- #246
learningphysics
Homework Helper
- 4,098
- 7
Paul Martin said:The points I want to illustrate with the analogy are that
1. The brain/body, the "pattern that is formed", and the experience itself, all occur or exist in this physical world (just as the radio, the AF and RF signals, and the music occur or exist in the room where the radio is located).
Alright. I don't know if I'd say that the "experience" is happening in the physical world though.
2. The "something" which has the experience is not in the world or part of it (just as the transmitting station is not in the room with the radio or part of it).
Yes. That's fine. But wouldn't a transceiver be a more apt analogy as the connection is two-way like you said?
3. There is an interface of some sort connecting the "something" with the brain/body (just as EM radiation connects the transmitter with the receiver).
Yes. This is fine.
The analogy does not show the flow of information or influence because I have "has experience" analogous to "produces music". One is an input and the other is an output. Moreover, in the radio case, the flow of information is one way only, I believe the link between consciousness and brain is two-way. (The Mars rover is really a better analogy.)
That's fine. But doesn't "produces music" imply a flow of information from the producer? Wouldn't "producing and receiving music" be a more apt analogy. (I just want to make sure I understand your ideas. Not trying to nitpick).
It seems like the big difference between what I said and you said is that I was emphasizing the "experiencer" as a "receiver" and you were emphasizing the "experiencer" as a "transceiver" that can influence or be influenced?
Where we might not agree is with my belief that there is only one such thing in all reality and that it does not reside or exist in our physical universe.
I agree that an experiencer does not reside in the physical universe. I'm not certain that there is only one such thing.