Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA03322 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 5 Oct 2000 01:21:01 +0100 Message-Id: <200010050018.UAA05550@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:23:22 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: the conscious universe In-reply-to: <20001004092839.B10239@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200010032146.RAA19620@mail0.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 04:51:28PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:28:39 +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 04:51:28PM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 08:31:50PM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > No, we take it on evidence; the evidence of the observed behavior of
> > others, which is unlike that of rocks and running water, but is like
> > our own - we who are conscious.
>
> Rocks and running water, obviously, are not conscious. People and animals
> obviously seem to be so, and I am obviously not saying they're not.
> My point is that *ultimately*, i.e. when delving down into the deepest
> roots of what consciousness actually is, it makes most sense to consider
> it an attribute of the universe as a whole, rather than a property or
> function of some individual things. In that sense it is exactly like
> life: it cannot be isolated, but can be understood when you ask what it is
> about this universe that allows it to exhibit life -- and consciousness.
> Systems thinking, Joe, as opposed to reductionism. And not terribly
> difficult, once you get your blinkers off.
>
I utilize systems thinking, but the embrace of it does not entail that
all systems, even the most simple, must be conscious; nor does it
entail that the consciousness of sufficiently complex adaptive
microsystems (dissipative systems is the Prigogine term) such as
us bleeds past their and/or our boundary threshholds into the deep-
space stardust near-void, or into any of the dust within it, or into a
conscious animation of the entirety. You are in fact proposing a
universal Gaia Hypothesis, which makes a lot less sense when
applied to the cosmos than it does when applied terrestrially.
> --
> 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 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 01:22:30 BST