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 <[email protected]>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 [email protected]. > 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. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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.
