On Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:15:01 PM UTC-4, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:08:15 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, March 14, 2014 9:50:17 AM UTC-4, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Friday, March 14, 2014 2:12:15 AM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH2QXQu-HGE >>>> >>>> A brief, handy rebuttal to materialistic views of consciousness. I >>>> would go further, and say that information, even though it is immaterial >>>> in >>>> its conception, is still derived from the principles of object >>>> interaction. >>>> Even when forms and functions are divorced from any particular physical >>>> substance, they are still tethered to the third person omniscient view - >>>> artifacts of communication *about* rather *appreciation of*. Real >>>> experiences are not valued just because they inform us about something or >>>> other, they are valued because of their intrinsic aesthetic and semantic >>>> content. It’s not even content, it is the experience itself. Information >>>> must be made evident through sensory participation, or it is nothing at >>>> all. >>>> >>> >>> I don't know what the materialistic view is, but consciousness is going >>> to phenomenon of the material in the brain, and its evolution will be as an >>> extension of the same general dynamics of evolution, much of which repeats >>> and patterns. >>> >> >> Can you say that there can be dynamics and pattern without consciousness >> though? How is consciousness different than what would be required for >> patterns to exist? >> > > It's a question to ask. I not familiar with your vision yet Craig, to > offer anything useful. If you're will to write a short narrative of your > ideas and how the come about. Or if you're one of a community of ideas, may > that if you prefer. >
Mostly my hypothesis stems from the idea that if consciousness cannot be explained, the reason for that may be that consciousness is already the primordial capacity to 'make plain'. From there, its a matter of triangulating the difference between information and physics and turning it inside out. What I get is a sensory-motive primitive which senses itself as mass-energy through self alienation, and which makes sense of mass-energy as form-function through re-internalizing the alienated version of itself. The re-internalization is information/representation/communication/computation. > > On the face of it...my answer would be, yeah I see a strong case for > everything arising out of something that everything else also arose out of. > But that's not a reason for consciousness to be like a dynamic or a pattern > in any sense of a set that might be a trillion long, or not to be like a > trillion others. Where does your insight come from, how and why it now > looks like this, by what process. How you go about extracting on going > insights, and how and whether you are getting little exponential surges, > and if you have had one of those break through onto a new level and you now > what it feels like when that happens. > > I don't think it's reasonable proposition big leaps in our knowledge of > reality, are guessable. That's a totally unrealistic, and hopeless > strategy. > I think that it's a reasonable proposition that any big leaps in our knowledge of reality can be made any other way. It can only ever start with a guess. Following through on developing the idea into every area of the cosmos would take many lifetimes. I'm suggesting nothing less than the existence of a second half of physics and cosmology. I keep adding to my site, http://multisenserealism.com. It's not very well edited or organized, but there's lots of aspects to the hypothesis that are worthy of development. Craig > So I guess....tell me the narrative I'd like to know. But if you know the > way you've reduced the dependency of all of your work, on unrealistic > correct guessing, and it's not a secret, then tell me about that as well. > Because you show me that, and I'll show you your destiny. > >> >>> There's always a chance its extra dimensional or spiritual, or in need >>> of a new kind of thinking that brings theology into play, or god. Or maybe >>> Bruno's 'discovery' that it cannot be be discovered. That's always >>> available. Always has been. Was a time chemistry was undiscoverable. >>> Science is the story of discovering the undiscoverable. >>> >>> I think the story is at risk of coming to an end. Not because it had to, >>> but because the line of the road was lost. It's not just the way frontier >>> science has gone the last 50 years. It's also what's happened in the >>> Western society. Destructive forces have been in play. Sadly the West was >>> lost to them. As things stand it's hard to see the turn around. Will take >>> heroes like never before. I'd call it a day...if it wasn't the West. They >>> discovered science and other miracles from among them. Maybe from among >>> them they'll produce the heroes that will save this day. >>> >> >> Sure, or maybe the heroism will go another way instead - with many people >> withdrawing their support from what the world has become? >> >> Cragi >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
