From: Chris Taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue 02 Mar 2004 - 09:36:56 GMT
Looks interesting -- I'd like to know how you get on with it.
"The author uses his own experiences with the depths and details of
consciousness, namely the effects at the loss of his wife, to draw out
the possible boundaries of human consciousness. He then combines this
sensitive and introvert approach with ideas attached to physics, in an
attempt to quantify and explore consciousness, all the while maintaining
a measured and balanced approach to the topic.What I particularly like
about it is that at no point does the author force any point down your
throat. He rather uses the approach 'Well, this is the conclusion we
get, if you follow and believe the premises we set.' He approaches
emotional topics with due care and sensitivity, but, since discussions
on consciousness are difficult to approach scientifically, what one
person considers balanced and careful, another may consider blindingly
wrong. I personally feel that he maintains a good balance. His
discussions on the involvement in physics are measured and scientific
(obviously :-)), but perhaps maybe unclear to the layman.He also uses the book to help show the depth of human character by interspacing throughout small sections dedicated to memories he had with his wife. Some may feel this pointless and only adding unscientific nonsense to what should be a totally scientific problem. I however, feel it adds poinyancy and a deeper understanding to the true meaning of consciousness, and helps show that the author has taken time to understand every aspect and perspective of the problem.All in all, an engrossing and challenging book. Definitely recommended to any who wish to further their understanding." -- Random Reviewer.
Francesca S. Alcorn wrote:
> Chris said:
>> Yeah I'd say that was a fair summary so far :)
>> Although I have to strap on a flag about environments of various kinds.
>> I (in answer to the other two replies to this post) _am_ one of those
>> fundamentalists, although I have a rather different definition of the
>> term meme (necessarily, cos I can't think of a better word of my own).
>> But yes I am one.
>> That doesn't make me anti-social science! That would be like a
>> phycisist denigrating biology because it's basically all physics at
>> bottom! There are appropriate methods to particular levels of focus.
>> Credo: I do believe in a mind built of tiny patterns, which copy
>> repeatedly internally a la Dennett, and which form the building blocks
>> of successive levels of structure -- like physics begets chemistry
>> begets life begets culture if you get me -- each built of the blocks
>> of stuff from the level below. So measuring nerve impulses or oxygen
>> uptake, then trying to connect that with thoughts (not that anyone
>> was) would be like trying to understand why 'The Office' is funny by
>> looking at a slowed-down trace of the firing pattern of the gun(s) in
>> your TV's CRT.
> I just got the "Physics of Consciousness" for Christmas. Haven't read
> it yet, but supposedly it does just that.
> 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
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Taylor (email@example.com) MIAPE Project -- psidev.sf.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =============================================================== 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 2.1.5 : Tue 02 Mar 2004 - 09:47:29 GMT