Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA19626 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:04:50 +0100 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:55:33 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: the conscious universe Message-ID: <20001002095533.B662@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20001001195133.AAA1511@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.187]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001001195133.AAA1511@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.187]>; from wade_smith@harvard.edu on Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:51:38PM -0400 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 03:51:38PM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> Hi Robin Faichney --
>
> >Show me the flaw in my analysis.
>
> >My contention is that [something] is only evident in parts, but when
> >the [something] is fully analysed, it makes more sense to attribute it to
> >the whole.
>
> Show me what is useful in that statement.
Assume, for the moment, I have never encountered a pencil before, never
heard or read anything about them, and do not know what they are for.
I can only see graphite at each end of this thing. Should I take the
skeptical position, and assume it exists only where I can see it? I say
no, the more elegant theory takes into account the fact that it looks
as if it might run throughout the length; I can imagine (very vaguely)
a straightforward manufacturing process to produce it in that form;
whatever it's used for, that would allow it to remain useful if it wore
down; and, finally, I have no reason to believe that the graphite does
not run through it. On the balance of probabilities, and assuming that
I can't actually lay my hands on it and break it to find out, I should
take it that there's just one piece of graphite, end-to-end. The
skeptical position is the less rational one.
I'm suggesting that similar considerations apply to consciousness.
I might be wrong[1], but if you (or anyone else) thinks this suggestion
is simply silly, then you don't understand it.
I'm not claiming to have originated this, by the way. It is known as
"panpsychism", and is discussed, for example, by Thomas Nagel in his
book Mortal Questions.
[1] Actually, as the location of consciousness is not a matter of
objective fact, I can't be wrong (or right) about that, but I could be
wrong about the utility of taking this view.
-- 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 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 10:06:43 BST