Chris, consciousness constitutes knowledge, in that each knowledge is a form of consciousness !
And, the universe is full of knowledge, a lot of which we've discovered. Hence, the universe is filled with consciousness. On Jul 25, 12:43 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure. To be clear, however, we'd have to start with a definition of > consciousness. > I think the Wiki entry on consciousness does a pretty fair attempt at a > clear definition of what we are talking about: > > *Consciousness* is often used colloquially to describe being > awake<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awake> > and aware > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aware>—responsive<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive> > to > the environment <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_(biophysical)>, in > contrast to being asleep <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asleep> or in a > coma<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma>. > In philosophical and scientific discussion, however, the term is restricted > to the specific way in which humans are mentally aware in such a way that > they distinguish clearly between themselves (the thing being aware) and all > other things and events. A characteristic of consciousness is that it is > reflective, an "awareness of being aware". This > "self-awareness<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness>" > may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, and > dreams.[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0> > 1 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0>]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness> > So, I would limit my assignation of things which could possess consciousness > by thinking about the function of consciousness, and deciding whether it is > reasonable, based on the structure and organization of that object, that it > was CAPABLE of such. If awareness is a function of sensory input (which > seems to be a truism, but perhaps you think differently), then by what > mechanism does a rock gather sensory data? Parse it? Store it? Analyze it? > > I've found that those who think consciousness exists outside of this > paradigm often have a different definition of the word itself. Do you? > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:26 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Chris - for openers let us agree that humans have the quality we are > > calling consciousness. Now, what is it about that quality that gives > > you reason to believe that it is limited in some way or fashion to > > some collection of species, rather that being present everywhere and > > in everything? You say your belief that consciousness is limited "has > > been demonstrated through a reasonable scientific process." Please > > explain. I hope you don't see this as just being argumentative. I > > would seriously welcome any light you can shed on this topic. Jim > > > On Jul 24, 12:05 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Because as an empiricist, I don't assign properties to something without > > > having an active reason to believe such is there, in the form of > > evidence. I > > > don't "limit" the possibilities of conscious; I merely limit my own > > belief > > > to that which has been demonstrated through a reasonable scientific > > process. > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Chris - I guess limiting consciousness to some arbitrary organization > > > > of molecules, or to some set of such organizations, is about as > > > > arbitrary as not limiting it to anything but contending that it is > > > > everywhere and in everything (as well as in nothing - i.e; all of > > > > space). Why do you think it is limited? Jim > > > > > On Jul 24, 11:20 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Why would it seem that way to you? What seems conscious about a rock, > > or > > > > > other inert matter? > > > > > I would extend consciousness to any form of "life" (whatever that may > > > > turn > > > > > out to mean), since as I've described, consciousness rises from > > > > > organization, a function of life. > > > > > > I'm locked behind a somewhat restrictive firewall right now, but will > > > > > endeavor to provide you with some quality citation post haste. :) > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Chris - it seems to me that consciousness is present everywhere in > > the > > > > > > universe and in all matter, and eneryg too for that matter, not > > just > > > > > > is some arbitrary collection of species. I'd like a cite to the > > vast > > > > > > majority you reference. Jim > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 9:50 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Absolutely! > > > > > > > Consciousness is most likely (according to the vast majority of > > > > serious > > > > > > > research on the topic) a function of higher organization. You are > > > > correct > > > > > > to > > > > > > > assign consciousness to monkeys, but to delineate levels of such. > > > > > > > > Something to keep in mind here: It's a common misconception of > > those > > > > that > > > > > > > attack evolution that we're stating "Humans are descended from > > > > chimps" > > > > > > (or > > > > > > > Orangutans, as the case may be). In actuality, we're noting > > common > > > > > > > ancestors. Could Chimpanzees or Orangutans eventually evolve into > > > > Homo > > > > > > > Sapiens? It's highly improbable. > > > > > > > > So, back to your question...in our branch of development, more > > energy > > > > was > > > > > > > expended in prefrontal structure (i.e. the lobes, man.) This is > > the > > > > seat > > > > > > of > > > > > > > higher intellect, our personality, and likely, what we consider > > to be > > > > our > > > > > > > consciousness. The lesser apes? Not so much. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, retiredjim34 < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Chris - I understand what you are speaking of when you > > reference > > > > > > > > people or persons to be the physical human being. While this > > body > > > > may > > > > > > > > well be related to some sort of monkey, the person is not the > > body > > > > but > > > > > > > > the consciousness within that body. There are many examples of > > > > this. I > > > > > > > > doubt if the level of consciousness humans have is much like > > > > whatever > > > > > > > > might be the sort of consciousness monkeys have. Any thoughts > > on > > > > this > > > > > > > > level? Jim > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 11:21 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > From another list I'm on...chimps may not be our closest > > relative > > > > > > after > > > > > > > > all? > > > > > > > > > > From the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review. Anyone interested in a > > pdf > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > original article please let me know. John Grehan > > > > > > > > > *Pitt anthropologist argues humans more like orangutans than > > > > chimps* > > > > > > > > > A University of Pittsburgh anthropologist argues in a paper > > > > published > > > > > > > > today > > > > > > > > > that humans most likely share a common ancestor with > > orangutans, > > > > and > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > chimpanzees, which is the prevailing belief. > > > > > > > > > > Jeffrey H. Schwartz hopes the paper will get researchers to > > > > practice > > > > > > > > > fundamental science and question some assumptions. > > > > > > > > > "What I'll be happy with is if people actually think out of > > the > > > > box > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > consider alternative theories of human relationships with > > apes," > > > > > > Schwartz > > > > > > > > > said Wednesday in a phone interview from Zagreb, Croatia. > > > > > > > > > > He concedes it won't happen overnight, but the paper in the > > > > Journal > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > Biogeography that he co-authored could help, said Schwartz, > > who's > > > > the > > > > > > > > > president of the World Academy of Art and Science. > > > > > > > > > > "We've done the analysis," said John Grehan, who is the > > paper's > > > > other > > > > > > > > > co-author, director of science at the Buffalo Museum in New > > York > > > > and > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > research associate at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. > > > > > > > > > > Jeffrey L. Boore, an adjunct biology professor at the > > University > > > > of > > > > > > > > > California-Berkeley who specializes in interpretive genome > > > > sequences, > > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > > > he knows of no strong reason to discount the DNA studies that > > > > have > > > > > > > > > demonstrated chimps and gorillas are more closely related to > > > > humans > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > orangutans. > > > > > > > > > > "The overwhelming majority of those studies have given very > > > > strong > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > to excluding orangutans from the human-chimp-gorilla group," > > said > > > > > > Boore, > > > > > > > > > who's also CEO of Genome Project Solutions, Inc., in > > Hercules, > > > > Calif. > > > > > > > > > > "If people disagree with it, they need to put out their > > evidence > > > > and > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > go back and forth," said Grehan, an entomologist who also > > studies > > > > the > > > > > > > > origin > > > > > > > > > and evolution of animals and plants. "But I think a lot of > > people > > > > are > > > > > > > > > incapable of dealing with it." > > > > > > > > > > That's because for years most of the scientific community > > > > accepted > > > > > > DNA > > > > > > > > > analyses that suggest humans are most closely related to > > chimps, > > > > > > Schwartz > > > > > > > > > and Grehan said. > > > > > > > > > > But an examination of fossil and other evidence shows humans > > and > > > > > > > > orangutans > > > > > > > > > share 28 features -- including reproductive systems, tooth > > > > structures > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > mouth palates, the scientists say. > > > > > > > > > > Schwartz and Grehan write in their paper that humans share > > only > > > > two > > > > > > > > features > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
