Re: Qualia and QM

OmegaZero2003 wrote:
> "Jim Balter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > OmegaZero2003 wrote:
> >
> > > "Jim Balter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ray Gardener wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > Interesting. Can you also remember pain?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Enough to avoid repeating it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There you go. One can remember:
> > > > >
> > > > > - That one felt something, and
> > > > > - That the feeling was unpleasant.
> > > > >
> > > > > but the qualia of the unpleasantness itself, that is not retained.
> > > >
> > > > The recollection of unpleasantness is itself unpleasant,
> > > > enough to dissuade us from repetition.  The sensation upon
> > > > recollection is indeed pale compared to the original,
> > > > but it isn't absent.  Actually, in the case of psychological pain,
> > > > the recollection can often produce pain worse than the original.
> > > >
> > > > Qualia must be understood within a cognitive framework;
> > > > trying to find it in QM is an error of descriptive levels.
> > >
> > >
> > > You finally got something right.
> > >
> > > It is indeed the case that reduction is a lossy process.
> >
> > That's not what I said, and I already pointed out that
> > that's true of *naive* reductionism, but not reductionism
> > as properly understood.
>
>
> Nope - it is true of the defintion you put forth.
>
> It is the case that there are serious flaws in at least 2 thereoms of Group
> Theory.

Oh god, what a kook.  Alleged proofs may have flaws; *theorems* do not.
(Oh, but maybe "thereoms" do.)

> One relates to this topic; a system may be composed of its objects
> and relationships (more properly -its processes - whether an object due to
> our time-slicing convenience in terming a process an "object"), but
> traversing from a level of description N, to either N-1 or N+1 levels
> invariable either deletes information, or new, unpredicted information
> emerges, respectively.
>
> See Alwyn Scott's work and the work at Sante Fe Inst. for more inf.

If you're going claim "flaws" in Group Theory then give a proper 
citation.  I'm certainly not going on a goose chase through the entire
body of Scott's or the Stanta Fe Institute's work for "more inf.".

> To put it simply, reductionism even as properly understood, will leave out
> information in the transform from N to N-1 that cannot be constructed, in
> principle, from the processes inherent within level N-1.
>
>
>
> > > > If it
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > were, one could recall migraine headaches and the like and reexperience
> > >
> > > them
> > >
> > >
> > > > > exactly as if they were really happening (Ouch!).
> > > > >
> > > > > So we associate qualia with events actually happening as opposed to
> > >
> > > events
> > >
> > >
> > > > > remembered.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > <J Q B>
> >
> > --
> > <J Q B>


--
<J Q B>