Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA17827 (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 19:23:27 +0100 Message-Id: <200010011820.OAA05584@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:25:31 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: the conscious universe In-reply-to: <20001001120314.A1908@reborntechnology.co.uk> 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, 1 Oct 2000 12:03:14 +0100
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: the conscious universe
From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
Send 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.
>
Actually, no. A twist is necessary to the connection which allows
a continuous line to be traced on 'both sides' of a moebius strip;
such a twist is impossible in two dimensions.
>
> > 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.
>
Absolutely, positively not. Can you prove that a rock is aware of
another rock? In the absence of such proof, your assertion is
merely blind faith. Once again committing the Buddhistic fallacy of
deconstructing a complex system and then contending that
emergent interrelational properties are not to be found in any of its
isolated components is not just a logical fallacy, but one
committed in bad faith, because you know (or should know, as you
have been previously told) better.
>
> > 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.
>
I don't lump awareness (which is NOT simple) and its recursion into
self-conscious awareness together, Robin, and I have a much
better idea of what comprises these things than it seems you'll ever
have. In fact, multiple complex pattern-based recursions are
required to manfest awareness of other-than-self, a relation-based
registration of presence TO, requiring consciousness, sensation,
interpretation of that sensation into perception, and ascription of
that perception to an object which is considered to be its source;
your mislabelling of all of this as 'simple' and requiring nothing not
present in the patternless simplicity of hydrogen atoms in space is
naive at best and disingenuous at worst.
>
> The funny thing is, how many of these people claim to be among the most
> rational on the planet!
>
I find that hilarious, especially coming from you after such an
absurd and nonsensical category error such as this unwarranted
conflation of logical incomparables.
>
> > 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.
>
Actually, Robin, it is YOU who are crusading against subjectivity
as a special and distinct property which is present in some matter
and absent in other. If you claim that subjectivity is omnipresent,
then the very term loses all meaning whatsoever, as there can be
no correlative and opposing absence of subjectivity with which it
may be comared and contrasted, and by which it may be defined.
This is the very same critique by means of which Maurice Merleau-
Ponty destroyed Jean-Paul Sartre's claim of absolute freedom. As
absolute freedom becomes indistinguishable from its absolute
absence, so with awareness and subjectivity.
>
> > 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.
>
I just did.
> --
> 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 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 19:25:02 BST