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, rcl...@verizon.net <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, rclo...@verizon.net <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 everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <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 everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <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 everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to