Russell, I like your position - but am still at a loss of a generally
agreed-upon description of "consciousness" - applied in the lit as all
variations of an unidentified "thing" anyone needs to his theory.
I 'feel' Ccness is a process. It not only 'knows', but also 'decides' and
directs activity accordingly. I identified it as "acknowledgement of and
response to information (1992) - info not in the information-theory term,
but as a 'noted difference by anything/body'. It is not my recent position
to hold on to that. On another list I read about the ID of Ccness: it is
one's feeling of SELF (of "I") (which makes sense).

You wrote a less controversial variation in your post;
"... I don't see how I am conscious in the first place. ..."
which (being conscious) is part of the picture, I miss the activity in it,
just as in the 'feeling of "I".
(Tied to: 'being conscious OF..., i.e. awareness, what many identify with
the entire chapter.)

Unfortunately the word is so deeply anchored in the multimillennial usage
that we cannot get rid of this noumenon. We could talk about the
'ingredients' by themselves and agree, the ominous Ccness term is a good
platform for eternal debates. Also for grants.

I join you in disproving of assigning total meaning to simplified tools
allegedly active in the mental concept, like a QM abstraction.

John M



----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: Maudlin's argument


>
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 01:41:52PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > However, I don't see why having an interesting future should make the
difference between
> > consciousness and zombiehood. How do I know that I am not currently
living through a virtual
>
> Sure, but I don't see how I am conscious in the first place. Yet the
> fact remains that I do.
>
> Until we have a better idea of the mechanisms behind consciousness, it
> is a little too early to rule out any specific conclusion. I think
> Penrose and Lockwood are dead wrong in their specific quantum
> mechanical connections with consciousness, but I retain a suspicion
> that quantum effects are important in some way.
>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
> may safely ignore this attachment.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Australia
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
>             International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>
> >
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/06
>
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to