X-Message-Number: 25188
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:32:15 -0800
Subject: Patternism: Defining Statements (to Scott, et al)
From: <>

Dear Scott:

You wrote:

"So I guess you'll be riding the shuttle with Dr. McCoy rather than 
using the transporter (I hope you got that reference)."

Yes, indeed! No transporter for me (except perhaps Galaxy Quest 
style).

[snip]

You wrote:

"Isn't installing a software program on my hard drive simply a 
particular arranging or patterning of the atoms that compose the 
hard drive? If so, then software is simply patterned hardware. Much 
like in
the brain."

There is confusion in your mind on this issue.

Installing a software program on your hard drive does physically 
alter the hard drive; more generally, 'software' always exists as 
some configuration of a physical system. But it is a defect in 
thinking to imagine that some configuration of a physical system 
(some software program, installed on a hard drive or loaded into 
system memory) objectively represents a brain program. 

You may look at the bits on a memory chip and think 'brain 
program', but I may look at those same bits and think 'waste-
management program'. In fact, the bits have no objective meaning, 
except that they are bits on a memory chip. Any assertion that the 
transistors are more than just transistors is false.

Patternists imagine that the universe somehow 'knows' that a 
particular sequence of bits was created by brain scanning (and not 
by my hands using a keyboard), and that, therefore, the bits, when 
shuffled about in system memory by a CPU, are 'conscious', and 
possess the subjective inner-life of the person whose brain was 
scanned.

Clearly this is absurd. 

You wrote:

"I don't understand your statement that processes 'are concepts and 
not factually existing things'. Well, you're right that process is 
not a 'thing', but it's certainly more than an abstract concept. A 
change in
state 'is' process. It's not a thing, it's an action."

Actions don't exist. Only matter and energy exists. Matter and 
energy change over time. We call these changes 'actions' or 
'processes', but that doesn't mean they exist. They don't, any more 
than the number 5.

[snip]

You wrote:

"You are a process."

This is like saying I am a conjunction. I can't even make sense of 
that statement. I'm not a conjunction or a process, I'm a brain. My 
brain changes over time. The brain exists, and the change happens 
to the brain, but the change does not exist.

[snip]

You wrote:

"I'm personally not convinced that your objections to competing 
theories are, as you say, 'insurmountable'."

My objections to patternism cannot be surmounted except by 
postulating 'smart universes' (deities) and metaphysical 'souls'. 
If you accept materialism, then surely, they are insurmountable.

[snip]

"I've included some relevant snippets. Please note the last 
paragraph which addresses the competing 'ego' vs. 'bundle' theories 
of consciousness."

The ego vs. bundle theories are not relevant to any of my arguments 
against patternism. However, I would say this: I am clearly in 
control of my concious decisions. Why do I say this? Because I AM 
my brain.

It is absurd to postulate an entity that passively observes what 
happens to the brain, and then imagines that it is responsible (as 
some of your comments suggest). Evolution would not select for such 
a useless thing! Rather, I decide everything under my control, and 
I also experience the sensation of decision at some point 
simultaneous with or after my decision.

These dualist and 'little man in the head' theories must die.

[snip]

Best Regards,

Richard B. R.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25188