Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA18026 (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 20:35:04 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:17:38 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: the conscious universe Message-ID: <20001001201738.A985@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20001001120314.A1908@reborntechnology.co.uk> <200010011820.OAA05584@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200010011820.OAA05584@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:25:31PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:25:31PM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>
> > 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 really think I want to argue topology? I was talking about
consciousness! Sheesh!
> > 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?
How could it be, with no senses? (Reread that paragraph.) Thus you
demonstrate your failure to understand, or even to read carefully,
that which you think you're blowing away. As usual.
> 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
But I'm saying consciousness *is* there, not that it's not! Sheesh!
> 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.
I see. Those who have not been exposed to your wisdom can be excused,
but those who have, and continue to expound views at variance with your
own, are acting in bad faith.
Your ego is getting out of hand, Joe. You should consider seeking
specialist help.
> > > 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.
<snip more empty bombast>
<yawn>
At this rate, I might have to killfile you again, Joe.
-- 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 - 20:36:36 BST