Russell Standish wrote:
> 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.

My dear fellow, as I explained in a previous post, consciousness IS a
second time dimension.  The 'Block-universe' view of time (B-Theory)
and the 'Flowing River' view of time (A-Theory) can both be partially
right *if* we allow time to have more than one component or dimension.
The block universe is the mathematical 'scaffolding' of time.  But
superimposed on top of this is *another* component to time....
conscious (sentient) observer moments.  The block scaffolding of time
doesn't flow.  But the observer moments *do*.

Poor old Nick Bostrom and the other pompous academic fools are all so
confused because they think consciousness is reducible to physical
time.  This is the source of all the confusion about anthropic
reasoning and observer moments.  Consciousness is *not* reducible to
physical time, but is *another* time dimension super-imposed over the
top of (supervening on but not reducible to) physical time.  As I said
in my previous post:  'Consciousness is movement of mathematical
continuants through mathematical configuration space' (i.e. a higher
dimensional - abstract - time).

If the academics didn't spend all their time jetting around the world
on elaborate conferences and trying to impress us all with fancy
'papers' and 'lectures' filled with worthless verbiage they would have
realized that time had more than one dimension and that consciousness
should be directly equated with an extra dimension long ago.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to