Discussion Hard Problem Consciousness

"You're the only one I know in 2017 who is still claiming that mathematics is tautological"

Then I'm the only one you know in 2017 who knows that basically, Lagrangianism is an empty tautology devoid of causal information beyond Newtonian classical determinism and its relativistic extension. Given two known events, a trajectory is essentially being defined in terms of one or more forces or fields. One needs to choose both points, the initial and final boundary conditions, before the trajectory is determined, in both Lagrange's original formulation and Sutherland's derivative "trick" (not to mention Jack's Bohmian interpretation of that trick). This "choice" is where true causation enters the picture. 

...

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Paul Zelinsky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

[CL] "PQM" (TM) is not a metaphysical / ontological theory

PZ. No, it's a physical theory (of consciousness).

It's based on a physical ontology of particles and guide fields, exactly as in Bohm's version of QM.

Or Faraday-Maxwell EM theory -- charges and EM fields.

[CL] What Jack means to assert is ontological dualism plain and simple.

It's a dualist theory, as Jack has said many times. A dualist physical ontology; not "metaphysics".

Ditto for Bohmian mechanics nd EM theory.

Your point?

PZ. You still seem to be having serious difficulty separating physics from metaphysics.

[CL] "...gussied up in 'Sutherland's (tautological) math'"

PZ And I suppose you would say that Newton's theory of gravity was Copernican theory "gussied up" with the "(tautological) 
mathematics" of the inverse square law? 

(You're the only one I know in 2017 who is still claiming that mathematics is tautological)

Hidden variables theories, including Bohm's, are not compatible with your Wheelerian philosophy of physics Chris. It's
completely pointless for you to demand that Jack make sense of his theory within a Wheelerian version of Copenhagenism. 

If even that is not obvious to you, then there's nothing more to say here. 

On 2/23/2017 10:51 AM, Chris Langan wrote:

" What you say is orthogonal to [causally independent of] PQM."

Then "PQM" (TM) is not a metaphysical / ontological theory, and does not afford a complete explanation of causation. What Jack means to assert is ontological dualism plain and simple.

Understand what it is you're being asked to swallow here, folks. It's Cartesian dualism, not appreciably changed from what it was 500 years ago, but gussied up in "Sutherland's (tautological) math" and pursued in contempt of more advanced work than Jack's. Jack thinks that Gary is more or less superfluous, a supernumerary to be superseded by automation.

Wake up and smell the coffee. "Merely psychological" experiences like Gary's have everything to do with a true post-quantum understanding of causation, and Jack doesn't have clue one about them.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 12:17 PM, JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

On Feb 23, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Alex Hankey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

On the contrary Jack, what Gary is touching on is at least part of a spectrum of experiences that humans encounter when their lives are approaching the fulfilment of their mental potential and liberation.

Sure, I grant that, but so what? What you say is orthogonal, no overlap, with PQM.

PQM is a universal explanation and the start of a new technology of all forms of consciousness - not only in humans.

The particular properties of this or that manifestation of consciousness, while important for other reasons, are completely irrelevant as far as the theoretical physics explanation of consciousness is explained.