The anaogue is the wave in the sea: The wave thinks itself conscious and a
person, and screams with horror as it sees its fate is to be annihilated by
crashing onto the rocks. It does not understand that it is a part of
something bigger and more permanent.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marchal [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 16 March 1999 11:18
> To: Higgo James
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: consciousness based on information or computation?
> >Bruno, eastern philosophers have denied each of the following and gone on
> >to greater things as a result:
> >Consciousness is private. This entails, by definition, an owner.
> > Consciousness is subjective. This entails, by definition, a subject.
> >Consciousness is personal. This entails, by definition, a person
> My feeling is that you make a confusion between the ego and the person.
> I know eastern philosophers who get higher state of consciousness through
> dissolution of ego. But it seems to me they remain living person through
> the process (chinese even insist on that point).
> In the description of "cosmic consciousness", the "I" (ego) seems to
> disappear completely, but the person remains, even if it is in the form
> of the Big One or the True Emptyness, etc... (any word used here create
> confusion !)
> If you really belief it is possible to be conscious without being some
> one, I would be glad if you can give me an explanation, or an exemple, ...
> Of course I aknowledge that it is possible to be conscious without
> knowing you are some one (for exemple if you are conscious without being
> self-conscious), but being conscious without being some one seems to me a
> (pyscho)logical contradiction.
> I miss something, or what ?