Consciousness isn't conceptual. It conceives but it isn't limited to detached modalities of instruction. Consciousness is carnal and terrifying, awe-inducing, excruciating, dull, silly. Concepts, semes, memes, are all second order arrangements and modulations of directly experienced and irreducible qualia.
On Saturday, September 8, 2012 8:56:10 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > They're close in mneaning, but a seme emphasizes meaning more than > information( a meme) I think. > > Seme > > (s锟斤拷m) > *n.* *1.* *(Linguistics)* A linguistic sign. *2.* *(Linguistics)* A > basic component of *meaning *of a morpheme, especially one which cannot > be decomposed into more basic components; a primitive concept. > > Meme > > <http://app.thefreedictionary.com/AdFeedback.aspx?bnr=Um9zMTYweDYwMEdvb2dsZURmcFVT> > > meme (mm) > *n.* > A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that > is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. > > Roger Clough, [email protected] <javascript:> > 9/8/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Bruno Marchal <javascript:> > *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> > *Time:* 2012-09-08, 04:23:38 > *Subject:* Re: The Unprivacy of Information > > > On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:49, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > Although I don't follow Dawking's views on life and God, > I think his idea of "semes", which are like genes but ideas instead, > is a very good one. If the logic follows through, then > man is the semes' way of propagating itself through society. > > > semes? is it not the memes? > > Bruno > > > > > Roger Clough, [email protected] <javascript:> > 9/7/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> > *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> > *Time:* 2012-09-06, 13:39:10 > *Subject:* The Unprivacy of Information > > (reposting from my blog <http://s33light.org/post/31001294447>) > > If I锟� right, then the slogan 锟�nformation wants to be free is not just an > intuition about social policy, but rather an insight into the ontological > roots of information itself. To be more precise, it isn锟� that information > wants to be free, it is that it can锟� want to be anything, and that > ownership itself is predicated on want and familiarity. Information, by > contrast, is the exact opposite of want and familiarity, it is the empty > and generic syntax of strangers talking to strangers about anything. > > I propose that information or data is inherently public such that it lacks > the possibility of privacy. Information cannot be secret, it can only be > kept a secret through voluntary participation in extra-informational social > contracts. It is only the access to information that we can control - the > i/o, we cannot become information or live *in* information or as > information.* > > Information spreads only as controlled changes in matter, not > independently in space or non-space vacuum. Information is how stuff seems > to other stuff. Computation exploits the universality of how many kinds of > stuff make sense in the same basic ways. It is to make modular or 锟�igital > collections of objectified changes which can be inscribed on any > sufficiently controllable substance. Not live hamsters or fog. They make > terrible computers. > > To copyright information or to encrypt it is to discourage unauthorized > control of information access. This underscores the fact that information > control supervenes on (requires) capacities of perception and intent rather > than the capacities of information itself. We have to be shamed or > frightened or tempted into agreeing to treat information as proprietary on > behalf of the proprietor锟� interests.*We can锟� train information not to > talk to strangers*. > > The data itself doesn锟� care if you publish it to the world or take > credit for writing Shakespeare锟� entire catalog. This is not merely a > strange property of information, this is the defining property of > information in direct contradistinction to both experience and matter. I > maintain however, that this doesn锟� indicate that information is a neutral > monism (singular ground of being from which matter, energy, and awareness > emerge), but rather it is the neutral nihilism - the shadow, if you will, > of sensorimotive participation divisible by spacetime. It锟� a protocol that > bridges the gaps between participants (selves, monads, agents, > experiences), but it is not itself a participant. This is important because > if we don锟� understand this (and we are nowhere near understanding this > yet), then we will proceed to exterminate our quality of life to a hybrid > of Frankenstein neuro-materialism and HAL cyberfunction-idealism. > > To understand why information is really not consciousness but the > evacuated forms of consciousness, consider that matter is proprietary > relative to the body and experience is proprietary relative to the self, > but information is proprietary to nothing. Information, if it did exist, > would be nothing but the essence of a-proprietary manifestation. It has no > dimension of subjectivity (privacy, ownership, selfhood) at all. It is > qualitatively flat. Information as a word is a mis-attribution of what is > actually, ontologically, 锟�ormations to be interpreted as code, to be > unpacked, reconstituted, and reconstituted as a private experience. > *Who and what we are is sensorimotive matter (or materialized > participation if you prefer锟�here are a lot of fancy ways to describe it: > Meta-juxtaposing afferent-efferent phenomenal realism, or private > algebraic/public-geometric phenomenal realism, orthogonally involuted > experiential syzygy, etc.) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bymuNo_xJ2QJ. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:>. > 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]<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rSL_2UgTbWYJ. 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.
