Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA25163 (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 13:18:15 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:12:00 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: the conscious universe Message-ID: <20001003131200.A1423@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A61@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A61@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:30:15AM +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:30:15AM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >But do we ever experience their consciousness? I don't think so.
> >I say we take it on faith -- and that's exactly as it should be.
> >Skepticism ultimately falls into solipsism.
>
> Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if we have never experienced the
> consciousness of rocks that they AREN'T CONSCIOUS? Of course, one would
> have to test this assumption empirically.
I was refering to other people and animals. In fact, we never experience
any consciousness other than our own. That's why we need faith, to believe
in that of other people (and animals).
> There's a further question here- what's the value of believing (knowing, as
> you contend) that rocks are conscious anyway?
I didn't think I'd have to say this, but I was obviously wrong. Rocks are
not conscious. The universe is conscious, through things that have
senses. Consciousness is universal, but the only individual parts of
the universe that are aware are those through which information can flow.
That was the whole point of the pencil analogy -- the apparently separate
pieces of graphite correspond to sentient individuals, the fact that
it's really just one piece, to universal consciousness, and the fact
that graphite appears in isolated places corresponds to the fact that
consciousness does so too. If I thought that literally every thing was
conscious, why would I have used that analogy?
And I've said many, many times now, that consciousness is subjective,
that this is a matter of interpretation, of opinion. I said explicitly
it's not a matter of fact. So why do you say I contend that I know?
> If you want to redefine consciousness to include inanimate, inorganic
> objects like rocks then surely your are reducing the meaning of the term
> consciousness to a mundane rather than a profound level.
I just coined a new internet acronym, to join the ranks of BTW, IIRC
and RTFM -- DBFS. See if you can guess what it means. (Hint: it has
more in common with RTFM than the fact they're both FLA's (four letter
acronyms).)
-- 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 - 13:19:29 BST