Re: the conscious universe

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 03 2000 - 09:28:15 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: the conscious universe"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA24179 (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 09:52:10 +0100
    Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:28:15 +0100
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: the conscious universe
    Message-ID: <20001003092815.A1129@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <200010012005.QAA09382@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>; <20001002091924.A662@reborntechnology.co.uk> <200010030124.VAA06401@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
    In-Reply-To: <200010030124.VAA06401@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 08:29:07PM -0500
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 08:29:07PM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    > > My computer can be said to react to sensing its keys being pressed by
    > > putting characters up on the screen (as well as doing much other stuff).
    > > Explain how "reaction to the sensed" is evidence of consciousness.
    > >
    > There is reaction in your attempted counterexample, but not
    > sensation; it is the same blind and qualeless physical reaction
    > present when one billiard ball strikes another, just hooked on a
    > longer causal chain. Thus, my example stands.

    No. You claimed that "reaction to the senses" is evidence of
    consciousness. And now you say the PC reacting to key presses doesn't
    count because it's not conscious. You are assuming what you set out
    to prove.

    > > My position: There is, and can be, no objective evidence for (or against)
    > > consciousness, in individuals or in the universe, because it is entirely
    > > subjective, a "matter of opinion" as opposed to one of fact, which is why
    > > it is entirely legitimate to suggest that it be considered a universal
    > > attribute, instead of inexplicably being located in some systems that
    > > exceed some arbitrary degree of complexity.
    > >
    > Actually, the degree of complexity is not arbitrary; it is that which
    > is established by Godelian self-reference generally,

    Self-reference is required only for self-consciousness, not for
    consciousness.

    -- 
    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 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 09:53:42 BST