I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite my
belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) from a
brain, I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness
emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree
of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the
emergence from complexity idea.
Still I feel that you avoid some questions. Maybe it's just my lack of
understanding of what you're saying. For example: what is the primary
"stuff" in your theory? In the same sense that for materialists it's
subatomic particles and for comp it's N, +, *. What's yours?
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 6:18:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>> Hi Craig,
>>> Cool. I actually would have agreed with you and a lot of people here at
>>> different times in my life. It's only been lately in the last five years or
>>> so that I have put together this other way of understanding everything. It
>>> gets lost in the debating, because I feel like I have to make my points
>>> about what is different or new about how I see things, but I do understand
>>> that other ways of looking at it make a lot of sense too - so much so that
>>> I suppose I am drawn only to digging into the weak spots to try to get
>>> others to see the secret exit that I think I've found...
>> Ok, this sounds interesting and I'd like to know more. I've been away
>> from the mailing list in the last few years, so maybe you've talked about
>> it before. Would you tell me about that secret exit?
> The secret exit is to reverse the assumption that consciousness occurs
> from functions or substances. Even though our human consciousness depends
> on a living human body (as far as we know for sure), that may be because of
> the degree of elaboration required to develop a human quality of
> experience, not because the fundamental capacity to perceive and
> participate depends on anything at all.
> Being inside of a human experience means being inside of an animal
> experience, an organism's experience, a cellular and molecular level
> experience. The alternative means picking an arbitrary level at which total
> lack of awareness suddenly changes into perception and participation for no
> conceivable reason. Instead of hanging on to the hope of finding such a
> level or gate, the secret is to see that there are many levels and gates
> but that they are qualitative, with each richer integration of qualia
> reframing the levels left behind in a particular way, and that way (another
> key) is to reduce it from a personal, animistic temporal flow of 1p meaning
> and significant preference to impersonal, mechanistic spatial bodies ruled
> by cause-effect and chance/probability. 1p and 3p are relativistic, but
> what joins them is the capacity to discern the difference.
> Rather than sense i/o being a function or logic take for granted, flip it
> over so that logic is the 3p shadow of sense. The 3p view is a frozen
> snapshot of countless 1p views as seen from the outside, and the qualities
> of the 3p view depend entirely on the nature of the 1p
> perceiver-partcipant. Sense is semiotic. Its qualitative layers are
> partitioned by habit and interpretive inertia, just as an ambiguous image
> looks different depending on how you personally direct your perception, or
> how a book that you read when you are 12 years old can have different
> meanings at 18 or 35. The meaning isn't just 'out there', it's literally,
> physically "in here". If this is true, then the entire physical universe
> doubles in size, or really is squared as every exterior surface is a 3p
> representation of an entire history of 1p experience. Each acorn is a
> potential for oak tree forest, an encyclopedia of evolution and cosmology,
> so that the acorn is just a semiotic placeholder which is scaled and
> iconicized appropriately as a consequence of the relation of our human
> quality awareness and that of the evolutionary-historical-possible future
> contexts which we share with it (or the whole ensemble of experiences in
> which 'we' are both embedded as strands of the story of the universe rather
> than just human body and acorn body or cells and cells etc).
> To understand the common thread for all of it, always go back to the
> juxtaposition of 1p vs 3p, not *that* there is a difference, but the
> qualities of *what* those differences are - the sense of the juxtaposition.
> That's were I get sense and motive or perception and participation. The
> symmetry is more primitive than either matter or mind, so that it isn't one
> which builds a bridge to the other but sense which divides itself on one
> level while retaining unity on another, creating not just dualism but a
> continuum of monism, dualism, dialectic, trichotomy, syzygy, etc. Many
> levels and perspectives on sense within sense.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> 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
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