Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA00642 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:57:27 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A6B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: the conscious universe Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:55:04 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>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).
I don't take your consciousness on faith, but on analysis of your observed
behaviour. Recognising that one cannot know with absolute certainty that
anything is conscious (including oneself) does not mean that one must rely
on faith, but that one must rely on the best methods of approximating the
reality of the given state of that object. I infer that you are conscious
because we are able to utlise communication to discuss abstract concepts
like faith, belief and knowledge.
>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 the value of believing that is...?
>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?
Because you are clearly certain that your belief in a conscious universe is
the truth. You are using a current perceived gap in empirical knowledge-
the location of consciousness- as an excuse to justify any subjective belief
or opinion that makes you feel good. Consciousness resides, as I think Joe
has already said, in the neurological tissue of the body, principally, but
not necessarily exclusively in the brain. Beyond that there is dispute and
disagreement, but your views aren't valid simply because we don't know the
answer to that question.
>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's quite interesting that someone who on pain of death avoids
clarification or adequate definition of terms they use in wildly different
ways from established understanding of those terms, is able to find time to
make up abusive internet acronyms. It's a mark of intellectual and
psychological inadequacy and insecurity.
Vincent
===============================================================
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 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 13:58:48 BST