benjayk wrote:

*"Sorry, I can't follow you... You do not accept the concept of
consciousness
**and then want an origin for it?"*

I see you did not follow me... I asked for some identification to that
mystical noumenon we are talking about exactly* to make it acceptable for
discussion*.  T H E N  -  I F it turns out to BE acceptable, we may well
contemplate an origination for it - if???...
Better followable now?
Sorry for not having been clearer.

BTW I never said that I do not accept the term consciousness - if it is
identified in a way that makes sens (to me). I even worked on it (>1992) to
apply the word to something *more general* than e.g. awareness or similar
'human' peculiarities. This is how I first formulated my ID for
it:*"Acknowledgement of and response to information"
*. During these 2 decades I attempted to clear the words into newer terms of
advanced meaning (changing to and extending them beyond our limits of
knowledge in my agnosticism like 'relations' etc.)

John M

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 4:01 PM, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:

>
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> >
> > Dear "benjamin" if this is your name (benjayk?)
> >
> Yep.
>
>
> 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.
> ???
>
> benjayk
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32213960.html
> Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to