John Mikes wrote:
> Dear "benjamin" if this is your name (benjayk?)

John Mikes wrote:
> I believe this post is not 'joining' the chorus of the debate. Or is it?
> Benjayk wrote:
> "*Consciousness is simply a given"*
> OK, if you just disclose ANYTHING about it as you formulate that 'given'.
> Your(?) logic seems alright that if it is 'originated' upon numbers then
> the
> * 'consciousness-based' *numbers are a consequence of a consequence (or
> prerequisite to a prerequisite).
>  I am not decrying the 'origin' of consciousness, rather its entire
> concept
> - what it may contain, include, act with, by, for, result in, - or else we
> may not even know about today..
> Then I may stipulate about an origin for it.
Sorry, I can't follow you... You do not accept the concept of consciousness
and then want an origin for it?

John Mikes wrote:
> * ---"EXISTS?"---* as WHAT?
> I volunteered on many discussion lists a defining generalization:*
> response
> to relations, *
> (originally: *to information*, which turned out to be a loose cannon). In
> such general view it is not restricted to animates, in-animates, physical
> objects, ideas, or more, since the 'relations' are quite ubiquitous even
> beyond the limited circle of our knowledge. In such sense:* it exists*,
> indeed.
> Not (according to me) in *THOSE *systems, but everywhere.


View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

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
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to