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 [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.
