Hi Craig, 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 <[email protected]>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. > > http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9y9by2XXw1qe3q3v.jpg > http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9y9boN5rP1qe3q3v.jpg > > 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. > > http://multisenserealism.com/about/ > > Craig > > -- > 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/-/elwBNPr92z4J. > > 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. > -- 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]. 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.
