Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

59195Re: [existlist] Re: Science and scientists

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    Jan 29, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      If it is a matter of exchanging information, then it isn't "consciousness".
      And as you say, "Information can be exchanged without consciousness." Words
      are important as is their meaning. We tend to bend words and use them in
      other senses, because it seems appropriate at the time. There is no cosmic
      consciousness, although the cosmos can exchange information, because rocks
      do not have a brain. Pluto isn't out there pondering the fact that it
      exists. I doubt it is offended because it is no longer termed a "planet".

      eduard


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary
      Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:44 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Science and scientists

      eduard,

      I'm not redefining consciousness but asserting a different concept which
      might be more relevant, such as information and information systems. After
      all what is consciousness but a highly complex and integrated system of
      information? In order to accommodate the vastness of the universe as well as
      the most fundamental chemical interactions, a medium of exchange needs to be
      defined. Who cares if a robot or a rock has consciousness or free will?
      Information can be exchanged without consciousness. Remove the words spirit,
      energy, and consciousness from an interaction and you are left with only
      information, information of such complexity we can never know it all.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
      >
      > Yes, you can redefine "consciousness" so that it no longer means
      > "consciousness".
      >
      > Consciousness ... as used to be the word ... has the meaning of being
      > aware.
      > If you send a rock to Pluto, you have an interaction. But that does not
      > mean that Pluto is aware of anything.
      >
      > eduard
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:09 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Science and scientists
      >
      > One of the wonderful areas of science is information theory. Using just a
      > bit of the theory one can hypothesize, as did physicist David Bohm, that
      > the
      > brain and every other cosmic phenomenal structure receives and shares
      > information. One could call this information 'consciousness' to the degree
      > that it has stored properties. Awareness isn't limited to the human; that
      > hubris would be an example of anthropomorphism. Awareness in an
      > informational scheme which doesn't require a brain; it requires an
      > interaction.
      >
      > May
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
      > >
      > > Well ... it does get to be a bit much when he calls me "dense" and
      > > "ignorant". I see this often. Some grand scheme like rocks having
      > > consciousness. It just doesn't work out when you look at it closely.
      > > Sure
      > > we are connected to everything else, simply because we are part of the
      > > universe. But that doesn't mean that the universe is somehow looking
      > > out
      > > for humanity or can think. Wheeler and others were at one time saying
      > > that
      > > the universe is only out there because we are here to see it. That idea
      > > also went down the drain. Which isn't to say that the concept of a
      > > cosmic
      > > consciousness isn't a neat, warm and fuzzy feeling idea. Humans have
      > > [or
      > > rather their brains have] invented all sorts of fantasies that are
      > > comfy,
      > > but not real. It's time we entered the 21st century.
      > >
      > > eduard
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: William
      > > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:01 PM
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [existlist] Science and scientists
      > >
      > > Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in
      > > science.
      > > He
      > > is what you might call home schooled. He also equates knowing
      > > scientists
      > > with knowing science. You will not change his mind because he believes
      > > he
      > > knows science. In short knowing and believeing are definitional problems
      > > for
      > > Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad guy , it just means he has a
      > > problem with perception. Had he had formal scientific training the
      > > statements he made about the sun would not have been posted.
      > > Knowing scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science
      > > under
      > > accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
      > > nothing!
      > >
      > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      >




      ------------------------------------

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic