Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA01273 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:02:24 +0100 Message-Id: <200009251859.OAA20534@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:04:24 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: mysticism etc In-reply-to: <20000924145734.A1773@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200009230604.CAA12850@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 01:09:27AM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 14:57:34 +0100
From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: mysticism etc
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 01:09:27AM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> [RF]
> > > > > If you're conscious, the universe is conscious.
> [JD]
> > > > If we're conscious, then discrete systemic parts of the universe are
> > > > (sufficiently complex to be) conscious.
> [RF]
> > > "Discrete systemic" is an oxymoron. To take the systems view is to stop
> > > pretending that parts are discrete.
> [JD]
> > Well, to take the systems view is to reject the idea that everything
> > is some single sort of amorphous mass. By discrete, I meant
> > distinct, differentiable, distinguishable.
>
> Which says nothing about whether it's us, or the universe, that's
> conscious. Your comment that we are sufficiently complex to be
> conscious represents quite a common attitude, but it's based on a
> misunderstanding of conciousness, at least if that's understood as
> distinct from self-consciousness, being more akin to simple awareness.
> That is not -- cannot be -- a function, such as intelligence. Rather,
> it's an intersubjective attribute. Intelligence, if defined as something
> like reaction time for tasks requiring cortical processing, is measurable,
> whereas consciousness is, by comparison at least, almost imponderable.
> It is purely passive, any reaction whatsoever being explicable in terms
> of lower-level processing, whether that's in logical, cognitive terms,
> or at the neural level.
>
> Ultimately, what we consider to be conscious is not a dry, technical question,
> but one that reflects our attitudes to ourselves, each other, members of
> other species, and so on. To suggest that it's not us, but the universe
> that's conscious, though (obviously) "through" us amongst others, is not to
> propose a scientific hypothesis -- the suggestion that we are conscious is
> not scientific either -- but to suggest a change of attitude to ourselves
> and to the rest of the universe that will be found beneficial in terms of
> our health and general welfare, as well as freeing some of us from
> futile pursuits such as machine consciousness -- if all is conscious, there's
> no point seeking it in any particular place, and it can't be found by
> objective means, anyway.
>
> There is much, much more that can and should be said about this, but even if
> I had the time, this is not the place. You'll just have to wait until my
> book comes out! :-)
>
> Despite the smiley, I'm serious about this: Joe and I have been around
> the block on issues closely related to this many times, and I will not
> respond to responses from him, or from anyone else, for that matter.
> I'd rather spend my writing time on the book.
>
And Robin's book will mirror Brodie's; believe in happy lies if they
make you feel better.
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 20:03:34 BST