On Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > 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, >
As long as you have another brain to experience the extracted memories in 1p, then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a 3p transmission of some experiential content from one brain to another. > 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? > For me the primary stuff is sensory-motor presence. Particles are public sense representations. N, +, * are private sense representations. Particles represent the experience of sensory-motor obstruction as topological bodies. Integers and arithmetic operators represent the sensory-motor relations of public objects as private logical figures. Craig > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Craig Weinberg > <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/4JA1h79Ss5IJ. 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.
