I know how fond you are of speaking about God and the soul so I will
stick to something much more down to earth. Somthing you can really
sink your teeth into. The major thing that Quantum Mechanics brought
to the world is the fact that it is not continuous and does not follow
any known mechancal models. Continuity and determinism are
GONE. It has been about 70 years since this was first discovered.
What does this have to do with beans and neurons? Only that
completely separating the perceiver from the perceived is not possible
in scientific terms at the atomic level. Nor can this be done at the
'macro' level. Have you ever heard of Gestalt psychology? How
about Existentialism vs Realism? Do the words 'adding order' to
our experiences as a survical mechanism mean anything? Ever
heard of a noumena? How exactly do 2 people that see the exact
same thing at the exact same time walk away with different
impressions - I know - one was stupider than the other one.
"James Teo" <james at teoth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c35f9fb.11847341 at news.freeserve.net...
>> Previous stuff on free will and desires snipped out, because I totally
> agree with it.
>>Guilfoylemr at cardiff.ac.uk (Mathew Guilfoyle) wrote:
> >The same goes for qualia. Imagine you were a philosophical zombie
> >with no qualia. However you visual system did give you all the
> >information it had about the world for you to roam around frightening
> >people in safety. So you would know that there is a tree in front of
> >you and that its leaves are green and its bark has a texture, and
> >there is a bird in the tree. Take this as far as you can, and in the
> >end you have qualia - knowing the world around you. But nothing
> >special or mystical. No representation to a soul - just judgements
> >and knowledege of the world.
>> I disagree here because I think you gloss over a step in your
> argument: the link between information and knowledge. Your visual
> system may relay and represent the information but how the brain
> transforms the representation into knowledge of the visual world (ie.
> qualia or the feeling of what happens) is not easily answered, and is
> in fact the central philosophical issue of qualia. While I believe
> that it is not an insurmountable obstacle, it remains a valid
> criticism of existing neuroscience.
>> I don't think the mystical soul is implicit in word, qualia.