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: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> 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: <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
> [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 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