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 <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.
>
> 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 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.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
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