"Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful."
what I want to know is when did this term enter our lexicon... the Greeks
didn't use it, nor the Romans…. I don’t recall either Descartes, Spinoza,
Leibniz, Hume… using it….
It must have started with either Kant or Hegel… Hegel for sure. We use to
use the word soul or spirit, now we like using the word consciousness… it
has become very popular. .. apparently etymologically it is related with to
know or knowing…. But like I said… in so far as we think of “consciousness”
or define “consciousness” it instantly becomes a thought or object of
knowledge and not the real thing.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous
> <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical
> > seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless
> > absurdities....
> Ha! Well, we all have our off days...
> > "We can say that we have information about what we are aware of...but
> > that is not the same as saying that awareness *is* information.
> > Information is a difference that makes a difference. But it has to
> > make a difference *to* someone. "
> > Awareness may very well be information, unless you want to make up a
> > piece of information which masquerades as the entity behind
> > information.
> > You say information has to make a difference to someone... very well,
> > but that doesn't get you out of the problem of the enigma-identity of
> > this supposed someone that you think must be at the root of
> > information.
> Well, I can see how my use of the term “someone” might lead to confusion.
> However, I didn’t intend to imply the existence of some
> “supra-experiential” entity.
> My intended point was that information isn’t something that exists
> separately from, or more fundamentally than conscious experience.
> Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful.
> > "Information is observer-relative. Observers aren’t information-
> > relative. "
> > Don't you see your "observer" is information!
> Well...no. I don’t see that. Though perhaps we’re using different
> definitions of “information”.
> > Moving beyond the notion
> > of a observer... I would even claim that observation isn't occurring,
> > neither as a act or process or object or event.... there is merely the
> > observed.
> There is merely experience.
> > "Representation depends on
> > me. I don’t depend on representation. "
> > Wrong. "You" do depend on representation... but pseudo-representation,
> > "you" depend on a pseudo-representation or a non-representational
> > invented pseudo-representation.
> > "Representation is
> > something you do, not something that you are. "
> > Well then what are you!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at