On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> Hi Craig, >> >> I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite >> my belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) >> from a brain, >> > > As long as you have another brain to experience the extracted memories in > 1p, then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a 3p transmission of some > experiential content from one brain to another. > > >> I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness >> emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree >> of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the >> emergence from complexity idea. >> >> Still I feel that you avoid some questions. Maybe it's just my lack of >> understanding of what you're saying. For example: what is the primary >> "stuff" in your theory? In the same sense that for materialists it's >> subatomic particles and for comp it's N, +, *. What's yours? >> > > For me the primary stuff is sensory-motor presence. > It's very hard for me to grasp this. > Particles are public sense representations. N, +, * are private sense > representations. Particles represent the experience of sensory-motor > obstruction as topological bodies. Integers and arithmetic operators > represent the sensory-motor relations of public objects as private logical > figures. > > Craig > > >> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 6:18:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Craig, >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cool. I actually would have agreed with you and a lot of people here >>>>> at different times in my life. It's only been lately in the last five >>>>> years >>>>> or so that I have put together this other way of understanding everything. >>>>> It gets lost in the debating, because I feel like I have to make my points >>>>> about what is different or new about how I see things, but I do understand >>>>> that other ways of looking at it make a lot of sense too - so much so that >>>>> I suppose I am drawn only to digging into the weak spots to try to get >>>>> others to see the secret exit that I think I've found... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, this sounds interesting and I'd like to know more. I've been away >>>> from the mailing list in the last few years, so maybe you've talked about >>>> it before. Would you tell me about that secret exit? >>>> >>> >>> The secret exit is to reverse the assumption that consciousness occurs >>> from functions or substances. Even though our human consciousness depends >>> on a living human body (as far as we know for sure), that may be because of >>> the degree of elaboration required to develop a human quality of >>> experience, not because the fundamental capacity to perceive and >>> participate depends on anything at all. >>> >>> Being inside of a human experience means being inside of an animal >>> experience, an organism's experience, a cellular and molecular level >>> experience. The alternative means picking an arbitrary level at which total >>> lack of awareness suddenly changes into perception and participation for no >>> conceivable reason. Instead of hanging on to the hope of finding such a >>> level or gate, the secret is to see that there are many levels and gates >>> but that they are qualitative, with each richer integration of qualia >>> reframing the levels left behind in a particular way, and that way (another >>> key) is to reduce it from a personal, animistic temporal flow of 1p meaning >>> and significant preference to impersonal, mechanistic spatial bodies ruled >>> by cause-effect and chance/probability. 1p and 3p are relativistic, but >>> what joins them is the capacity to discern the difference. >>> >>> Rather than sense i/o being a function or logic take for granted, flip >>> it over so that logic is the 3p shadow of sense. The 3p view is a frozen >>> snapshot of countless 1p views as seen from the outside, and the qualities >>> of the 3p view depend entirely on the nature of the 1p >>> perceiver-partcipant. Sense is semiotic. Its qualitative layers are >>> partitioned by habit and interpretive inertia, just as an ambiguous image >>> looks different depending on how you personally direct your perception, or >>> how a book that you read when you are 12 years old can have different >>> meanings at 18 or 35. The meaning isn't just 'out there', it's literally, >>> physically "in here". If this is true, then the entire physical universe >>> doubles in size, or really is squared as every exterior surface is a 3p >>> representation of an entire history of 1p experience. Each acorn is a >>> potential for oak tree forest, an encyclopedia of evolution and cosmology, >>> so that the acorn is just a semiotic placeholder which is scaled and >>> iconicized appropriately as a consequence of the relation of our human >>> quality awareness and that of the evolutionary-historical-**possible >>> future contexts which we share with it (or the whole ensemble of >>> experiences in which 'we' are both embedded as strands of the story of the >>> universe rather than just human body and acorn body or cells and cells etc). >>> >>> To understand the common thread for all of it, always go back to the >>> juxtaposition of 1p vs 3p, not *that* there is a difference, but the >>> qualities of *what* those differences are - the sense of the juxtaposition. >>> >>> http://media.tumblr.com/**tumblr_m9y9by2XXw1qe3q3v.jpg<http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9y9by2XXw1qe3q3v.jpg> >>> http://media.tumblr.com/**tumblr_m9y9boN5rP1qe3q3v.jpg<http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9y9boN5rP1qe3q3v.jpg> >>> >>> That's were I get sense and motive or perception and participation. The >>> symmetry is more primitive than either matter or mind, so that it isn't one >>> which builds a bridge to the other but sense which divides itself on one >>> level while retaining unity on another, creating not just dualism but a >>> continuum of monism, dualism, dialectic, trichotomy, syzygy, etc. Many >>> levels and perspectives on sense within sense. >>> >>> http://multisenserealism.com/**about/<http://multisenserealism.com/about/> >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/** >>> msg/everything-list/-/**elwBNPr92z4J<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/elwBNPr92z4J> >>> . >>> >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >>> googlegroups.com. >>> >>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>> . >>> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/4JA1h79Ss5IJ. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
