On Aug 22, 1:06 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 3:41 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> > I would agree that we cannot exclude it. After all if we take qualia
> > ontologically, then it is hard to escape panpsychism. Let me quote
> > Gray in this respect (he was not aware of Bruno's theory):
> > p. 321. "Alternatively, no such new arrangement of the existing laws
> > of physics and chemistry will turn out to be possible. The fundamental
> > laws of physics themselves will need supplementation. It is difficult
> > to see how new fundamental laws could come into play only during
> > biological evolution, or they would not be fundamental. So it is
> > probably inevitable that any theory which seeks to account for
> > consciousness in terms of fundamental physical processes will involve
> > 'panpsychism'.
> And not only physical processes. If consciousness is a result of
> computation in Platonia, it will still be ubiquitous. Only magic can
> confine it to humans or neurons or living things. But that is not to
> say consciousness is all-or-nothing; that idea was part of the magic
> that made it only human. When it is better understood it will be seen
> to occur in all degrees and in many kinds, as we see life today.
In this case, we would need to explain how there can ever be things
that seem to be unconscious. If ubiquitous computation is animating
every decimal point and integer, then we should only have to draw a
picture of Felix The Cat to have it begin an eternal life adventure of
it's own. Same with physical substance; why don't planets dance the
Hokey Pokey sometimes? Why don't they get tired or dizzy from too many
ellipses but we do?
I think my view explains that. It's because the more something is
distant from what you are and where you are, the less you can relate
to it. The less you can relate to it, the more you make sense of it as
generic, exterior, discrete/digital, quantitative, deterministic,
objective phenomenon. The closer something is to you, to what you are
and who you are, the more you identify with it as proprietary
(extended through loyalty-affinity for example), interior (one of us),
compact/analog (nuanced relativism replaces strict stereotypes),
qualitative, sentient, and subjective. Phenomena of the extreme
macrocosm and microcosm only intersect our frame of reference very
slightly, so what we perceive of them makes sense as phenomena which
is extremely 'not like us'.
Of course, there can be nothing in the universe that is truly 'not
like us' but at the same time, there is nothing else that actually is
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