--- Charles Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rwas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2001 3:08 p.m.
> >
> > Sequential, temporal,
> > in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my
> view.
> I think some of the people here would argue that you *can't*
> transcend the physical (or possibly the computational). I appreciate
> that that sounds very in-the-box, but if you look at the sort of
> thing physicists (who *tend* to be materialists - not always) have
> come up with in last 20-30 years, I'd say there has definitely been
> *some* jumping out of the box... including quite a lot by David
> Deutsch.
> > In addition, if there is anything my own personal journey has
> taught me
> > is that to breach boundaries in understanding, must discard
> > preconceived notions. It would seem that if one were interested in
> > truth, one adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find
> answers to
> > such an esoteric question as consciousness. But what I feel is
> > happening here is an attempt to force understanding to fit an
> almost
> > certainly flawed initial assumption about existence.
> I agree. Every breakthrough in human thought has been at the expense
> of preconceived notions. Are you saying we *should* "adopt a
> realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to such an esoteric
> question as consciousness" ? (If so I think a lot of the
> people here would agree - the approach using computationalism is VERY
> abstract).
> However - what I'm most interested to know is, what is the "almost
> certainly flawed initial assumption about existence" ?
> Charles

 That time is the fundamental basis for expression or state change:
   I've gone at length about my theories of timeless consciousness.
    if you are interested, I can repost.

 Dimention: that a body must be the locus of computation, or the place 
   that consciousness resides,

 That the body is not simply a shape for an N-dimentional object that  
   intersects with 4-space, 

 That an observer is seperate from what he observes,

 cause-and-efect: that fliping a lightswitch causes the light to come  
   on..,  (sure, it looks that way, but are our observations flawed by
           by nature of being immersed in the system observed?)

 states of consciousness: for one, through my investigations I have    
   found that a person dreams constantly, and typically can only recall
    such events after having been asleep.

 There was a comment about discounting observations that cannot
  be duplicated in a common forum: ie., what one dreams cannot be
  proved or theorized upon because it cannot be analyized in the       

   "Since consciousness is an undefined quagmire in which everybody
    includes whatever one's digestive tract dictates, I deny the use
    of such in serious discussions. We can talk about the single
    concepts of ideation  which  may or may not be included into
    one's private "consciousness" concept. Neither am I impressed 
    by the marvels of the "psychology of the machine", especially
    if it may include mystical fantasies (OOOPS: experiences).
    Somewhere I seek a line between things to be taken seriously 
    and the fantasy-fables. So, not wanting to open the door to the
    Brothers Grimm or to Andersen,
    "I rest my case". Sorry, rwas, about your experiences."
      ...John Mikes

  At least that is my take on this opinion. I'd have to say that
this apears to be a defense of a personal religion than the defense
of an investigative method that discounts data for which has direct
bearing on the subject investigated. I'm appauled that one could
allow himself to attempt to develop a serious theory of consciouness
while aparently having no respect for the only source of information
and data on the phenomenon, which is the people that claim to posses

There are documented cases of mystics altering their physiology through
concentration and providing outstanding exceptions to conclusions of
those bodily functions previously ruled to be impossible to manipulate

If we claim to be lovers of truth by claiming to be scientists, we
should readily embrace truth and all roads to it and cast away all that
would seperate us from it.

Robert W.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information

Reply via email to