thanks for the post in parts to my points (e.g. the "changing of definitions" 
semantically reformulates my position nicely - without the 'atom'-example, of 

Sponging the 'gedanken..' - the falling treebranch reflects in your version the 
omniscient arrogant reductionist position. I go with Popper: no evidence, 
because we cannot encompass 'totality'  (my conclusion). 

I would'nt go to the primitive mechanistic AI-levels to learn about mentality 
unlimited. Bits (and pieces) for unrestricted relations. 
AI simulates (mechanically?) certain aspects of human mentality - up to a 
limited fashion. 

>"I put it to you that this is 
exactly the relational key to understanding Csness."<
--- understanding what? (I know well MY abbreviation). 

>" "Imagine youself floating totally alone in a lightless, energyless universe, 
>with no external anything - to gauge anything by. Not motion not anything. 
>..." What purpose would consciousness serve? "<
I cannot imagine neither 'such' myself nor the situation at all. 

>"Consciousness is only of utile value in situations where self encounters 
I think you speak about sentience, miss the 'response' activity I feel within 
the (unidentified) majority of the Ccness ideas. What you described is in my 
terms "information": some acknowledged  difference. And what do you mean  by "s 
e l f "?  (I really would like to know - one of the topics of my long 

Then again 'complexity' (I believe you use it here in form of the term 
'convolutedness/complexness' not the Rosen-totality sense) is as primitive as 
little we include into its model (system). And you mention 'Universe" - I 
prefer plenitude, from which arose the multiverse in its unlimited variety of 
universes. It's only semantic. 

What is that 'spacetime' you mention? I know it 'has' a fabric, but otherwise I 
consider it an organizational aid for our universe to "understand" its details 
in our physically-based reductionist view. 

John M
Jan 10

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: James N Rose 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:46 PM
  Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life


  My email pgm sometimes (as now) balks at quote/copying 
  material from emails I'm replying to.  So I'll do as best
  to reply without having your exact words to refer to.

  re Bruno's inquiring about how I link changes of inertia
  to Csness, I'll do that in a few days.

  re Gendankens - I won't waste time debating you. The only 
  thing that's important about gedankens is that they
  isolate and highlight certain relationships which seem
  important to the line of inquiry. If real-event scenarios
  & analogs can be used - all the better. But if invented,
  that's not criminal or necessarily 'conceptually illegal'
  :-) .. serves the inquiry and 'what if' exploration of 
  relations, I WOULD SAY.

  re 'falling branch/tree', yes it came to be 'experienced
  sound' versus 'generated wave' - but originally, it was
  a clear 'existential' question: can a thing 'exist' if
  something else doesn't experience the effects OF that
  first thing's existence.   Ie: if science hasn't acknowledged
  something experimentally/experientially, then the 'something'
  has no verity or validity.  No 'proof', no existence.

  Unfortunately, there is a conflated/confused definition of
  'proof'; it now embraces: 'explanation' and independent record.

  re Csness=data storage.  Yes, you no longer count it sufficient for
  Csness.  But a lot of folks do, especially AI researchers.  They 
  presume that 'memory reconstitution' is equal to Csness reconstitution.
  And that's not the case.

  re femto coma-awakening-death.  it may be the gedanken you may find
  frustrating, and then cast it aside as 'unknowable', and if
  unknowable, then ..SOWHAT", but I put it to you that this is 
  exactly the relational key to understanding Csness.

  What is the limit of us, or any system for that matter, to wholistically
  'experience itself'.   That was the opening concept notion I put forth
  in Understanding the Integral Universe.  "Imagine youself floating
  totally alone in a lightless, energyless universe, with no external
  anything - to gauge anything by. Not motion not anything. ..." 
  "What purpose would consciousness serve?  .. It wouldn't. Consciousness
  is only of utile value in situations where self encounters else."

  I keep on that track of logic for a while, parsing away until
  concluding that anykind of 'response' can be embraced as a
  'primitive consciousness' - no matter that its not
  complex or re-reportable/transmittable/sharable.  But it's
  at that extreme, that I conclude that any holistic system,
  even if minimalized in complexness of architecture, can
  be projected to be holistically self-sensitive in an
  information disseminational way.  That the formative 
  entity: spacetime - it already presumed non-discontinuous.
  That continuousness is the stage for disseminated information,
  where changes of time, motion, fields, forces, waves --
  least action -- constitute a 'sharing' of change-information.
  The Batesonian minimal'bit'.  Reliant on the smallest 
  spacetime 'change' .. which is identifiable as some or 
  any change-of-inertia event.

  [ok Bruno, I guess here is a good portion of what you were 
  asking about].

  My main goal was this:  find a reasonable comprehension for
  primitives that could develop into complexities - have a 
  core foundation of simple 'relations' that -become- 
  human/animal sentience.  Bridge the realms of physics
  and biology, without breaking the known/presumed relations
  already identified.

  Only I had to make one crucial change in definitions.

  The universe is not dichotomized nonliving/living.  It is
  dichotomized preliving/living.  The qualia we find in 
  living systems ARE PRESENT in pre-animate systems, only
  they are there in simple basic preparatives forms.

  My favorite example being the valence shells of atoms.
  These are relationally and effectively the "lungs" of 
  an atom - able to fill (inhale) an electron, and 
  unfill (exhale) an electron.  Do atoms actively 
  flex these 'cavities' to capture/exude electrons?  No,
  absolutely not. But life 'breathes', if and only if 
  atoms chemically transfer electrons by moving them
  into and out of valence shelled arrangements.  Life
  'breathes' because atoms breathe.  Atoms aren't 
  'alive', but we couldn't be either unless that
  shared/similar function-relation was fundamentally 
  there in the first place.

  The same goes for Csness.  The universe is a 
  fundamentally pansentient organization with many
  levels of sentient compleness and self-awareness.
  We humans, are part of the sentient capacity of the
  universe to 'understand itself'.  We aren't a separate
  mentality exploring an "it" -- 'out there';  we ARE
  a piece of the 'it' exploring the other parts of
  the It.  We are the universe attempting to not
  just experience itself, but to understand itself - in 
  a novel, different, available, way.

  7 Jan 2007

 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 

Reply via email to