Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA27358 (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 21:17:28 +0100 Message-Id: <200010032018.QAA12134@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:19:39 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: the conscious universe In-reply-to: <20001003131200.A1423@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A61@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:30:15AM +0100 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:12:00 +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 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).
>
Actually, hmm, ...no. We do not experience the consciousness of
others directly, but we have reams of evidence for it - their observed
purposive and meaningful behavior, which we compare to our own,
which is grounded in our apodictic personal consciousness, and
note the preponderant similarities. We can not know absolutely,
any more than anything in science can be known to such a degree
(it would violate Popperian Falsifiability and the possibility of further
relevant evidence), but we can know to to a very high degree of
certainty.
>
> > 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.
>
Parts of the universe are conscious, but not the universe as a
whole, as far as evidence can demonstrate. Some parts (us) are
aware of (a lot of) the whole in varying degrees, but being aware of
X does not make the X of which you are aware, aware itself.
>
> Consciousness is universal,
>
(Buzzer goes loudly off) Statement of faith/belief, not knowledge.
>
> but the only individual parts of
> the universe that are aware are those through which information can flow.
>
Abd just how does consciousness differ from awareness, hmmmm?
>
> 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?
>
DBFS; you can't write with the wooden part of the pencil, either.
Unless your pencil is comprised entirely of graphite (and you
stipulated that it wasn't), your analogy disproves, rather than
proves, your point.
>
> 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?
>
Then it is indeed a matter of faith/belief.
>
> > 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).)
>
It is best applied to your original contention that the whole damned
universe is conscious.
> --
> 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 - 21:18:44 BST