On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:49:58 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 9/20/2012 12:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:19:30 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> Consciousness requires an autonomous self.
>>  
>
> Human consciousness requires an autonomous human self, but it is not 
> necessarily true that consciousness requires a 'self'. It makes more sense 
> to say that an autonomous self and consciousness both require awareness.
>  
>
>     What if awareness is what happens when autonomous self and 
> consciousness mirror each other?
>

There can't be an autonomous self without awareness as an ontological given 
to begin with, at least as an inevitable potential. What would a self be or 
do without awareness? You can have awareness without a self being presented 
within that awareness though. I've had dreams where there is no "I" there 
are just scenes that are taking place. 


>  
>  
>  
>>  So does life itself. And intelligence.
>>  
>
> We don't really know that. We can only speak for our own life and our own 
> intelligence. I wouldn't presume a self, especially on low levels of 
> awareness like molecular groupings.
>  
>  
>>   
>> So, I hagte to say this, but perhaps consciousness and life may be a 
>> problem with mereology, don't know.
>>  
>
> Why is it a problem. Mereology is the public presentation of life, and the 
> private presentation is the opposite: non-mereology.
>  
>
>     Huh? non-mereology. What is that? 
>

I call it a-mereology also. That's the subjective conjugate to topology. In 
public realism there is the Stone Duality ( topologies ┴ logical algebras) 
while the private phenomenology duality is orthogonal to the Stone 
(a-mereology ┴ transrational gestalt-algebra).

I posted about it a bit yesterday:

Our feeling of hurting is a (whole) experience of human reality, so that it 
> is not composed of sub-personal experiences in a part-whole mereological 
> relation but rather the relation is just the opposite. It is 
> non-mereological or a-mereological. It is the primordial 
> semi-unity/hyper-unity from which part-whole distinctions are extracted and 
> projected outward as classical realism of an exterior world. I know that 
> sounds dense and crazy, but I don’t know of a clearer way to describe it. 
> Subjective experience is augmented along an axis of quality rather than 
> quantity. Experiences of hurting capitulate sub personal experiences of 
> emotional loss and disappointment, anger, and fear, with tactile sensations 
> of throbbing, stabbing, burning, and cognitive feedback loops of worry, 
> impatience, exaggerating and replaying the injury or illness, memories of 
> associated experiences, etc. But we can just say ‘hurting’ and we all know 
> generally what that means. No more particular description adds much to it. 
> That is completely unlike exterior realism, where all we can see of a 
> machine hurting would be that more processing power would seem to be 
> devoted to some particular set of computations. They don’t run ‘all 
> together and at once’, unless there is a living being who is there to 
> interpret it that way - as we do when we look at a screen full of 
> individual pixels and see images through the pixels rather than the 
> changing pixels themselves. 


Craig 


 -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
> http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
>
> 

-- 
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/-/R2dVP-ATA_oJ.
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