And you also made a solemn promise to read the ones you've got? Wait a year or two, and I'll make my book available for a free download - if you have the time then, you'll be able to read it without breaking your promise :)
In the meantime, I have to keep up the pretense of this book being a commercial enterprise so I can claim my publishing expenses as a tax deduction. I'm working on making a cheap PDF version available soon, since Booksurge don't offer that service any more. Cheers On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:18:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Russell, > thanks for the detailed reply with the agreement against Ccnss being sort-of > a self-awareness. Unfortunately I cannot get to your book for the time being > (we made a solemn oath with my wife at our 50th NOT to buy any more books, > rather get rid of most of them) and our excellent publ library does not > provide the fresh editions). > > On Nagel's bat (and later in JCS Hameroff-Penrose's 'worm') I wrote my > objection that WE want to understand with OUR level ideation the mental > functions of a bat or a worm - of course we cannot. So I seek a better (or > none?!) definition than a comparison to those. > > And a consensus on Ccness will never set in as long as diverse "researchers" > get grants (awards, tenure, etc.) and publish books with the diverse > identifications - theories (against all other ones). See the 15 year > success of the Tucson Conferences. > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:52 AM > Subject: Re: Maudlin's argument > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 11:44:38AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > 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). > > > > We'll probably be old men (QTI-like ancient) by the time there is any > > concensus on the subject. > > > > I operationally define consciousness in terms of Bostrom's > > "reference class" - ie the property of there being something for it be > > like (references of Nagel's What is to be like bat - if bats are > > consciousm the question is answerable, if not then there is nothing > > that it is like to be a bat). > > > > Note that this is _not_ equivalent to self-awareness, which is the > > "feeling of self" you talk about. Mind you, self-awareness does seem > > to be necessary for consciousness in order to prevent the Occam > > catastrophe, which I mention in my book, and probably on this list. > > > > Process is covered by my "TIME" postulate, which I've been > > deliberately somewhat vague on. It essentially says that experienced > > observer moments can be placed into an ordered set (mathematical > > notion of ordering - for every experienced observer moment, all other > > experienced moments must exist in the past or the future of that one). > > > > This leaves open a wide variety of time structures (continuous, > > discrete, rational and so on), and indeed all structures called > > timescales is included. However, it dismisses things like 2D time, so > > it could potentially be wrong. > > > > > > > > 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: <[email protected]> > > > 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 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Australia > > > http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > > > > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- *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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
