night and replaced with a copy the > today version of you would declare that he was continuous with the > yesterday version. I would say that's correct, the two versions are a > continuation of the same person, while you would presumably say that > it was a delusion. >
I don't think that my experience can be replaced with a copy though. > > >> > That the difference in what language we speak > >> > could be 'due to brain difference" I would not say follows as a > >> > condition > >> > which is plainly evident. > >> > >> I would say it's plainly evident. The alternative is that we think > >> with something other than our brain. > > > > > > Another alternative is that the brain is itself is only a brain-shaped > > experience which arises from a consensus of many nested ongoing > experiences. > > It's a lot easier to explain why a storytelling cosmos evolves a brain > than > > why a mechanical universe evolves a brain that thinks it is a person. > > If it were possible to have a change in mental state without a change > in brain state that would be evidence that we don't think with our > brain. > Some claim that NDEs are such changes, and that their experiences have occurred during periods without brain activity. Certainly there is evidence that correlates decreased brain activity with increased perception with psilocybin uses, which would suggest at the very least that a one-to-one correspondence of mental to neurological activity is an oversimplification. I would not deny that we think with our brain, in the sense that the human experience of thought corresponds with the appearance of human brain activity, but that doesn't mean that our consciousness and experience of living is part of our brain or can be located through our brain. > > >> > To the contrary, computational models of > >> > consciousness would be hard pressed to explain so many differences in > >> > language. Why should we all be able to communicate with each other > >> > genetically irrespective of geography and culture, but did not begin > >> > from a > >> > similarly unified linguistic genome? The fact that human languages, > even > >> > ones which are tightly related etymologically are incomprehensible to > >> > non-speakers suggests that in fact, the characteristics of language > are > >> > very > >> > different from biological systems. If language was closely associated > >> > with > >> > brain differences, then we might expect certain drugs to work only if > >> > you > >> > spoke a particular language, or that there could be particular foods > or > >> > drugs which would aid understanding particular languages. If you want > to > >> > understand Russian better, you might drink a lot of vodka to > condition > >> > your > >> > brain into a more conducive brain difference. > >> > >> None of this reasoning is plausible. > > > > > > Why not? > > Why should different languages be comprehensible to different > cultures? Why should there be different languages? If neurons use the same language to signal each other, why not humans also? > Different computer languages run on identical hardware and > are mutually incomprehensible. That's because we are designing the computer languages, not the hardware. We want to use the hardware for different purposes, but if the hardware itself were designing its own language, why would we expect multiple incompatible designs? > And why should food and drugs have a > differential effect depending on native language? > Because you are saying that language is identical to brain changes. Food and drugs cause brain changes too, so we should expect conflicts. Drinking alcohol should have different effects for speakers of different languages, and speaking different languages should alter the effects of different drugs. > There are drugs > which have the same effect on species as far apart as humans and > bacteria. > Which is why I say that it should be the same case for language if it was a product of brain change. There should be words with mean the same thing on species as far apart as humans and bacteria, or at least as far apart as humans on the other side of the continent. Craig > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
