Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA23326 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 3 Oct 2000 02:29:34 +0100 Message-Id: <200010030127.VAA23997@mail0.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:31:50 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: the conscious universe In-reply-to: <20001002095533.B662@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20001001195133.AAA1511@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.187]>; from wade_smith@harvard.edu on Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:51:38PM -0400 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:55:33 +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 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.
>
Yeah, except for one small detail; the world isn't as uniform as the
pencil. People and animals are experientially quite different to us
from rocks and running water.
> --
> 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 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 02:30:51 BST