the conscious universe

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 01 2000 - 12:03:14 BST

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "Re: the conscious universe"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA17645 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 1 Oct 2000 17:59:09 +0100
    Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:03:14 +0100
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: the conscious universe
    Message-ID: <20001001120314.A1908@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 11:22:50AM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
    > Hi Robin Faichney --
    >
    > >"You're part
    > >of the universe so the universe is conscious through you" seems very
    > >simple to me.
    >
    > Simple it is.
    >
    > A ton of simple.
    >
    > In exactly the same way a mobius strip is simple. It shows us something
    > in a way that is not the thing itself. A mobius strip does not prove
    > itself to be in two dimensions, but the trick of two dimensions is
    > established.

    No, it's no trick, it's the simple, literal truth.
     
    > You have supplied us with the trick of the consciousness of the universe
    > without establishing the consciousness itself.
    >
    > And, I've asked you to prove this assertion, and you've waffled,
    > returning to the trick every time.
    >
    > I've supplied the EEG of my consciousness, and your claim is that this
    > proves the consciousness of the universe.
    >
    > I stay firm with the claim that a property of a part, while contained
    > within the whole, is not necessarily a property of the whole,

    My contention is that consciousness is only evident in parts, but when
    the concept is fully analysed, it makes more sense to attribute it to
    the whole. Take away the senses, which are merely information conduits,
    and take away the intelligence that's required for self-consciousness,
    but not for simple awareness. What's left? Nothing that distinguishes
    us from rest of the universe. There is nothing special about us, despite
    what we like to think, that gives us that capacity while denying it to
    any other part of the universe. Consciousness is, in fact, universal.

    > Life,
    > and the thing that makes us consider consciousness to be one of its
    > properties, is an emergence from the materials and energies of the
    > universe,

    This is sheer waffle. Life can reasonably be considered emergent, but you
    have such an unclear idea of consciousness that you're reduced to talking
    about "the thing that makes us consider consciousness to be one of its
    properties".

    What thing is that, Wade?? Seriously, I'd like to know!

    There is no reason to consider simple awareness to be emergent. Or no
    good reason, that is. There's obviously the bad reason that, failing
    to fully analyse the concept, people lump simple awareness in with
    self-awareness and intelligence.

    The funny thing is, how many of these people claim to be among the most
    rational on the planet!
     
    > You have only provided the feelings of. Indeed, you've attempted to
    > validate these totally subjective feelings with no other evidence than
    > that the feelings are felt.

    Your crusade against subjectivity is irrelevant here. This is a
    "discovered conceptual truth" -- a matter for philosophy, not empiricial
    science. It concerns the logic of our everyday concepts, which in turn
    are based on our everyday experience, and our psychology. We already have
    so much data that no more could possibly make any difference whatsoever.
    This is about making the most sense out of existing concepts and data,
    not collecting more.
     
    > Tricks, I say, of the senses. I can only understand your claim as a
    > presentation of a trick, and while I like magic shows, every time I walk
    > outside the theatre, rabbits do not climb out of hats.
    >
    > Show me the hat with the rabbit in it outside of the theatre.

    Nice imagery, but utterly irrelevant. Show me the flaw in my analysis.

    -- 
    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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 18:00:46 BST