Dear Craig, my first step was to join Quora but it asked for my password what I denied to disclose to Facebook and other 'social' networks as well (staying private). In the quoted excerpt were wise thoughts (time-scale etc.) but it did not address my main point: whatever we THINK about that 'thing' (rather: about that process) Ccness stems from Within our past human experience (maybe replenished to the present level). In my agnostic views there is more to such a universal relation than whatever we CAN know as of today. So with a proper definition: a rock, or an idea, can have Ccness, once we imagine as 'rock' something more reliable than our ever-growing partial knowledge about the 'world' (beyond the model formed from our already achieved informational explanations). Then I subscribe to the 'obviously'.
Those (and other) genius physicists quoted in your post owe us the explanation how to connect the partial human explanatory thoughts to the working technology based on the same. Although IMO our technology is ALMOST good, there are surprising mishaps occurring in all fields we have. So how would you connect the "rock" with "Ccness"? your examples (e.g. magnetism etc.) are also physically imagined phenomena, measured by instruments constructed for measuring such imagined phenomena. After the Tibetan wisdom (matter is derived from mind) you wrote: * On this, I think Bruno, Stephen, and I agree. Where I disagree with comp is that I see the stuff of the mind as not just numberstuff, but sense. * Then you postulate * How I think it works is through a multisense realism* ** and we try to 'realize' - "A" - realism (ONE sense) over historical fantasies. A multi sense symmetry is beyond us, even a detailed Hilbert space explanation is more than the average mind can follow. I accept the "I dunno", but I cannot accept hints how it 'might' (or should) be since we don't know a better way. I wonder about your 'multisense realism. Bruno applies his arithmetical realism, others their faith-based one, but ONE. Nobody is schizophrenic enough to think in multiple realism. So I deem your postulate a wishful idea without practical content for us, humans, today. Your text is beautifully written in a style out of the world. I am not up to it. I believe there is much more to the "world" than our capabilities of today may cover or absorb. So I turn humble and agnostic (better than ignorant). JM On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote: > Could a rock have consciousness? Good answer from someone on Quora: > http://www.quora.com/Could-a-rock-have-consciousness > > " Yes, obviously. > > Why obviously? > > Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made > of? Specifically, the disconnect that must occur if some parts of > reality are “conscious” while others aren’t. And don’t get me started > on the nonsense superstition of “emergent properties” — show me one > “emergent property” that is independent of the conscious observer > coming to the conclusion it is emergent. > > Secondly, as physicists are now starting to realize (or realise if > you’re English/Australian): > > Let’s start with Prof. Freeman Dyson: > > “Quantum mechanics makes matter even in the smallest pieces into > an > active agent, and I think that is something very fundamental. > Every > particle in the universe is an active agent making choices between > random processes.”2 > > “…consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along > by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing > the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and > another. In > other words, mind is already inherent in every electron.”3 > > Physicist Sir Arthur Eddington > > “Physics is the study of the structure of consciousness. The > “stuff” of the world is mindstuff.” > > and > > “It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the > view that the substratum of everything is of mental character.” > > Physicist Prof. Richard Conn Henry > > “In what is known as a “Renninger type experiment,” the wave > function is collapsed simply by a human mind seeing nothing. No > irreversible act of amplification involving the photon has taken place— > yet the decision is irreversibly made. The universe is entirely > mental.” > > Prof. Amit Goswami > > “we have a new integrative paradigm of science, based not on > the primacy of matter as the old science, but on the primacy of > consciousness. Consciousness is the ground of all being…”1 > > > Then of course, we have been reminded by sages throughout history > of this basic element: > > All phenomena are projections in the mind. > —The Third Karmapa > > Matter is derived from mind, not mind from matter. > —The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation > > The list goes on." > > On this, I think Bruno, Stephen, and I agree. Where I disagree with > comp is that I see the stuff of the mind as not just numberstuff, but > sense. Not only no stuff at all, but the antithesis of stuff. Not > emptiness (the lack of stuff), but the insoluble solvent of stuffness > itself. Where arithmetic is represented as methodical encoding, sense > guesses and makes it up as it goes along. > > It seems enigmatic and mysterious because it is a thesis which is > blind to itself except through its reflected antithesis, which is not > mysterious or enigmatic but public and declarative. This does not mean > that we can't understand what it is and communicate effectively about > that understanding. > > We can use the symmetry as a mirror to reflect light into the dark of > our blind thesis. Both comp and materialism ignore the symmetry and > assume that subjectivity is part of a material or an arithmetic > thesis, which leads to the Explanatory Gap, Hard Problem, and Symbol > Grounding problem. Instead, if we focus on the symmetry itself we can > infer the qualities of the Hard Solution, which is of course, > inference and symmetry themselves. This is what sense is all about. > Connecting the dots. Taking a leap of faith. Bridging the gap. It is > not a wild ass guess, but a puzzle to be solved, an itch to be > scratched, a need to be filled. > > How I think it works is through a multisense realism. Inferences > accumulate a figurative history which is retained in the now. What we > learn is stored literally in our ongoing perception. These living > histories or channels of sense are woven together as worlds or > perceptual inertial frames. The trick is that weaving such a world > elevates the subjective perception above what they have woven, so that > they can see through the motives of worlds beneath them while the > subject becomes invisible or opaque to the less significant subjects. > What it looks like to the elevated subject is determinism. Knowledge > and power. > > By seizing or appropriating this power over lesser worlds, the subject > disenchants her antithesis and amplifies her own - in the form of > increasingly effective motive force. The power to see through things > brings a power to see things through. Decisiveness, strategic > foresight, intelligence. Transparency informs the eye, the aye, and > the I to progress its own preferences and willfulness. It takes the > reigns and questions what used to be a simple public fact ('man cannot > fly') and turns it into private ideas ('seems like maybe man can fly > with a propeller and wings') until eventually one of those ideas lead > to other ideas that ultimately transform a private history of thought > into new public fact. Using knowledge for power is what technology is. > > Yes Doctor is a great way to remember how this works. The idea of > betting on something important (pulling the trigger on something you > have 'designs on') is what sense and motive is all about. Signs and > designs are the thesis, current and power are the 3p antithesis when > we see the signs and designs of less significant worlds from a > distance. > > -- > 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 > 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 email@example.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.