Books To Self-assemble Themselves

Viktor Argonov in his interview about the conference Toward a science of consciousness in Stockholm (in Russian)

http://vz.ru/information/2011/7/19/508363.html

has mentioned a statement by Chalmers and Elitzur that even consciousness is subjective one can talk about it objectively (phenomenal judgments). For example a book about consciousness is a material object and we have just to find what physical processes have led to it.

I have tried to use such a statement on the everything list

http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/1dadda0d2b84f605

(the discussion is long, when sorted by the answer, my first message is #437 on 30.08.11).

Below there are some my messages. I should say that the idea is great.

30.08.2011 19:24

I would appreciate if you could be more specific about the mechanism on how movement of atoms leads for example to creation of a book about consciousness. Such a book is after all just a collection of atoms, this is true. For me however a self-assembly of such a book is just a magic.

01.09.2011 09:05

Well, this was my question, to specify this casual chain of events. Especially how movement of atoms creates conscious experience. Otherwise this is just a matter of belief.

01.09.2011 18:30

Well, you have still not explained how books self-assembly themselves from atoms. This is some problem with your reasoning. What Occam’s Razor says about the creation of books?

In general, I do not know what else exists, but I do have conscious experience and it is unclear how to explain it starting from atoms and physical laws that we know (in order to accept Bruno’s theory I have first to learn mathematical logic).

02.09.2011 09:42

At the moment, I can exclude nothing. In my current view, the existence of books in general and in particular on consciousness contradicts with known physics. It well might be that this contradiction is illusory, I do not know. Hence there was my question. If you know a plausible mechanism how books could be self-assembled, please just describe it.

So far your arguments are of philosophical nature. I have nothing against philosophy, right now I even prefer philosophers to physicists, as philosophers understand what they are doing and physicists-theoreticians seem not.

Say right now I listen lectures (in German)

Controversy in the philosophy
http://podcasts.uni-freiburg.de/podcast_content?id_content=93

Here there was a very good definition of philosophers: they are jugglers of terms (Jongleure der Begriffe).

In this series there is a clear statement that there are questions that we cannot solve, for example if the Universe is eternal or not. You rely on cause and at the same time on Big Bang. But then Big Bang seems to have no cause. Or do you know one in this case?

02.09.2011 16:21

I do observe books. Say now I am reading Thomas Metzinger “Being no One”. I would say that the book does exist and even that Thomas Metzinger has written it. Does this fact count for anything?

If to speak about a human being in general (this concerns cosmologists and biochemists in particular), then Thomas Metzinger discusses in his book “autoepistemic closure”:

‘”Autoepistemic closure” is an epistemological, and not (at least not primarily) a phenomenological concept. It refers to an “inbuilt blind spot”, a structurally anchored deficit in the capacity to gain knowledge about oneself.’

This could explain the behavior of biochemists as well as cosmologists. The brain just does not allow us to understand what the real universe looks like.


Comments are closed.