Colin,
I just remembered in a recent post to another list that ~15 years ago - 
thinking of what many think as 'consckiousness', I  boiled down to 
'acknowledgement and response to information', (which I identified rather as 
perceived difference and not the meaningles 'bit'), with the notion that it 
closes in to panpsychism - what I did not like because of the "psycho" 
connotation. I called the characteristic "pansensitiveness".
It is e.g.  an ion feeling/responding to an electrical charge or a statement 
of a philosopher (or economist? ha ha) any variety containing any 
'difference' to be perceived (acknowledged, built 'in' etc.). So 
'everything' has that kind of 'consciousness' at the level of its own 
sophistication and quality. "Psycho" lists did not like it, but found it 
'interesting'.
*
Brain? you probably cover by this name more than the highly watery neuronal 
etc. tissue in the skull - that would be not different from a kneecap which 
is just as part of the total interconnected complexity we include into 
"self, the human" with its mentality (not explained by the 
tissue-measurements).

And good luck to your lambda integral  of an artifact number - a result of 
dividing 2 primitive phyhsical observation-related quantities and called 
entropy in the reductionist physical view.

I apologize for the typos, I use a new conputer (no spellchecker yet) with a 
barely visible keyboard, awful.
(In a language which is the 5th I learned).

John






---- Original Message ----- 
From: "Colin Geoffrey Hales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7


>
>
>>>It makes sense (I have to translate YOUR vocabujlaryh
>> into mine, of course).
>> It ramifies into "SELF" and "Not-SELF" and into the
>> "relational view" of the totality.
>>
>> Also: it leads into my old beef that "everything" is
>> consckious at its own level.
>> What to include into 'everything' is of course a
>> matter of debate, it mayh err into physicalism or some
>> materialistic view of the world.
>>
>> Thank, Colin, I have to digest it
>>
>> John
>>
>
> No problem... although the term
>
> "everything" is conscious at its own level.
>
> gets to look very pan-psychist, which makes me cringe, too. I prefer to
> think of it as an innate perspective whose visibility can be manipulated.
> Brains do it, kneecaps don't. It doesn't have the same 'magical' flavour
> to it that panpsychism brings along, but it looks 'panpsychistic'
> nontheless.
>
> Have fun digesting!
>
> Colin
>
>
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to