did I say .
"I am *conscious of infinite complexity???"
*If so, I used the word in a different meaning: like I know about. Or
better: I think I know about. (Belief system).
I explained several times that said infinite comp[lex system is beyond our
knowability although we are part of it with a partial knowledge. I never
promised symbols (or even a rose garden).
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/14/2012 1:58 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> Qualia aspect?
> Please consider my 'rigid' agnostic stance with all those unknowable
> aspects playing into - what you so succinctly call: 'qualia' - I struggled
> for a long time to boil down my MOST GENERALIZED definition for something
> that would cover what many of us (?) call consciousness.
> I don't want to put a partial group of qualia on the banner.
> Besides: I fell into my own concept of 'networks of Networks (Karl Jaspers
> Forum TA62MIK) according to which there is no limitation how far
> connections may go.
> So whatever I would name 'qualia' is by Occam's razor.
> Not as a term of the infinite complexity I have in mind.
> No offense intended, but I strongly doubt that you can be conscious of
> infinite complexity. ISTM that what one is conscious of is almost
> coextensive with what you can put into symbols: language, music, gestures,
> pictures. Experiments with language and music suggest that you can only
> process about 50bits/sec.
> 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
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
For more options, visit this group at