Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA18250 (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 21:08:52 +0100 Message-Id: <200010012005.QAA09382@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:10:33 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: the conscious universe In-reply-to: <20001001201738.A985@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200010011820.OAA05584@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:25:31PM -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, 1 Oct 2000 20:17:38 +0100
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: the conscious universe
From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
Send 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!
>
A bad analogy is a bad analogy; tautologically trivial, but true.
>
> > > 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.
>
So something can be aware without the ability to sense, thus
denying it any way to be aware OF anything, ayy? Perhaps YOU
should reread your own fallacies; then they might finally register,
but, knowing you, I have my doubts.
>
> > 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!
>
But you are also denying any necessity of a complex pattern in the
material substrate from which consciousness can emerge. That
position has no evidence for it, and reams of evidence against it
(the undeniable complexity of any systen we can prove to be
conscious by means of its reaction to the sensed).
>
> > 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.
>
Okay; I forgot that you were irretrieveably committed to your own
mystical worldview, and refuse to be confused by empirical facts,
such as the complexity of all observed consciously aware systems
(and further complexisty of those which are consciously self-aware,
such as us).
>
> Your ego is getting out of hand, Joe. You should consider seeking
> specialist help.
>
If you are insisting that evidence makes no difference when it
contradicts your personal dogma, it is you who are prehaps beyond
all help, either logical or psychological.
>
> > > > 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.
>
And of course you snip the very characterizations which crush your
contention that consciousness can be manifested by single
hydrogen atoms (hint: that's GRAVITY, not awareness, einstein),
mislabeling them as empty bombast, when the white dog truth is
that you snipped them because you possess no reply to them.
That's all right; everyone already read them, and if they can't
remember them, a simple request is all it will require of me to root
them from the archives and repost them.
To be killfiled by such as yourself would be a signal honor, and
everyone else would continue to be able to read my refutations of
your religiously inspired memetic indulgencies.
> --
> 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 - 21:10:26 BST