[Wittrs] Re: Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:30:05 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
<snip>
>
> >As for the theory I subscribe to, it isn't Dennett-based, it is
> >Dennett-consistent.
>
> okay; then, I will undertake to show that your mechanistic,
> Dennett-consistent theory of consciousness can't possibly be true unless
> the von Neumann Interpretation of QM is wrong.
>
Well, yes, that's what I had asked you to do when you raised this and what I
thought you were doing.
> >>>On that score I would say you haven't yet made the case.
>
> well, let's see where we are. the first step in making my case consists
> of establishing that the von Neumann Interpretation of QM is dualistic.
>
> unfortunately, ...
>
> >>when I presented the von Neumann Interpretation of QM (which is as
> >>overtly dualistic as one can get without actually plagiarizing from
> >>Descartes scrapbook), you resist the suggestion that the von Neumann
> >>Interpretation is incompatible with your mechanistic, Dennett-based
> >>theory of consciousness.
>
> >What the "f" are you talking about?
>
> Stuart,
>
> do you understand that the von Neumann Interpretation of QM is
> dualistic?
>
You say above I "resist the suggestion that the von Neumann Interpretation is
incompatible with your mechanistic, Dennett-based theory of consciousness"
when, of course, THAT was precisely the reason I was intrigued by your comment
and asked you to explain the von Neumann interpretation and how it implies that
a mechanistic model is wrong. What I have seen, so far, is your claim that von
Neumann's thesis (I,II,III) converts into your thesis (1,2,3) by making his II
(all the physical instrumentalities of observation) into your 2 (the
phenomenal). This latter is certainly dualistic and may well be a fair
interpretation of von Neumann though I don't know that it is. Is von Neumann
dualistic in the way you present him? As I've noted, one can recognize an
observer in the mix without presuming that the observer is not physically
derived.
Dualism in the philosophical sense (as used by Descartes and even Chalmers)
implies that the observer is something separate from the rest of physical
reality, an added element in the mix that is not reducible to the rest of the
mix.
In THAT sense one need not read the von Neumann thesis you presented as dualist
(whether he was personally or not), i.e., recognizing a dichotomy between
observed and observer is NOT dualism. Even Dennett acknowledges an observer, a
subjective standpoint (which is what he sets out to explain). But THAT isn't
and doesn't imply dualism.
SWM
> suspend any belief you may have that I have tweaked or added to or
> subtracted from it; and, just answer that one question.
>
> hint: it's a yes or no question.
>
> Joe
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
