Re: Consciousness is information?
Bruno Marchal skrev: Something conscious cannot doubt about the existence of its consciousness, I think, although it can doubt everything else it can be conscious *about*. It is the unprovable (but coverable) fixed point of Descartes systematic doubting procedure (this fit well with the self-reference logics, taking consciousness as consistency). Someone unconscious cannot doubt either ... (A zombie can only fake doubts) Yes, you are right. I can only fake doubts... We live on the overlap of a subjective un-sharable certainty (the basic first person knowledge) and an objective doubtful but sharable possible reality (the third person belief). To keep 3-comp, and to abandon consciousness *is* the correct materialist step, indeed. But you cannot keep 1-comp(*) then, because it is defined by reference to consciousness. When you say yes to the doctor, we assume the yes is related to the belief that you will survive. This means you believe that you will not loose consciousness, not become a zombie, nor will you loose (by assumption) your own consciousness, by becoming someone else you can't identify with. I can say yes to the doctor, because it will not be any difference for me, I will still be a zombie afterwards... -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Temporary Reality
On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/4 daddycay...@msn.com: I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of fake certainty. Not good. So that implies that atheism is the way to go? But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would result in expanding our consciousness? Perhaps. But saying that something would be nice doesn't have any any bearing whatsoever on whether it is so. -- Stathis Papaioannou The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the universe [by a person]. As part of the process of calling Kim's suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than simply being inescapable, but is fundamental. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Temporary Reality
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:33:52 -0700 Subject: Re: Temporary Reality From: daddycay...@msn.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/4 daddycay...@msn.com: I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of fake certainty. Not good. So that implies that atheism is the way to go? But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would result in expanding our consciousness? Perhaps. But saying that something would be nice doesn't have any any bearing whatsoever on whether it is so. -- Stathis Papaioannou The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the universe [by a person]. As part of the process of calling Kim's suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than simply being inescapable, but is fundamental. What do you mean when you say that *we* are persons, though? The word can carry different hidden connotations for different people. Would you say that a deterministic A.I. computer program could be a person or does the word suggest free will or a soul? Does the word suggest we have some sort of essential self that remains unchanged over time, in contrast to the view of the self as an ever-changing dynamical process that's suggested by modern neuroscience (and perhaps also by Buddhism)? Do persons have natural boundaries or can there be something subjective about where one person ends and another begins--for example, would it be wrong in any absolute sense to view my left and right brain as two separate persons cooperating and sharing information by a high-bandwidth channel? If technology allowed different human brains to share information in the same way, a la the Borg in Star Trek, could the resulting collective mind be seen as a single person? Some mystical/idealist philosophies might say that our minds are already all connected on a sort of subconscious or implicit level, and that God is a name for this sort of collective self shared by all of us...I sometimes think that something like this could be true in some sort of transhumanist Omega Point theory in which intelligence is destined to expand towards infinite complexity, with every smaller mind existing both as an entity in itself but also recreated within larger minds further in the future (I offered some speculations about this in the context of reconciling the ASSA with quantum immortality at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/988c1148d589747d ) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Temporary Reality
On 07/05/2009, at 4:33 AM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote: The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the universe [by a person]. OK - the only advantage I am suggesting is that atheism be seen as a staging post to a future, more correct theology. As such, atheism could be serving a strictly beneficial purpose at this time. Why I refer to it as temporary reality. It may actually be necessary to be wrong about something to provoke the mind to jump off the rails of its habitual patterns of recognition in order to open up the perception to something hitherto unseen. This is what Lateral Thinking does. By being openly wrong or outrageously inaccurate about something, the local equilibrium of the mind is perturbed and the possibility of movement can follow. Your suggestion that a relationship with God expands consciousness is fine. IF such a thing were true THEN the conclusion follows. I also offer the thought that IF God exists THEN we may have to ditch all organised religion at some stage to allow for correct theology to see the light of day. This process actually appears to be underway in many parts of the globe which is why I'm talking about it. Bruno's suggestions about the nature of God (a person, a thing, a mathematical truth, an experience of altered states, a relationship etc.) is the kind of thought that would probably only occur to an already-expanded consciousness. As part of the process of calling Kim's suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than simply being inescapable, but is fundamental. Couldn't agree more. If you want my tuppence worth on this I say we are all of us God. Religion says that Man was made in the image of God. Well, it could obviously be the other way around. Whatever the relationship, it is clearly a symmetrical one. K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Temporary Reality
2009/5/7 daddycay...@msn.com: On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/4 daddycay...@msn.com: I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of fake certainty. Not good. So that implies that atheism is the way to go? But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would result in expanding our consciousness? Perhaps. But saying that something would be nice doesn't have any any bearing whatsoever on whether it is so. -- Stathis Papaioannou The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the universe [by a person]. As part of the process of calling Kim's suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than simply being inescapable, but is fundamental. That we are persons, conscious, have feelings is an obvious truth and an important truth, and maybe even a fundamental truth. But I don't see how that leads to the idea of big, supernatural person. This is the same sort of thinking that led more primitive people to the idea of a sky god, or a fertility god, or a god for whatever else they (quite legitimately) considered profound and important. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Temporary Reality
On May 6, 3:14 pm, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 07/05/2009, at 4:33 AM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote: The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the universe [by a person]. OK - the only advantage I am suggesting is that atheism be seen as a staging post to a future, more correct theology. As such, atheism could be serving a strictly beneficial purpose at this time. Why I refer to it as temporary reality. It may actually be necessary to be wrong about something to provoke the mind to jump off the rails of its habitual patterns of recognition in order to open up the perception to something hitherto unseen. This is what Lateral Thinking does. By being openly wrong or outrageously inaccurate about something, the local equilibrium of the mind is perturbed and the possibility of movement can follow. Your suggestion that a relationship with God expands consciousness is fine. IF such a thing were true THEN the conclusion follows. I also offer the thought that IF God exists THEN we may have to ditch all organised religion at some stage to allow for correct theology to see the light of day. This process actually appears to be underway in many parts of the globe which is why I'm talking about it. Yes, it seems to me that the process of relating to God as a person and therefore expanding consciousness would result in continuously ditching all organized religion as you put it, i.e. continously having the old skins slough off to make way for the new. Such is the way of life. Bruno's suggestions about the nature of God (a person, a thing, a mathematical truth, an experience of altered states, a relationship etc.) is the kind of thought that would probably only occur to an already-expanded consciousness. As part of the process of calling Kim's suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than simply being inescapable, but is fundamental. Couldn't agree more. If you want my tuppence worth on this I say we are all of us God. Religion says that Man was made in the image of God. Well, it could obviously be the other way around. Whatever the relationship, it is clearly a symmetrical one. K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Temporary Reality
On May 6, 12:47 pm, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:33:52 -0700 Subject: Re: Temporary Reality From: daddycay...@msn.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/4 daddycay...@msn.com: I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of fake certainty. Not good. So that implies that atheism is the way to go? But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would result in expanding our consciousness? Perhaps. But saying that something would be nice doesn't have any any bearing whatsoever on whether it is so. -- Stathis Papaioannou The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the universe [by a person]. As part of the process of calling Kim's suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than simply being inescapable, but is fundamental. What do you mean when you say that *we* are persons, though? I think that knowing what a person is is sort of like knowing what consciousness is. We just have to go right ahead and be a person and relate to other persons, in faith. Rather like relating to my wife. I've given up trying to figure her out, draw up a theory on who she is and why, and based on that theory algorithmically (is that word allowed in here?) come up with what therefore I should do in each situation. I have to just be me and it seems to usually work out, thankfully. Sorry I can't be more precise. The word can carry different hidden connotations for different people. Would you say that a deterministic A.I. computer program could be a person or does the word suggest free will or a soul? Does the word suggest we have some sort of essential self that remains unchanged over time, in contrast to the view of the self as an ever-changing dynamical process that's suggested by modern neuroscience (and perhaps also by Buddhism)? Do persons have natural boundaries or can there be something subjective about where one person ends and another begins--for example, would it be wrong in any absolute sense to view my left and right brain as two separate persons cooperating and sharing information by a high-bandwidth channel? If technology allowed different human brains to share information in the same way, a la the Borg in Star Trek, could the resulting collective mind be seen as a single person? Some mystical/idealist philosophies might say that our minds are already all connected on a sort of subconscious or implicit level, and that God is a name for this sort of collective self shared by all of us...I sometimes think that something like this could be true in some sort of transhumanist Omega Point theory in which intelligence is destined to expand towards infinite complexity, with every smaller mind existing both as an entity in itself but also recreated within larger minds further in the future (I offered some speculations about this in the context of reconciling the ASSA with quantum immortality athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/988c1148d589747d)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
