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

Addendum to Message 36749

Expand Messages
  • GeorgeBerzins12@aol.com
    Hb3g, All Feeling that my earlier message (36749, dated 16th November) would be easier to understand if it outlined a conceivable physical process behind the
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 19, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hb3g, All

      Feeling that my earlier message (36749, dated 16th November) would be easier
      to understand if it outlined a conceivable physical process behind the
      proposed cinematographically discontinuous consciousness, I am posting this addition:

      Beginning from 'rock bottom', from the micro level of existence, and assuming
      that consciousness exists even at the level of individual particles, how to
      understand the postulated time-related alternations of consciousness there? One
      way would be by assuming that throughout the universe there are two
      'contrary-minded fields of consciousness', and that individual particles come under
      their sway alternatingly - at any given time a particle would be under the sway
      of one of the fields, then the other field would take over, then back again,
      and so on. A similar picture of the micro level has been outlined by Richard P
      Feynman in his non-mathematical book 'QED - the Strange Theory of Light and
      Matter', but because Feynman seems to have taken for granted, without question,
      that conscious awareness is continuous, he did not think of certain
      time-related oscillations as conceivable oscillations between two fields of
      consciousness, interpreting them instead as purely mathematical waves which, nevertheless,
      govern the probabilities of physical events.

      A complication now emerges. Since the phenomenologists associated conscious
      awareness with intentionality, how could long-term intention/planning be at all
      possible, since any action occurring under the sway of one of the ('contrary
      minded') fields would be liable to be neutralised by a contrary action in the
      following half-cycle? This leads to the conclusion that at the foundations of
      living configurations of matter (and conceivably also at the foundations of
      multi-particle configurations in the inorganic world) the freedom of action of a
      particle when under the sway of one of the fields would by cyclically
      constrained or inhibited. Conceivably, a particle could be cyclically shunted into
      something like a resonant cavity, or cyclically combined with another particle,
      or its freedom af action constrained in some other way.

      One further question now arises. How is it that human consciousness finds
      itself 'within the body', without direct contact with one of the fields of
      consciousness? This leads to the conclusion that human consciousness would be the
      'constrained consciousness', locked into something like a resonant cavity,
      understandable also as 'imprisonment into a cave'. But from a broader perspective
      the 'cave' need not appear as a place of confinement. More like a place of
      safety where, protected from the ongoing alternations of consciousness, growth and
      development could take place.

      Returning now to Heidegger and his attempts to bring out into the light of
      day something he called Dasein, it appears that he may have been struggling to
      overcome a primordial fear arising from the need for one of the fields of
      consciousness to be (and remain) repressed. But it is conceivable that we would not
      have to concern ourselves with 'keeping light and darkness separated', since
      that could have already occurred at the conception of each one of us, with the
      formation of the original cell.


      Gunars


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Trinidad Cruz
      ... Beginning from rock bottom , from the micro level of existence, and assuming that consciousness exists even at the level of individual particles I
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 19, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, GeorgeBerzins12@a... wrote:

        "Beginning from 'rock bottom', from the micro level of existence, and
        assuming that consciousness exists even at the level of individual
        particles"

        I wonder why one would assume that? Does it?
        tc

        "This leads to the conclusion that at the foundations of living
        configurations of matter (and conceivably also at the foundations of
        multi-particle configurations in the inorganic world) the freedom of
        action of a particle when under the sway of one of the fields would by
        cyclically constrained or inhibited.Conceivably, a particle could be
        cyclically shunted into something like a resonant cavity, or
        cyclically combined with another particle, or its freedom of action
        constrained in some other way."

        Gravity comes to mind.
        tc

        "One further question now arises. How is it that human consciousness
        finds itself 'within the body', without direct contact with one of the
        fields of consciousness?"

        This is actually a good question but it cannot be answered in the
        epistemological framework in which you have asked it here.
        tc
      • GeorgeBerzins12@aol.com
        In a message dated 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT Standard Time, ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gunars: It leads to the
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 20, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT Standard Time,
          cruzprdb@... writes:

          > Subj: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
          > Date: 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT Standard Time
          > From: cruzprdb@...
          > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent from the Internet
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, GeorgeBerzins12@a... wrote:
          >
          > "Beginning from 'rock bottom', from the micro level of existence, and
          > assuming that consciousness exists even at the level of individual
          > particles"
          >
          > I wonder why one would assume that? Does it?
          > tc
          >
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Gunars:

          It leads to the simplest overall picture, thereby satisfying Occam's dictum
          that new concepts are not to be introduced without the necessity.

          The proposition that contrary to what common sense tells us and what we have
          always taken for granted, our conscious awareness (when awake) is cyclically
          and cinematographically discontinuous, leads to a number of questions
          concerning the nature of the suggested discontinuity/cyclicity:

          1) What is the repetition rate of the cinematographic discontinuity?

          2) What is the mark/space ratio between the 'consciousness on' and
          'consciousness off' periods?

          3) More generally, what is the waveshape of one complete cycle?

          4) What, if anything, occupies the gaps in continuity?

          5) Is the repetition rate the same for all individuals, and is it constant
          for a given individual or does it vary, perhaps in some coherent way, as in
          frequency modulation of 'carrier waves'?

          6) What conceivable mechanism might 'operate the cinematographic system' so
          to speak?

          The proposition that two complementary 'fields of consciousness' take charge
          of individual particles and their aggregates (from the micro level upwards)
          alternatingly, is relatively simple, the sinewave being 'nature's favoured
          waveshape'.

          What, then, might be the repetition rate (or frequency) of the suggested
          oscillations of conscious awareness? I would rather not 'set the answer to this
          question into concrete', but my hunch is that it might be determined by the
          physical length of some type of long chain molecule or molecules, or perhaps
          something like microtubules.

          If conscious awareness should consist of a sequence of cycles, not unlike a
          'tone', then that would amount to associating consciousness with the character
          of a cogged/geared wheel, something that could be firmly coupled to other such
          wheels, rather like the pedal wheel and the rear wheel of a bicycle, which
          could form the basis of a frequency synthesis/processing system.

          There are some other, interesting, speculations that come to mind, like the
          possibility of 'tuning' or 'modulating' a resonant length at the micro level by
          rapid alteration of the line's length by adding or subtracting to its
          physical length, or perhaps by moving something like a short-circuiting link between
          a pair of lines. All of which depends on consciousness existing from the micro
          level upwards, at least up to the level of the long chain molecules.
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          - - - - - - - - -


          > "This leads to the conclusion that at the foundations of living
          > configurations of matter (and conceivably also at the foundations of
          > multi-particle configurations in the inorganic world) the freedom of
          > action of a particle when under the sway of one of the fields would by
          > cyclically constrained or inhibited.Conceivably, a particle could be
          > cyclically shunted into something like a resonant cavity, or
          > cyclically combined with another particle, or its freedom of action
          > constrained in some other way."
          >
          > Gravity comes to mind.
          > tc


          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Gunars:

          Agreed. Gravity has the effect, for example, in turning a fenced-in enclosure
          that constrains the movement of grazing animals, from an essentially
          two-dimensional structure into an equivalent three-dimensional container.
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

          >
          > "One further question now arises. How is it that human consciousness
          > finds itself 'within the body', without direct contact with one of the
          > fields of consciousness?"
          >
          > This is actually a good question but it cannot be answered in the
          > epistemological framework in which you have asked it here.
          > tc

          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
          Gunars:

          Assuming the hypothesis of the two contrary-minded fields of consciousness is
          substantially correct, then our consciousness would certainly be isolated
          from the 'ongoing conflict out there' in some way or another. But our present
          understanding of the micro level might not be adequate to provide an entirely
          satisfactory explanation of 'exactly how it's done'.
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jeff Cunningham
          Im sure they do, I often have long talks with sand. ... __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 20, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Im sure they do, I often have long talks with sand.

            --- GeorgeBerzins12@... wrote:

            > In a message dated 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT
            > Standard Time,
            > cruzprdb@... writes:
            >
            > > Subj: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
            > > Date: 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT Standard Time
            > > From: cruzprdb@...
            > > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > Sent from the Internet
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com,
            > GeorgeBerzins12@a... wrote:
            > >
            > > "Beginning from 'rock bottom', from the micro
            > level of existence, and
            > > assuming that consciousness exists even at the
            > level of individual
            > > particles"
            > >
            > > I wonder why one would assume that? Does it?
            > > tc
            > >
            > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            > - - - - - - - - - -
            > Gunars:
            >
            > It leads to the simplest overall picture, thereby
            > satisfying Occam's dictum
            > that new concepts are not to be introduced without
            > the necessity.
            >
            > The proposition that contrary to what common sense
            > tells us and what we have
            > always taken for granted, our conscious awareness
            > (when awake) is cyclically
            > and cinematographically discontinuous, leads to a
            > number of questions
            > concerning the nature of the suggested
            > discontinuity/cyclicity:
            >
            > 1) What is the repetition rate of the
            > cinematographic discontinuity?
            >
            > 2) What is the mark/space ratio between the
            > 'consciousness on' and
            > 'consciousness off' periods?
            >
            > 3) More generally, what is the waveshape of one
            > complete cycle?
            >
            > 4) What, if anything, occupies the gaps in
            > continuity?
            >
            > 5) Is the repetition rate the same for all
            > individuals, and is it constant
            > for a given individual or does it vary, perhaps in
            > some coherent way, as in
            > frequency modulation of 'carrier waves'?
            >
            > 6) What conceivable mechanism might 'operate the
            > cinematographic system' so
            > to speak?
            >
            > The proposition that two complementary 'fields of
            > consciousness' take charge
            > of individual particles and their aggregates (from
            > the micro level upwards)
            > alternatingly, is relatively simple, the sinewave
            > being 'nature's favoured
            > waveshape'.
            >
            > What, then, might be the repetition rate (or
            > frequency) of the suggested
            > oscillations of conscious awareness? I would rather
            > not 'set the answer to this
            > question into concrete', but my hunch is that it
            > might be determined by the
            > physical length of some type of long chain molecule
            > or molecules, or perhaps
            > something like microtubules.
            >
            > If conscious awareness should consist of a sequence
            > of cycles, not unlike a
            > 'tone', then that would amount to associating
            > consciousness with the character
            > of a cogged/geared wheel, something that could be
            > firmly coupled to other such
            > wheels, rather like the pedal wheel and the rear
            > wheel of a bicycle, which
            > could form the basis of a frequency
            > synthesis/processing system.
            >
            > There are some other, interesting, speculations that
            > come to mind, like the
            > possibility of 'tuning' or 'modulating' a resonant
            > length at the micro level by
            > rapid alteration of the line's length by adding or
            > subtracting to its
            > physical length, or perhaps by moving something like
            > a short-circuiting link between
            > a pair of lines. All of which depends on
            > consciousness existing from the micro
            > level upwards, at least up to the level of the long
            > chain molecules.
            > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            > - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            > - - - - - - - - -
            >
            >
            > > "This leads to the conclusion that at the
            > foundations of living
            > > configurations of matter (and conceivably also at
            > the foundations of
            > > multi-particle configurations in the inorganic
            > world) the freedom of
            > > action of a particle when under the sway of one of
            > the fields would by
            > > cyclically constrained or inhibited.Conceivably, a
            > particle could be
            > > cyclically shunted into something like a resonant
            > cavity, or
            > > cyclically combined with another particle, or its
            > freedom of action
            > > constrained in some other way."
            > >
            > > Gravity comes to mind.
            > > tc
            >
            >
            > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            > - - - - - - - -
            > Gunars:
            >
            > Agreed. Gravity has the effect, for example, in
            > turning a fenced-in enclosure
            > that constrains the movement of grazing animals,
            > from an essentially
            > two-dimensional structure into an equivalent
            > three-dimensional container.
            > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            > - - - - - - - -
            >
            > >
            > > "One further question now arises. How is it that
            > human consciousness
            > > finds itself 'within the body', without direct
            > contact with one of the
            > > fields of consciousness?"
            > >
            > > This is actually a good question but it cannot be
            > answered in the
            > > epistemological framework in which you have asked
            > it here.
            > > tc
            >
            > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
            > - - - - - - -
            > Gunars:
            >
            > Assuming the hypothesis of the two contrary-minded
            > fields of consciousness is
            > substantially correct, then our consciousness would
            > certainly be isolated
            > from the 'ongoing conflict out there' in some way or
            > another. But our present
            > understanding of the micro level might not be
            > adequate to provide an entirely
            > satisfactory explanation of 'exactly how it's done'.
            > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
            > - - - - - - -
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been
            > removed]
            >
            >





            __________________________________
            Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • louise
            Jeff, I successfully resisted the temptation to quote Heidegger concerning the relationships of Dasein to the extant, but may I ask instead whether the grains
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 20, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Jeff, I successfully resisted the temptation to quote Heidegger
              concerning the relationships of Dasein to the extant, but may I ask
              instead whether the grains ever reply?? Louise

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Cunningham
              <cactusrockranch@y...> wrote:
              >
              > Im sure they do, I often have long talks with sand.
              > > >
              > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com,
              > > GeorgeBerzins12@a... wrote:
              > > >
              > > > "Beginning from 'rock bottom', from the micro
              > > level of existence, and
              > > > assuming that consciousness exists even at the
              > > level of individual
              > > > particles"
              > > >
              > > > I wonder why one would assume that? Does it?
              > > > tc
            • hermanbtriplegood
              ... [Gunar] Beginning from rock bottom , from the micro level of existence, and assuming that consciousness exists even at the level of individual particles
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 20, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, GeorgeBerzins12@a... wrote:
                >
                > In a message dated 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT Standard Time,
                > cruzprdb@w... writes:
                >
                > > Subj: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                > > Date: 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT Standard Time
                > > From: cruzprdb@w...
                > > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent from the Internet

                [Gunar]
                "Beginning from 'rock bottom', from the micro level of existence, and
                assuming that consciousness exists even at the level of individual
                particles"

                [Hb3g]
                There would be no adaptive advantage to the macro level of
                consciosuness that we factually have, the ego capable of
                experiencing, of inventing strategies for survival, if consciousness
                were already given at the micro level.

                [Gunar]
                "The proposition that contrary to what common sense tells us and what
                we have always taken for granted, our conscious awareness (when
                awake) is cyclically and cinematographically discontinuous, leads to
                a number of questions concerning the nature of the suggested
                discontinuity/cyclicity:"

                [Hb3g]
                Granted, the psychophysiology that goes founds consciousness is
                discontinuous, but, if consciousness itself is discontinuous, how do
                we account for having a continuous experience?

                The continuity of consciousness is irreducible in terms of temporal
                succession; we have a concrete experience of duration.

                Hb3g
              • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                ... adaptation or some other combining mechanism that in retrospect seems purposeful (which doesn t make purposefulness a given) does result in the primal
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 21, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  > [Gunar]
                  > "Beginning from 'rock bottom', from the micro level of existence, and
                  > assuming that consciousness exists even at the level of individual
                  > particles"

                  > [Hb3g]
                  > There would be no adaptive advantage to the macro level of
                  > consciosuness that we factually have, the ego capable of
                  > experiencing, of inventing strategies for survival, if consciousness
                  > were already given at the micro level.

                  adaptation or some other combining mechanism that in retrospect seems
                  purposeful (which doesn't make purposefulness a given) does result in the
                  primal pre-life chemical soup clumping to create life-form ancestors of
                  known earthly life-forms today. primate studies don't seem to be pointing
                  to a clear critical sudden cut-off point for the evolution of
                  consciousness into something humans can understand. also i'm unaware of
                  what are the limits of human consciousness once human brains can be linked
                  to each other and to machines expanding their perceptive and critical
                  abilities in that wholes may be greater than their sums.

                  in some (like daina) cultures if not quite a grain of sand is
                  likely addressed, a
                  particular blade of grass may be addressed in an i-thou relationship.
                  when a photographer zooms in on it, he is also paying especial attention,
                  as well as the person viewing the photo. does the blade answer? call and
                  response is pretty basic in music, but how asymmetrical can this be? a
                  photographer may be as interested in a grain of sand as a particular
                  snowflake.

                  if one can speak to the stars, one can speak to the grain of sand - or
                  not. it does make an impression on the person that was not there before,
                  or else that person would not be zeroing in at that intensity of
                  awareness. on the other hand, one may walk on grass almost oblivious to
                  the sensation of grass, to say nothing of a particular blade of grass.
                  in spite of what was said about witches being able to cause an eclipse of
                  the sun, a human more obviously can exert his will on a blade of grass
                  than on a star.

                  > [Gunar]
                  > "The proposition that contrary to what common sense tells us and what
                  > we have always taken for granted, our conscious awareness (when
                  > awake) is cyclically and cinematographically discontinuous, leads to
                  > a number of questions concerning the nature of the suggested
                  > discontinuity/cyclicity:"

                  > [Hb3g]
                  > Granted, the psychophysiology that goes founds consciousness is
                  > discontinuous, but, if consciousness itself is discontinuous, how do
                  > we account for having a continuous experience?
                  > The continuity of consciousness is irreducible in terms of temporal
                  > succession; we have a concrete experience of duration.

                  the sinwave as both continuous and discontinuous, but also with
                  the property of the opposites canceling each other out, is not just a
                  question of how the mind "repairs" the breaks into a seemingly seemless
                  whole. in terms of consciousness there does have to be some memory of the
                  past for some meaningful period of time for the sense of continuity.

                  aija
                • GeorgeBerzins12@aol.com
                  In a message dated 11/21/2005 7:33:32 AM GMT Standard Time, Hb3g@LasVegas.NET ... Gunars I believe that evolution has a teleological component, which is
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 21, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 11/21/2005 7:33:32 AM GMT Standard Time, Hb3g@...
                    writes:

                    > Subj: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                    > Date: 11/21/2005 7:33:32 AM GMT Standard Time
                    > From: Hb3g@...
                    > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent from the Internet
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, GeorgeBerzins12@a... wrote:
                    > >
                    > >In a message dated 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT Standard Time,
                    > >cruzprdb@w... writes:
                    > >
                    > >>Subj: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                    > >> Date: 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT Standard Time
                    > >> From: cruzprdb@w...
                    > >> Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > >> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > >> Sent from the Internet
                    >
                    > [Gunar]
                    > "Beginning from 'rock bottom', from the micro level of existence, and
                    > assuming that consciousness exists even at the level of individual
                    > particles"
                    >
                    > [Hb3g]
                    > There would be no adaptive advantage to the macro level of
                    > consciosuness that we factually have, the ego capable of
                    > experiencing, of inventing strategies for survival, if consciousness
                    > were already given at the micro level.


                    Gunars

                    I believe that evolution has a teleological component, which is consistent
                    with the view that consciousness exists at all levels of complexity. My starting
                    point was Hegel's 'Phaenomenologie des Geistes', together with the amendment
                    that the species did not appear all at once, as Hegel believed, but descended
                    one from another. This point has been considered by philosopher of science
                    Errol E Harris In Stephen Houlgate's 'Hegel and the Philosophy of Nature'.

                    I have also been influenced by C G Jung's expectation (page 261 of the Second
                    Edition of the R F C Hull's translation of Vol 9, Part 2 of the Collected
                    Works, titled 'Aion') that sooner or later nuclear physics and the psychology of
                    the unconscious will draw closer together. Unfortunately, discussion of
                    Jung's writings might be judged outside the range of topics acceptable here, but I
                    have a paper that refers to the matter at:

                    http://www.btinternet.com/~psycho_social/Vol2/JPSS2-GB1.html

                    Sometimes, because of a commercial linkup between BT and Yahoo, the above
                    hyperlink leads merely to their joint advertisement, in which case a more
                    reliable route to the paper would be by first typing:

                    http://www.btinternet.com/~psycho_social/

                    and from there going to Archive and Back Issues, then to Volume 2(1), and
                    finally to the concluding paper in that issue.

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

                    >
                    > [Gunar]
                    > "The proposition that contrary to what common sense tells us and what
                    > we have always taken for granted, our conscious awareness (when
                    > awake) is cyclically and cinematographically discontinuous, leads to
                    > a number of questions concerning the nature of the suggested
                    > discontinuity/cyclicity:"
                    >
                    > [Hb3g]
                    > Granted, the psychophysiology that goes founds consciousness is
                    > discontinuous, but, if consciousness itself is discontinuous, how do
                    > we account for having a continuous experience?
                    >
                    > The continuity of consciousness is irreducible in terms of temporal
                    > succession; we have a concrete experience of duration.
                    >
                    > Hb3g



                    > Gunars:
                    >
                    > The new hypothesis is that 'having a continuous experience' is illusory, in
                    > much the same sense that the fact that the sun rises in the East, traverses
                    > the sky, and sets in the West, does not prove that the earth is stationary and
                    > the sun moves across the sky. A simpler hypothesis, with greater explanatory
                    > power, is that it is the sun that is (relatively) stationary.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • GeorgeBerzins12@aol.com
                    In a message dated 11/21/2005 3:56:03 PM GMT Standard Time, ... Gunars: I wonder if the sands someone was conversing with could have been of the whispering
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 21, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 11/21/2005 3:56:03 PM GMT Standard Time,
                      beldavsa@... writes:

                      > Subj: Re: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                      > Date: 11/21/2005 3:56:03 PM GMT Standard Time
                      > From: beldavsa@...
                      > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent from the Internet
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > >[Gunar]
                      > >"Beginning from 'rock bottom', from the micro level of existence, and
                      > >assuming that consciousness exists even at the level of individual
                      > >particles"
                      >
                      > >[Hb3g]
                      > >There would be no adaptive advantage to the macro level of
                      > >consciosuness that we factually have, the ego capable of
                      > >experiencing, of inventing strategies for survival, if consciousness
                      > >were already given at the micro level.
                      >
                      > adaptation or some other combining mechanism that in retrospect seems
                      > purposeful (which doesn't make purposefulness a given) does result in the
                      > primal pre-life chemical soup clumping to create life-form ancestors of
                      > known earthly life-forms today. primate studies don't seem to be pointing
                      > to a clear critical sudden cut-off point for the evolution of
                      > consciousness into something humans can understand. also i'm unaware of
                      > what are the limits of human consciousness once human brains can be linked
                      > to each other and to machines expanding their perceptive and critical
                      > abilities in that wholes may be greater than their sums.
                      >
                      > in some (like daina) cultures if not quite a grain of sand is
                      > likely addressed, a
                      > particular blade of grass may be addressed in an i-thou relationship.
                      > when a photographer zooms in on it, he is also paying especial attention,
                      > as well as the person viewing the photo. does the blade answer? call and
                      > response is pretty basic in music, but how asymmetrical can this be? a
                      > photographer may be as interested in a grain of sand as a particular
                      > snowflake.
                      >
                      > if one can speak to the stars, one can speak to the grain of sand - or
                      > not. it does make an impression on the person that was not there before,
                      > or else that person would not be zeroing in at that intensity of
                      > awareness. on the other hand, one may walk on grass almost oblivious to
                      > the sensation of grass, to say nothing of a particular blade of grass.
                      > in spite of what was said about witches being able to cause an eclipse of
                      > the sun, a human more obviously can exert his will on a blade of grass
                      > than on a star.



                      Gunars:

                      I wonder if the sands someone was conversing with could have been of the
                      'whispering sands' variety'

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


                      > >[Gunar]
                      > >"The proposition that contrary to what common sense tells us and what
                      > >we have always taken for granted, our conscious awareness (when
                      > >awake) is cyclically and cinematographically discontinuous, leads to
                      > >a number of questions concerning the nature of the suggested
                      > >discontinuity/cyclicity:"
                      >
                      > >[Hb3g]
                      > >Granted, the psychophysiology that goes founds consciousness is
                      > >discontinuous, but, if consciousness itself is discontinuous, how do
                      > >we account for having a continuous experience?
                      > >The continuity of consciousness is irreducible in terms of temporal
                      > >succession; we have a concrete experience of duration.
                      >
                      > the sinwave as both continuous and discontinuous, but also with
                      > the property of the opposites canceling each other out, is not just a
                      > question of how the mind "repairs" the breaks into a seemingly seemless
                      > whole. in terms of consciousness there does have to be some memory of the
                      > past for some meaningful period of time for the sense of continuity.
                      >
                      > aija
                      >
                      >
                      Gunars:

                      The hypothesis is that our conscious awareness is cyclically discontinuous,
                      at a sufficiently high rate of cyclicity for the illusion of continuity to
                      arise. That's the central assertion. The way memory functions does not form part
                      of the hypothesis.


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Herman B. Triplegood
                      Gunar: I brought up your paper and will read it. It is a stretch to impute consciousness to phenomena at the level you suggest no matter how consistent it
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 21, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Gunar:



                        I brought up your paper and will read it. It is a stretch to impute
                        consciousness to phenomena at the level you suggest no matter how consistent
                        it might be with views set forth by Jung, Hegel, or anybody else. Why did
                        consciousness emerge through the course of evolution? Because it was
                        intended that way, through the course of evolution, by a consciousness
                        operating at some quantum level? This presupposes the phenomenon of
                        consciousness, the evolutionary emergence of which is precisely the thing
                        that I would want to see explained.



                        Hb3g



                        _____

                        From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                        Of GeorgeBerzins12@...
                        Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:02 PM
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749



                        In a message dated 11/21/2005 7:33:32 AM GMT Standard Time,
                        Hb3g@...
                        writes:

                        > Subj: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                        > Date: 11/21/2005 7:33:32 AM GMT Standard Time
                        > From: Hb3g@...
                        > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent from the Internet
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, GeorgeBerzins12@a... wrote:
                        > >
                        > >In a message dated 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT Standard Time,
                        > >cruzprdb@w... writes:
                        > >
                        > >>Subj: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                        > >> Date: 11/20/2005 4:51:36 AM GMT Standard Time
                        > >> From: cruzprdb@w...
                        > >> Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > >> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > >> Sent from the Internet
                        >
                        > [Gunar]
                        > "Beginning from 'rock bottom', from the micro level of existence, and
                        > assuming that consciousness exists even at the level of individual
                        > particles"
                        >
                        > [Hb3g]
                        > There would be no adaptive advantage to the macro level of
                        > consciosuness that we factually have, the ego capable of
                        > experiencing, of inventing strategies for survival, if consciousness
                        > were already given at the micro level.


                        Gunars

                        I believe that evolution has a teleological component, which is consistent
                        with the view that consciousness exists at all levels of complexity. My
                        starting
                        point was Hegel's 'Phaenomenologie des Geistes', together with the amendment

                        that the species did not appear all at once, as Hegel believed, but
                        descended
                        one from another. This point has been considered by philosopher of science
                        Errol E Harris In Stephen Houlgate's 'Hegel and the Philosophy of Nature'.

                        I have also been influenced by C G Jung's expectation (page 261 of the
                        Second
                        Edition of the R F C Hull's translation of Vol 9, Part 2 of the Collected
                        Works, titled 'Aion') that sooner or later nuclear physics and the
                        psychology of
                        the unconscious will draw closer together. Unfortunately, discussion of
                        Jung's writings might be judged outside the range of topics acceptable here,
                        but I
                        have a paper that refers to the matter at:

                        http://www.btinternet.com/~psycho_social/Vol2/JPSS2-GB1.html

                        Sometimes, because of a commercial linkup between BT and Yahoo, the above
                        hyperlink leads merely to their joint advertisement, in which case a more
                        reliable route to the paper would be by first typing:

                        http://www.btinternet.com/~psycho_social/

                        and from there going to Archive and Back Issues, then to Volume 2(1), and
                        finally to the concluding paper in that issue.

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

                        >
                        > [Gunar]
                        > "The proposition that contrary to what common sense tells us and what
                        > we have always taken for granted, our conscious awareness (when
                        > awake) is cyclically and cinematographically discontinuous, leads to
                        > a number of questions concerning the nature of the suggested
                        > discontinuity/cyclicity:"
                        >
                        > [Hb3g]
                        > Granted, the psychophysiology that goes founds consciousness is
                        > discontinuous, but, if consciousness itself is discontinuous, how do
                        > we account for having a continuous experience?
                        >
                        > The continuity of consciousness is irreducible in terms of temporal
                        > succession; we have a concrete experience of duration.
                        >
                        > Hb3g



                        > Gunars:
                        >
                        > The new hypothesis is that 'having a continuous experience' is illusory,
                        in
                        > much the same sense that the fact that the sun rises in the East,
                        traverses
                        > the sky, and sets in the West, does not prove that the earth is stationary
                        and
                        > the sun moves across the sky. A simpler hypothesis, with greater
                        explanatory
                        > power, is that it is the sun that is (relatively) stationary.



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

                        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist




                        SPONSORED LINKS


                        Philosophy
                        <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy+book&w1=Philosophy+book&w2=M
                        erleau-ponty&c=2&s=40&.sig=5uQxFeDiUWl_K-ZckJ6K5g> book

                        Merleau-ponty
                        <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Merleau-ponty&w1=Philosophy+book&w2=Mer
                        leau-ponty&c=2&s=40&.sig=jIAUkASUGmdzsmfF6qrJww>



                        _____

                        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                        * Visit your group "existlist
                        <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.

                        * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                        * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                        <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



                        _____



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                        ... whispers, booms, roars, responds to shear stress around 450 Hz as an environmental pollution sensor (air and sea purity) if mostly silica sand, unless the
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 21, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > Gunars:
                          > I wonder if the sands someone was conversing with could have been of the
                          > 'whispering sands' variety'

                          whispers, booms, roars, responds to shear stress around 450 Hz as an
                          environmental pollution sensor (air and sea purity) if mostly silica sand,
                          unless the sand is calcium carbonate (from sea shells), in which case it
                          barks. but just 0.1% pollutants may rough the polished granular surface of
                          the 0.1 - 0.5 mm silica grains sensitive to humidity, loosing the sound:
                          <http://www.science.ulst.ac.uk/ics2002/tsujimoto_g%20et%20al.pdf>.

                          such music humans once heard often in nature, increasingly lost with
                          civilization.

                          aija
                        • GeorgeBerzins12@aol.com
                          Hb3g I think it s an even greater stretch to impute to purely mathematical waves the power to govern the probabilities of physical events, as at the conceptual
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 22, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hb3g

                            I think it's an even greater stretch to impute to purely mathematical waves
                            the power to govern the probabilities of physical events, as at the conceptual
                            foundations of quantum mechanics. The unsatisfactory situation there has been
                            described, inter alia, by Max Jammer in his book 'The Philosophy of Quantum
                            Mechanics'. According to Jammer, one physicist, searching for what many have
                            felt to be a missing component from their understanding, even reformulated
                            Newtonian Mechanics without using the concept 'force', hoping thereby to catch a
                            glimpse of what the nature of the 'missing item' might be.

                            The idea that consciousness could be involved in some way has been suggested
                            by several commentators, but without the notion that consciousness might have
                            a temporal structure (which entails the acceptance of a fundamental dualism
                            different from the Cartesian mind-matter variety), there does not seem a way of
                            bringing consciousness into the scheme of things.

                            Gunars


                            In a message dated 11/22/2005 2:18:23 AM GMT Standard Time, Hb3g@...
                            writes:

                            > Subj: RE: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                            > Date: 11/22/2005 2:18:23 AM GMT Standard Time
                            > From: Hb3g@...
                            > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent from the Internet
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Gunar:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > I brought up your paper and will read it. It is a stretch to impute
                            > consciousness to phenomena at the level you suggest no matter how consistent
                            > it might be with views set forth by Jung, Hegel, or anybody else. Why did
                            > consciousness emerge through the course of evolution? Because it was
                            > intended that way, through the course of evolution, by a consciousness
                            > operating at some quantum level? This presupposes the phenomenon of
                            > consciousness, the evolutionary emergence of which is precisely the thing
                            > that I would want to see explained.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Hb3g
                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • GeorgeBerzins12@aol.com
                            In a message dated 11/22/2005 3:51:52 AM GMT Standard Time, ... Yes, much is lost with the advance of civilisation, and one can only hope for better times
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 22, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 11/22/2005 3:51:52 AM GMT Standard Time,
                              beldavsa@... writes:

                              > Subj: Re: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                              > Date: 11/22/2005 3:51:52 AM GMT Standard Time
                              > From: beldavsa@...
                              > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent from the Internet
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > >Gunars:
                              > >I wonder if the sands someone was conversing with could have been of the
                              > >'whispering sands' variety'
                              >
                              > whispers, booms, roars, responds to shear stress around 450 Hz as an
                              > environmental pollution sensor (air and sea purity) if mostly silica sand,
                              > unless the sand is calcium carbonate (from sea shells), in which case it
                              > barks. but just 0.1% pollutants may rough the polished granular surface of
                              > the 0.1 - 0.5 mm silica grains sensitive to humidity, loosing the sound:
                              > <http://www.science.ulst.ac.uk/ics2002/tsujimoto_g%20et%20al.pdf>.
                              >
                              > such music humans once heard often in nature, increasingly lost with
                              > civilization.
                              >
                              > aija
                              >

                              Yes, much is lost with the advance of civilisation, and one can only hope for
                              better times ahead...eventually...if ever...

                              Gunars


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Herman B. Triplegood
                              [Gunar] I think it s an even greater stretch to impute to purely mathematical waves the power to govern the probabilities of physical events, as at the
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 23, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                [Gunar]

                                "I think it's an even greater stretch to impute to purely mathematical waves

                                the power to govern the probabilities of physical events, as at the
                                conceptual
                                foundations of quantum mechanics."

                                But what is really kind of astonishing to me, Gunar, is how we humans use
                                these concepts of mathematics to find things out about nature that get
                                experimentally verified to be very likely true even though they sometimes
                                fly in the face of our everyday common sense assumptions. The
                                mathematical-experimental way in which science finds things out tells us
                                astonishing things about the nature of the world we live. It is honest,
                                because it stipulates that although speculation has its place in science, it
                                is really only brought in when new evidence shows that our explanation is
                                somehow faulty. Then we get back to the drawing board and try to come up
                                with a better explanation of what we factually, experientially, and
                                experimentally, now know to be true, and that is where the speculation
                                sometimes comes into play, but the explanation is still the most important
                                thing. It needs to be verifiable; it needs to lead to experiments that can
                                confirm or deny the new assumptions a new explanation puts into action. What
                                is really needed, since the world exposed to us by science is so much
                                different than we would have assumed it to be based upon so-called common
                                sense experience, is interpretation. Maybe this is where the philosophy
                                joins hands with science. What science knows, philosophy attempts to
                                understand. But that doesn't have to be just speculation. The interpretation
                                still needs to be founded upon what is scientifically reasonable. So, my
                                question to you is this: what do you hope to explain? What is it that
                                prompts you to suggest that consciousness is present at this micro level of
                                things?

                                Hb3g



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • GeorgeBerzins12@aol.com
                                Hb3g What prompts me to suggest that consciousness is present at the micro level? Clearly, you don t believe that it is present, but on what firm
                                Message 15 of 22 , Nov 24, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hb3g

                                  What prompts me to suggest that consciousness is present at the micro level?
                                  Clearly, you don't believe that it is present, but on what firm considerations
                                  is your position based? It is the currently ruling position, based on
                                  Cartesian dualism, which sees everything that exists in terms of two, qualitatively
                                  very different, foundation stones, so to speak - 'thinking substance' and
                                  'senseless matter'. And particles and their aggregates at the micro level are
                                  'senseless matter'. But because Descartes could not explain how the thinking
                                  substance could possibly interact with senseless matter, how the mind could control
                                  the body, his position in that respect was, and remains, unsatisfactory.
                                  Consequently I don't see my views as challenging a well established and
                                  contradiction-free position, but rather as an attempt to clear up a Cartesian muddle.

                                  Gunars



                                  In a message dated 11/23/2005 10:38:38 PM GMT Standard Time,
                                  Hb3g@... writes:

                                  > Subj: RE: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                                  > Date: 11/23/2005 10:38:38 PM GMT Standard Time
                                  > From: Hb3g@...
                                  > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent from the Internet
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Gunar]
                                  >
                                  > "I think it's an even greater stretch to impute to purely mathematical waves
                                  >
                                  > the power to govern the probabilities of physical events, as at the
                                  > conceptual
                                  > foundations of quantum mechanics."
                                  >
                                  > But what is really kind of astonishing to me, Gunar, is how we humans use
                                  > these concepts of mathematics to find things out about nature that get
                                  > experimentally verified to be very likely true even though they sometimes
                                  > fly in the face of our everyday common sense assumptions. The
                                  > mathematical-experimental way in which science finds things out tells us
                                  > astonishing things about the nature of the world we live. It is honest,
                                  > because it stipulates that although speculation has its place in science, it
                                  > is really only brought in when new evidence shows that our explanation is
                                  > somehow faulty. Then we get back to the drawing board and try to come up
                                  > with a better explanation of what we factually, experientially, and
                                  > experimentally, now know to be true, and that is where the speculation
                                  > sometimes comes into play, but the explanation is still the most important
                                  > thing. It needs to be verifiable; it needs to lead to experiments that can
                                  > confirm or deny the new assumptions a new explanation puts into action. What
                                  > is really needed, since the world exposed to us by science is so much
                                  > different than we would have assumed it to be based upon so-called common
                                  > sense experience, is interpretation. Maybe this is where the philosophy
                                  > joins hands with science. What science knows, philosophy attempts to
                                  > understand. But that doesn't have to be just speculation. The interpretation
                                  > still needs to be founded upon what is scientifically reasonable. So, my
                                  > question to you is this: what do you hope to explain? What is it that
                                  > prompts you to suggest that consciousness is present at this micro level of
                                  > things?
                                  >
                                  > Hb3g
                                  >



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Herman B. Triplegood
                                  Gunars: Remark at a meta-discussional level: I quote Voegelin in response to my questioning of your assertion that I am positioning from a Cartesian
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Nov 24, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Gunars:



                                    Remark at a meta-discussional level:



                                    I quote Voegelin in response to my questioning of your assertion that I am
                                    positioning from a Cartesian standpoint:



                                    “A third method of preventing discussion, closely akin to back stair
                                    psychology, is the tactic of “classification.” The speaker evades the point
                                    at issue by asserting that his opponent’s argument can be classified as the
                                    result of a definite “position” – be it of a political, religious, or
                                    theoretical nature.” (from Voegelin’s essay on John Stuart Mill’s discussion
                                    of freedom of discussion and readiness for discussion in Anamnesis)



                                    There are reasonable philosophical questions that we can pursue about
                                    consciousness. But, if we start out, right at the very beginning, defining
                                    consciousness to be everything, I don’t see very much hope of engaging in a
                                    meaningful theoretical discussion of it. Moreover, if we attempt to shut
                                    down rational discussion by characterizing the questioning of the question
                                    as a dogmatic assertion of a hostile opinion, we have betrayed the question
                                    to the overriding purpose of asserting a right to have an opinion. On that
                                    count, I must state, for the record, that I do not believe we are ever
                                    entitled to our opinions. There is a responsibility that comes with having
                                    an opinion. We should back up what we assert, for better or for worse, no
                                    matter what the risk might be to our cherished beliefs.



                                    It also does not serve as an adequate refutation of Descartes, or Bergson,
                                    or anybody else who takes, as thematic, the observable distinction between
                                    people and rocks, to tack on the label “dualism” or “Cartesianism” and
                                    assume that the last word has then been said. A label is not an argument.



                                    A distinction is not a dualism:



                                    You have characterized my question, a forthright question, asking what is it
                                    that might be explained by imputing consciousness to the micro level you
                                    discuss, as a Cartesian position. Cartesianism aside, all that I am asking
                                    is for you to defend your hypothesis with facts and reasonable explanations.



                                    My counter argument to your assertion is simply this: you have no objective
                                    evidence to back it up. Besides, you framed it in terms of “might be”,
                                    “could be”, and so on, which leads me to think you are consciously
                                    speculating anyway. If you are not outright asserting, but speculating,
                                    which I also do quite a bit here too, I am only asking you for your reasons
                                    for the speculations.



                                    Let’s just take it from a common sense perspective for a moment. I am
                                    conscious. You are conscious. We are both convinced of that, skeptical
                                    arguments aside, are we not?. We probably both believe, to some extent at
                                    least, that cats and dogs have some kind of consciousness, even though it is
                                    believed to be less sophisticated than our own. Here we are guessing; but
                                    this is a reasonable educated guess based upon observed behavior. We tend to
                                    dismiss the idea that plants have a consciousness; at least, we don’t go
                                    around interacting with them, normally, like we interact with each other, or
                                    with our pets. We tend to assume that conscious beings are living beings. In
                                    other words, we don’t really seriously entertain the notion that a rock is
                                    conscious.



                                    Isn’t it reasonable to you that what I am asking is based upon the
                                    distinction between the consciousness I know that I have, the consciousness
                                    that I am convinced that you have, and the being of a rock which is not
                                    conscious at all? This isn’t a Cartesian position. I am not assuming a
                                    metaphysical distinction between thinking and extended being. I am simply
                                    asking how your hypothesis can account for the observed difference between a
                                    conscious being and a lump of inanimate matter. It seems pretty reasonable
                                    to me, starting from this common sense point of view, being open, of course,
                                    to common sense possibly being contradicted by deeper theoretical
                                    understanding, to pose the question, what purpose does consciousness serve
                                    in the evolutionary scheme of things? Why did conscious beings evolve? How
                                    does this help the organism to adapt? If consciousness is present at all
                                    levels of reality, like you say, then how do you account for the difference
                                    between me and the rock? I don’t believe that you can account for that
                                    difference because you have universalized consciousness into basically
                                    everything that is. The distinction, between consciousness and anything
                                    else, then, is here lost, and there is no basis for intelligently posing the
                                    question, “What is consciousness?”



                                    Dualism has not been effectively refuted anyway:



                                    It is one thing to assert a metaphysical dualism between extended and
                                    thinking substance, as Descartes has indeed done. That, by the way, *could
                                    be* a reasonable position for the many reasons which Descartes himself
                                    offers up. A dualism might not be such a bad thing, as long as one can
                                    account for the interaction as well as the distinction. No less a thinker
                                    than Bergson implemented a dualistic position throughout his career and he
                                    was deeply inspired by Descartes, although he insisted that his dualistic
                                    position was not vulnerable to the metaphysical bifurcation that Descartes
                                    is accused of. It is so easy to attack the position a philosopher sets
                                    forth, thinking that we grasp that position, when in fact we have not even
                                    tried to meet the philosopher on his own terms, to try and understand why
                                    the position, as he sees it, becomes reasonable. In our eagerness to attack
                                    the philosopher’s position, we often fail to enter into his perspective;
                                    therefore, we fail to understand his world. Just because Descartes is
                                    portrayed as being unsuccessful does not mean that a successful assertion of
                                    some kind of dualism is not possible. Bergson certainly thought so. There
                                    is, after all, an evident distinction between people, who are conscious, and
                                    things, which are not. In order to effectively assail Descartes’ position,
                                    it is not enough to demonstrate that Descartes himself failed to support
                                    this position. One must demonstrate that the dualistic position is
                                    intrinsically flawed under any circumstance. In order to do this, it seems
                                    to me, we must try it on for size, and see just how it fits. Descartes’
                                    arguments are very lucid. He is by no means naïve. Neither is Bergson. They
                                    have good reasons for asserting that a firm experiential distinction between
                                    conscious and unconscious beings, a thing which both men, and most people,
                                    understand to be pretty obvious, indicates an underlying metaphysical
                                    distinction. In Descartes’ case, that metaphysical distinction is thinking
                                    substance versus extended substance. In Bergson’s case, it is the
                                    consciousness of the duration of events versus the scientific, theoretical
                                    imposition of simultaneity upon those events.



                                    Consciousness is an emergent evolutionary phenomenon:



                                    Clearly, I do not believe that consciousness is present at the micro level
                                    you speak of, precisely because I experience a difference between myself and
                                    that rock over there. I am conscious; it is not. The rock is not a result of
                                    an evolution of life; I am. But the two are not entirely disconnected
                                    either. Life came from somewhere. Before there was life, there were just
                                    rocks, so to speak. Yes, there was indeed an evolutionary process before
                                    there was life. We see that in the formation of galaxies, stellar
                                    nucleosynthesis, and the development of planetary systems, some of which
                                    have become suitable environments for life to take hold. Then life emerged,
                                    and biological evolution began. Eventually, through biological evolution,
                                    consciousness emerged, at first in extremely rudimentary forms, and then
                                    finally, full sentience, intelligence emerged, and here you have man, the
                                    being who thinks as well as exists. Clearly, consciousness would not have
                                    emerged if we lived in a universe that precluded it as a possibility. But
                                    the acknowledgment of that possible result does not require the postulation
                                    of a pre-existing consciousness in the very fabric of reality itself.



                                    Hb3g



                                    _____

                                    From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                    Of GeorgeBerzins12@...
                                    Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:46 AM
                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749



                                    Hb3g

                                    What prompts me to suggest that consciousness is present at the micro level?

                                    Clearly, you don't believe that it is present, but on what firm
                                    considerations
                                    is your position based? It is the currently ruling position, based on
                                    Cartesian dualism, which sees everything that exists in terms of two,
                                    qualitatively
                                    very different, foundation stones, so to speak - 'thinking substance' and
                                    'senseless matter'. And particles and their aggregates at the micro level
                                    are
                                    'senseless matter'. But because Descartes could not explain how the thinking

                                    substance could possibly interact with senseless matter, how the mind could
                                    control
                                    the body, his position in that respect was, and remains, unsatisfactory.
                                    Consequently I don't see my views as challenging a well established and
                                    contradiction-free position, but rather as an attempt to clear up a
                                    Cartesian muddle.

                                    Gunars



                                    In a message dated 11/23/2005 10:38:38 PM GMT Standard Time,
                                    Hb3g@... writes:

                                    > Subj: RE: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                                    > Date: 11/23/2005 10:38:38 PM GMT Standard Time
                                    > From: Hb3g@...
                                    > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Sent from the Internet
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Gunar]
                                    >
                                    > "I think it's an even greater stretch to impute to purely mathematical
                                    waves
                                    >
                                    > the power to govern the probabilities of physical events, as at the
                                    > conceptual
                                    > foundations of quantum mechanics."
                                    >
                                    > But what is really kind of astonishing to me, Gunar, is how we humans use
                                    > these concepts of mathematics to find things out about nature that get
                                    > experimentally verified to be very likely true even though they sometimes
                                    > fly in the face of our everyday common sense assumptions. The
                                    > mathematical-experimental way in which science finds things out tells us
                                    > astonishing things about the nature of the world we live. It is honest,
                                    > because it stipulates that although speculation has its place in science,
                                    it
                                    > is really only brought in when new evidence shows that our explanation is
                                    > somehow faulty. Then we get back to the drawing board and try to come up
                                    > with a better explanation of what we factually, experientially, and
                                    > experimentally, now know to be true, and that is where the speculation
                                    > sometimes comes into play, but the explanation is still the most important
                                    > thing. It needs to be verifiable; it needs to lead to experiments that can
                                    > confirm or deny the new assumptions a new explanation puts into action.
                                    What
                                    > is really needed, since the world exposed to us by science is so much
                                    > different than we would have assumed it to be based upon so-called common
                                    > sense experience, is interpretation. Maybe this is where the philosophy
                                    > joins hands with science. What science knows, philosophy attempts to
                                    > understand. But that doesn't have to be just speculation. The
                                    interpretation
                                    > still needs to be founded upon what is scientifically reasonable. So, my
                                    > question to you is this: what do you hope to explain? What is it that
                                    > prompts you to suggest that consciousness is present at this micro level
                                    of
                                    > things?
                                    >
                                    > Hb3g
                                    >



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

                                    Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist




                                    SPONSORED LINKS


                                    Philosophy
                                    <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy+book&w1=Philosophy+book&w2=M
                                    erleau-ponty&c=2&s=40&.sig=5uQxFeDiUWl_K-ZckJ6K5g> book

                                    Merleau-ponty
                                    <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Merleau-ponty&w1=Philosophy+book&w2=Mer
                                    leau-ponty&c=2&s=40&.sig=jIAUkASUGmdzsmfF6qrJww>



                                    _____

                                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                                    * Visit your group "existlist
                                    <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.

                                    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                                    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                    <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



                                    _____



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Herman B. Triplegood
                                    According to Jammer, one physicist, searching for what many have felt to be a missing component from their understanding, even reformulated Newtonian Mechanics
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Nov 24, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      According to Jammer, one physicist, searching for what many have
                                      felt to be a missing component from their understanding, even reformulated
                                      Newtonian Mechanics without using the concept 'force', hoping thereby to
                                      catch a
                                      glimpse of what the nature of the 'missing item' might be.



                                      I am not familiar with Max Jammer, but this remark seems incomprehensible to
                                      me because it is no great mystery, in classical mechanics, how to formulate
                                      the laws of motion without any reference, whatsoever, to the notion of
                                      force. Hamilton's principle of least action states that the complete
                                      mechanical state of any system, over time, is completely defined by the
                                      Lagrangian integral that relates velocity and position in a coordinate
                                      system. From this general principle of least action, all of Newtonian
                                      mechanics can be fully explicated without any mention, whatsoever, of the
                                      concept of force.

                                      General Relativity, and gauge theories in physics nowadays describe force in
                                      terms of distortions of space-time metric, either by the presence of mass,
                                      in which case you are describing what phenomenally appears to us as
                                      gravitational force, or by the rotation of charged mass, in which case you
                                      describe, purely in terms of a distortion of that space-time metric, what
                                      phenomenally appears to us as electromagnetic force.

                                      In the case of the electromagnetic force, the following analogy serves:

                                      Put a heavy vase in the middle of a tablecloth then twist it either
                                      clockwise or counter-clockwise. The rotating movement of the vase causes
                                      ripples, or waves, to appear toward the outer extremities of the tablecloth,
                                      whereas, very close to the vase, the tablecloth turns with the vase. Thus,
                                      the rotation of charged particles only appears to be rotation, locally, very
                                      close to the spinning particle. Further out, away from the particle, the
                                      rotation appears as a distortion of space-time, the emergence of troughs and
                                      valleys in the metric that appear to us as forces of attraction and
                                      repulsion.

                                      Gauge theory and thermodynamics is all that is needed to account for the
                                      phenomenal appearance of force. The Newtonian conundrum of action at a
                                      distance was finally laid to rest by Einstein.

                                      Hb3g



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • GeorgeBerzins12@aol.com
                                      Hb3g You seem not have grasped that I am not talking about consciousness in the conventional sense, as uninterrupted awareness whenever awake . Rather, I am
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Nov 24, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hb3g

                                        You seem not have grasped that I am not talking about consciousness in the
                                        conventional sense, as 'uninterrupted awareness whenever awake'. Rather, I am
                                        suggesting that consciousness has temporal structure. This leads to some
                                        interesting complications and implications. For a short outline of this, see my
                                        message 309 to the Levinas list. Their archive is open to the public, so no need to
                                        join to read my message at:

                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/levinas/message/309

                                        Gunars



                                        In a message dated 11/24/2005 7:11:18 PM GMT Standard Time, Hb3g@...
                                        writes:

                                        > Subj: RE: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                                        > Date: 11/24/2005 7:11:18 PM GMT Standard Time
                                        > From: Hb3g@...
                                        > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Sent from the Internet
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Gunars:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Remark at a meta-discussional level:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > I quote Voegelin in response to my questioning of your assertion that I am
                                        > positioning from a Cartesian standpoint:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > “A third method of preventing discussion, closely akin to back stair
                                        > psychology, is the tactic of “classification.” The speaker evades the point
                                        > at issue by asserting that his opponent’s argument can be classified as the
                                        > result of a definite “position” – be it of a political, religious, or
                                        > theoretical nature.” (from Voegelin’s essay on John Stuart Mill’s
                                        > discussion
                                        > of freedom of discussion and readiness for discussion in Anamnesis)
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > There are reasonable philosophical questions that we can pursue about
                                        > consciousness. But, if we start out, right at the very beginning, defining
                                        > consciousness to be everything, I don’t see very much hope of engaging in a
                                        > meaningful theoretical discussion of it. Moreover, if we attempt to shut
                                        > down rational discussion by characterizing the questioning of the question
                                        > as a dogmatic assertion of a hostile opinion, we have betrayed the question
                                        > to the overriding purpose of asserting a right to have an opinion. On that
                                        > count, I must state, for the record, that I do not believe we are ever
                                        > entitled to our opinions. There is a responsibility that comes with having
                                        > an opinion. We should back up what we assert, for better or for worse, no
                                        > matter what the risk might be to our cherished beliefs.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > It also does not serve as an adequate refutation of Descartes, or Bergson,
                                        > or anybody else who takes, as thematic, the observable distinction between
                                        > people and rocks, to tack on the label “dualism” or “Cartesianism” and
                                        > assume that the last word has then been said. A label is not an argument.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > A distinction is not a dualism:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > You have characterized my question, a forthright question, asking what is it
                                        > that might be explained by imputing consciousness to the micro level you
                                        > discuss, as a Cartesian position. Cartesianism aside, all that I am asking
                                        > is for you to defend your hypothesis with facts and reasonable explanations.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > My counter argument to your assertion is simply this: you have no objective
                                        > evidence to back it up. Besides, you framed it in terms of “might be”,
                                        > “could be”, and so on, which leads me to think you are consciously
                                        > speculating anyway. If you are not outright asserting, but speculating,
                                        > which I also do quite a bit here too, I am only asking you for your reasons
                                        > for the speculations.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Let’s just take it from a common sense perspective for a moment. I am
                                        > conscious. You are conscious. We are both convinced of that, skeptical
                                        > arguments aside, are we not?. We probably both believe, to some extent at
                                        > least, that cats and dogs have some kind of consciousness, even though it is
                                        > believed to be less sophisticated than our own. Here we are guessing; but
                                        > this is a reasonable educated guess based upon observed behavior. We tend to
                                        > dismiss the idea that plants have a consciousness; at least, we don’t go
                                        > around interacting with them, normally, like we interact with each other, or
                                        > with our pets. We tend to assume that conscious beings are living beings. In
                                        > other words, we don’t really seriously entertain the notion that a rock is
                                        > conscious.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Isn’t it reasonable to you that what I am asking is based upon the
                                        > distinction between the consciousness I know that I have, the consciousness
                                        > that I am convinced that you have, and the being of a rock which is not
                                        > conscious at all? This isn’t a Cartesian position. I am not assuming a
                                        > metaphysical distinction between thinking and extended being. I am simply
                                        > asking how your hypothesis can account for the observed difference between a
                                        > conscious being and a lump of inanimate matter. It seems pretty reasonable
                                        > to me, starting from this common sense point of view, being open, of course,
                                        > to common sense possibly being contradicted by deeper theoretical
                                        > understanding, to pose the question, what purpose does consciousness serve
                                        > in the evolutionary scheme of things? Why did conscious beings evolve? How
                                        > does this help the organism to adapt? If consciousness is present at all
                                        > levels of reality, like you say, then how do you account for the difference
                                        > between me and the rock? I don’t believe that you can account for that
                                        > difference because you have universalized consciousness into basically
                                        > everything that is. The distinction, between consciousness and anything
                                        > else, then, is here lost, and there is no basis for intelligently posing the
                                        > question, “What is consciousness?”
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Dualism has not been effectively refuted anyway:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > It is one thing to assert a metaphysical dualism between extended and
                                        > thinking substance, as Descartes has indeed done. That, by the way, *could
                                        > be* a reasonable position for the many reasons which Descartes himself
                                        > offers up. A dualism might not be such a bad thing, as long as one can
                                        > account for the interaction as well as the distinction. No less a thinker
                                        > than Bergson implemented a dualistic position throughout his career and he
                                        > was deeply inspired by Descartes, although he insisted that his dualistic
                                        > position was not vulnerable to the metaphysical bifurcation that Descartes
                                        > is accused of. It is so easy to attack the position a philosopher sets
                                        > forth, thinking that we grasp that position, when in fact we have not even
                                        > tried to meet the philosopher on his own terms, to try and understand why
                                        > the position, as he sees it, becomes reasonable. In our eagerness to attack
                                        > the philosopher’s position, we often fail to enter into his perspective;
                                        > therefore, we fail to understand his world. Just because Descartes is
                                        > portrayed as being unsuccessful does not mean that a successful assertion of
                                        > some kind of dualism is not possible. Bergson certainly thought so. There
                                        > is, after all, an evident distinction between people, who are conscious, and
                                        > things, which are not. In order to effectively assail Descartes’ position,
                                        > it is not enough to demonstrate that Descartes himself failed to support
                                        > this position. One must demonstrate that the dualistic position is
                                        > intrinsically flawed under any circumstance. In order to do this, it seems
                                        > to me, we must try it on for size, and see just how it fits. Descartes’
                                        > arguments are very lucid. He is by no means naïve. Neither is Bergson. They
                                        > have good reasons for asserting that a firm experiential distinction between
                                        > conscious and unconscious beings, a thing which both men, and most people,
                                        > understand to be pretty obvious, indicates an underlying metaphysical
                                        > distinction. In Descartes’ case, that metaphysical distinction is thinking
                                        > substance versus extended substance. In Bergson’s case, it is the
                                        > consciousness of the duration of events versus the scientific, theoretical
                                        > imposition of simultaneity upon those events.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Consciousness is an emergent evolutionary phenomenon:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Clearly, I do not believe that consciousness is present at the micro level
                                        > you speak of, precisely because I experience a difference between myself and
                                        > that rock over there. I am conscious; it is not. The rock is not a result of
                                        > an evolution of life; I am. But the two are not entirely disconnected
                                        > either. Life came from somewhere. Before there was life, there were just
                                        > rocks, so to speak. Yes, there was indeed an evolutionary process before
                                        > there was life. We see that in the formation of galaxies, stellar
                                        > nucleosynthesis, and the development of planetary systems, some of which
                                        > have become suitable environments for life to take hold. Then life emerged,
                                        > and biological evolution began. Eventually, through biological evolution,
                                        > consciousness emerged, at first in extremely rudimentary forms, and then
                                        > finally, full sentience, intelligence emerged, and here you have man, the
                                        > being who thinks as well as exists. Clearly, consciousness would not have
                                        > emerged if we lived in a universe that precluded it as a possibility. But
                                        > the acknowledgment of that possible result does not require the postulation
                                        > of a pre-existing consciousness in the very fabric of reality itself.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Hb3g
                                        >
                                        >



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • GeorgeBerzins12@aol.com
                                        Hb3g Max Jammer discussed the foundations of quantum mechanics with most of the founders of the discipline, and if you think that his observation concerning
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Nov 24, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hb3g

                                          Max Jammer discussed the foundations of quantum mechanics with most of the
                                          founders of the discipline, and if you think that his observation concerning the
                                          relevance of someone's efforts to catch a glimpse of what might be missing f
                                          rom the conceptual foundations is irrelevant or misplaced, then all I can say
                                          is that you are entitled to your opinion. So, perhaps best to discontinue this
                                          line of argumentation before the Moderator feels tempted to sends us a
                                          friendly reminder not to wonder too far from approved topics.

                                          By the way, some references to Max Jammer are listed by Google - over 200,000
                                          results.

                                          Gunars



                                          In a message dated 11/24/2005 7:34:39 PM GMT Standard Time, Hb3g@...
                                          writes:

                                          > Subj: RE: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                                          > Date: 11/24/2005 7:34:39 PM GMT Standard Time
                                          > From: Hb3g@...
                                          > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Sent from the Internet
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > According to Jammer, one physicist, searching for what many have
                                          > felt to be a missing component from their understanding, even reformulated
                                          > Newtonian Mechanics without using the concept 'force', hoping thereby to
                                          > catch a
                                          > glimpse of what the nature of the 'missing item' might be.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > I am not familiar with Max Jammer, but this remark seems incomprehensible to
                                          > me because it is no great mystery, in classical mechanics, how to formulate
                                          > the laws of motion without any reference, whatsoever, to the notion of
                                          > force. Hamilton's principle of least action states that the complete
                                          > mechanical state of any system, over time, is completely defined by the
                                          > Lagrangian integral that relates velocity and position in a coordinate
                                          > system. From this general principle of least action, all of Newtonian
                                          > mechanics can be fully explicated without any mention, whatsoever, of the
                                          > concept of force.
                                          >
                                          > General Relativity, and gauge theories in physics nowadays describe force in
                                          > terms of distortions of space-time metric, either by the presence of mass,
                                          > in which case you are describing what phenomenally appears to us as
                                          > gravitational force, or by the rotation of charged mass, in which case you
                                          > describe, purely in terms of a distortion of that space-time metric, what
                                          > phenomenally appears to us as electromagnetic force.
                                          >
                                          > In the case of the electromagnetic force, the following analogy serves:
                                          >
                                          > Put a heavy vase in the middle of a tablecloth then twist it either
                                          > clockwise or counter-clockwise. The rotating movement of the vase causes
                                          > ripples, or waves, to appear toward the outer extremities of the tablecloth,
                                          > whereas, very close to the vase, the tablecloth turns with the vase. Thus,
                                          > the rotation of charged particles only appears to be rotation, locally, very
                                          > close to the spinning particle. Further out, away from the particle, the
                                          > rotation appears as a distortion of space-time, the emergence of troughs and
                                          > valleys in the metric that appear to us as forces of attraction and
                                          > repulsion.
                                          >
                                          > Gauge theory and thermodynamics is all that is needed to account for the
                                          > phenomenal appearance of force. The Newtonian conundrum of action at a
                                          > distance was finally laid to rest by Einstein.
                                          >
                                          > Hb3g
                                          >
                                          >



                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Herman B. Triplegood
                                          I have nothing personal against Mr. Jammer. I ve never met the man. I haven t read any of his books either, so I could hardly be in the position of forming an
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Nov 28, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I have nothing personal against Mr. Jammer. I've never met the man. I
                                            haven't read any of his books either, so I could hardly be in the position
                                            of forming an opinion about any of their contents. Your statement confused
                                            me for the reasons that I stated. In any case, thanks for dropping that
                                            name. The titles of his books have intrigued me enough to want to read them.
                                            Also, thanks for giving me my opinion, but I do not believe that I am
                                            entitled to it, therefore, I give it back it back to you. By the way, I was
                                            not aware that there are approved topics on this list.



                                            I *have* grasped that you are not talking about conventional consciousness.
                                            But what other consciousness is there? Since you say, "Rather, I am
                                            suggesting." how is it that temporal structure stands over and against an
                                            everyday experience of wakeful consciousness? The inherent temporality of
                                            everyday wakeful consciousness seems pretty obvious to me. I experience
                                            duration. The temporality of consciousness does not need to be posited, it
                                            is already given in the experience of duration.



                                            I read your post over on the Levinas list. What empirical evidence is there
                                            to support the supposition that consciousness is, in fact, discontinuous in
                                            the manner you describe? What does positing a consciousness at a micro level
                                            explain? It seems to me that what you posit merely explains a discontinuity
                                            that might be there, but for which you have no evidence. If the
                                            discontinuity is there, then why don't I experience it? How do I come to
                                            know that it is there? If it isn't there, the explanation of it in terms of
                                            a micro level of consciousness is gratuitous.



                                            Perhaps if you can relate, briefly, what it was in Levinas' "Time and
                                            Infinity" that inspires making a choice between a discontinuous time, and a
                                            discontinuous consciousness, I could better understand the reasons for your
                                            suggestion. Frankly, I'm having a problem with either one of these being
                                            discontinuous. The experience of duration that I mentioned above would not
                                            be possible if either time or consciousness were discontinuous.



                                            Hb3g



                                            _____

                                            From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                            Of GeorgeBerzins12@...
                                            Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:55 PM
                                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749



                                            Hb3g

                                            Max Jammer discussed the foundations of quantum mechanics with most of the
                                            founders of the discipline, and if you think that his observation concerning
                                            the
                                            relevance of someone's efforts to catch a glimpse of what might be missing f
                                            rom the conceptual foundations is irrelevant or misplaced, then all I can
                                            say
                                            is that you are entitled to your opinion. So, perhaps best to discontinue
                                            this
                                            line of argumentation before the Moderator feels tempted to sends us a
                                            friendly reminder not to wonder too far from approved topics.

                                            By the way, some references to Max Jammer are listed by Google - over
                                            200,000
                                            results.

                                            Gunars



                                            In a message dated 11/24/2005 7:34:39 PM GMT Standard Time,
                                            Hb3g@...
                                            writes:

                                            > Subj: RE: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                                            > Date: 11/24/2005 7:34:39 PM GMT Standard Time
                                            > From: Hb3g@...
                                            > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Sent from the Internet
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > According to Jammer, one physicist, searching for what many have
                                            > felt to be a missing component from their understanding, even reformulated

                                            > Newtonian Mechanics without using the concept 'force', hoping thereby to
                                            > catch a
                                            > glimpse of what the nature of the 'missing item' might be.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > I am not familiar with Max Jammer, but this remark seems incomprehensible
                                            to
                                            > me because it is no great mystery, in classical mechanics, how to
                                            formulate
                                            > the laws of motion without any reference, whatsoever, to the notion of
                                            > force. Hamilton's principle of least action states that the complete
                                            > mechanical state of any system, over time, is completely defined by the
                                            > Lagrangian integral that relates velocity and position in a coordinate
                                            > system. From this general principle of least action, all of Newtonian
                                            > mechanics can be fully explicated without any mention, whatsoever, of the
                                            > concept of force.
                                            >
                                            > General Relativity, and gauge theories in physics nowadays describe force
                                            in
                                            > terms of distortions of space-time metric, either by the presence of mass,
                                            > in which case you are describing what phenomenally appears to us as
                                            > gravitational force, or by the rotation of charged mass, in which case you
                                            > describe, purely in terms of a distortion of that space-time metric, what
                                            > phenomenally appears to us as electromagnetic force.
                                            >
                                            > In the case of the electromagnetic force, the following analogy serves:
                                            >
                                            > Put a heavy vase in the middle of a tablecloth then twist it either
                                            > clockwise or counter-clockwise. The rotating movement of the vase causes
                                            > ripples, or waves, to appear toward the outer extremities of the
                                            tablecloth,
                                            > whereas, very close to the vase, the tablecloth turns with the vase. Thus,
                                            > the rotation of charged particles only appears to be rotation, locally,
                                            very
                                            > close to the spinning particle. Further out, away from the particle, the
                                            > rotation appears as a distortion of space-time, the emergence of troughs
                                            and
                                            > valleys in the metric that appear to us as forces of attraction and
                                            > repulsion.
                                            >
                                            > Gauge theory and thermodynamics is all that is needed to account for the
                                            > phenomenal appearance of force. The Newtonian conundrum of action at a
                                            > distance was finally laid to rest by Einstein.
                                            >
                                            > Hb3g
                                            >
                                            >



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

                                            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist




                                            SPONSORED LINKS


                                            Philosophy
                                            <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy+book&w1=Philosophy+book&w2=M
                                            erleau-ponty&c=2&s=40&.sig=5uQxFeDiUWl_K-ZckJ6K5g> book

                                            Merleau-ponty
                                            <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Merleau-ponty&w1=Philosophy+book&w2=Mer
                                            leau-ponty&c=2&s=40&.sig=jIAUkASUGmdzsmfF6qrJww>



                                            _____

                                            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                                            * Visit your group "existlist
                                            <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.

                                            * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                            existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                            <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                                            * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                            <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



                                            _____



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • GeorgeBerzins12@aol.com
                                            In a message dated 11/28/2005 5:37:59 PM GMT Standard Time, Hb3g@LasVegas.NET ... Gunars: On joining, I received some information from exitlist owner,
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Nov 29, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In a message dated 11/28/2005 5:37:59 PM GMT Standard Time, Hb3g@...
                                              writes:

                                              > Subj: RE: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                                              > Date: 11/28/2005 5:37:59 PM GMT Standard Time
                                              > From: Hb3g@...
                                              > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Sent from the Internet
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > I have nothing personal against Mr. Jammer. I've never met the man. I
                                              > haven't read any of his books either, so I could hardly be in the position
                                              > of forming an opinion about any of their contents. Your statement confused
                                              > me for the reasons that I stated. In any case, thanks for dropping that
                                              > name. The titles of his books have intrigued me enough to want to read them.
                                              > Also, thanks for giving me my opinion, but I do not believe that I am
                                              > entitled to it, therefore, I give it back it back to you. By the way, I was
                                              > not aware that there are approved topics on this list.
                                              >


                                              Gunars:
                                              On joining, I received some information from exitlist owner, including a
                                              number of items under FAQ. One of these said: 'after reading the homepage, then
                                              try to remain on topic', which seems fair enough.

                                              >
                                              > I *have* grasped that you are not talking about conventional consciousness.
                                              > But what other consciousness is there? Since you say, "Rather, I am
                                              > suggesting." how is it that temporal structure stands over and against an
                                              > everyday experience of wakeful consciousness? The inherent temporality of
                                              > everyday wakeful consciousness seems pretty obvious to me. I experience
                                              > duration. The temporality of consciousness does not need to be posited, it
                                              > is already given in the experience of duration.



                                              Gunars:
                                              Direct experience has not always proved to have been a reliable guide to the
                                              nature of reality. My thesis is that our seemingly 'continuously present'
                                              consciousness is in fact cyclically and cinematographically discontinuous, but
                                              that the rate of cyclicity is sufficiently high for the illusion of continuity to
                                              arise (as implied, of course, by the term 'cinematographically'). At present
                                              I don't have a clear idea of exactly what the rate of that cyclicity might be,
                                              but it would certainly be well over the highest audio frequency, and so, to a
                                              first approximation, maybe 100 KHz, or possibly several orders of magnitude
                                              higher.

                                              >
                                              >
                                              > I read your post over on the Levinas list. What empirical evidence is there
                                              > to support the supposition that consciousness is, in fact, discontinuous in
                                              > the manner you describe? What does positing a consciousness at a micro level
                                              > explain? It seems to me that what you posit merely explains a discontinuity
                                              > that might be there, but for which you have no evidence. If the
                                              > discontinuity is there, then why don't I experience it? How do I come to
                                              > know that it is there? If it isn't there, the explanation of it in terms of
                                              > a micro level of consciousness is gratuitous.


                                              Gunars:
                                              Not much empirical evidence at present. But then, Continental philosophy
                                              generally, and phenomenology in particular, is also more inspired guesswork by
                                              individuals than something rigorously derived from observations in the tangible
                                              world. I have set out my approach in Message 36749, and would be happy to
                                              enlarge upon anything I wrote there.

                                              >
                                              > Perhaps if you can relate, briefly, what it was in Levinas' "Time and
                                              > Infinity" that inspires making a choice between a discontinuous time, and a
                                              > discontinuous consciousness, I could better understand the reasons for your
                                              > suggestion. Frankly, I'm having a problem with either one of these being
                                              > discontinuous. The experience of duration that I mentioned above would not
                                              > be possible if either time or consciousness were discontinuous.
                                              >
                                              > Hb3g



                                              Gunars:
                                              It is not a question of choosing between discontinuous time and discontinuous
                                              consciousness. According of modern physics, there is no substance called
                                              'time', and therefore the concept 'discontinuous time' is inherently nonsensical.
                                              Should there appear to be anything akin to an illusive, tremporality-related,
                                              discontinuity associated with conscious awareness, then that discontinuity
                                              could only be inherent in conscious awareness.

                                              My interest in phenomenology, and particularly Heidegger and Levinas, arises
                                              from the fact that both philosophers used 'to common sense totally obscure
                                              images' (such as Heidegger's 'Dasein' and, in the case of Levinas, 'the temporal
                                              relation between Being and Being's Other) which can be readily explained and
                                              understood in the light of the cinematographically discontinuous conscious
                                              hypothesis, thereby lending additional support to the new hypothesis.

                                              By the way, should you be interested, I would be happy to quote and explain
                                              how I understand some of the seemingly impenetrable utterances by Heidegger and
                                              by Lervinas.




                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Herman B. Triplegood
                                              Gunars: It has only been within the past few weeks that I have become aware of Levinas. There was a chapter on him in Dermot Moran s Introduction to
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Dec 1, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Gunars:



                                                It has only been within the past few weeks that I have become aware of
                                                Levinas. There was a chapter on him in Dermot Moran's Introduction to
                                                Phenomenology which I finished about two or three weeks ago. As for
                                                Heidegger, I read Being and Time many years ago, and I am gearing up for a
                                                second reading here in the near future, finally, with a good commentary
                                                handy. Lately I've been visiting his much shorter and later works such as
                                                his essays on Time and Being, Discourse on Thinking, etc. I would be most
                                                interested in your observations on both.



                                                Hb3g



                                                _____

                                                From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                                Of GeorgeBerzins12@...
                                                Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:27 AM
                                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749



                                                In a message dated 11/28/2005 5:37:59 PM GMT Standard Time,
                                                Hb3g@...
                                                writes:

                                                > Subj: RE: [existlist] Re: Addendum to Message 36749
                                                > Date: 11/28/2005 5:37:59 PM GMT Standard Time
                                                > From: Hb3g@...
                                                > Reply-to: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                > Sent from the Internet
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > I have nothing personal against Mr. Jammer. I've never met the man. I
                                                > haven't read any of his books either, so I could hardly be in the position
                                                > of forming an opinion about any of their contents. Your statement confused
                                                > me for the reasons that I stated. In any case, thanks for dropping that
                                                > name. The titles of his books have intrigued me enough to want to read
                                                them.
                                                > Also, thanks for giving me my opinion, but I do not believe that I am
                                                > entitled to it, therefore, I give it back it back to you. By the way, I
                                                was
                                                > not aware that there are approved topics on this list.
                                                >


                                                Gunars:
                                                On joining, I received some information from exitlist owner, including a
                                                number of items under FAQ. One of these said: 'after reading the homepage,
                                                then
                                                try to remain on topic', which seems fair enough.

                                                >
                                                > I *have* grasped that you are not talking about conventional
                                                consciousness.
                                                > But what other consciousness is there? Since you say, "Rather, I am
                                                > suggesting." how is it that temporal structure stands over and against an
                                                > everyday experience of wakeful consciousness? The inherent temporality of
                                                > everyday wakeful consciousness seems pretty obvious to me. I experience
                                                > duration. The temporality of consciousness does not need to be posited, it
                                                > is already given in the experience of duration.



                                                Gunars:
                                                Direct experience has not always proved to have been a reliable guide to the

                                                nature of reality. My thesis is that our seemingly 'continuously present'
                                                consciousness is in fact cyclically and cinematographically discontinuous,
                                                but
                                                that the rate of cyclicity is sufficiently high for the illusion of
                                                continuity to
                                                arise (as implied, of course, by the term 'cinematographically'). At present

                                                I don't have a clear idea of exactly what the rate of that cyclicity might
                                                be,
                                                but it would certainly be well over the highest audio frequency, and so, to
                                                a
                                                first approximation, maybe 100 KHz, or possibly several orders of magnitude
                                                higher.

                                                >
                                                >
                                                > I read your post over on the Levinas list. What empirical evidence is
                                                there
                                                > to support the supposition that consciousness is, in fact, discontinuous
                                                in
                                                > the manner you describe? What does positing a consciousness at a micro
                                                level
                                                > explain? It seems to me that what you posit merely explains a
                                                discontinuity
                                                > that might be there, but for which you have no evidence. If the
                                                > discontinuity is there, then why don't I experience it? How do I come to
                                                > know that it is there? If it isn't there, the explanation of it in terms
                                                of
                                                > a micro level of consciousness is gratuitous.


                                                Gunars:
                                                Not much empirical evidence at present. But then, Continental philosophy
                                                generally, and phenomenology in particular, is also more inspired guesswork
                                                by
                                                individuals than something rigorously derived from observations in the
                                                tangible
                                                world. I have set out my approach in Message 36749, and would be happy to
                                                enlarge upon anything I wrote there.

                                                >
                                                > Perhaps if you can relate, briefly, what it was in Levinas' "Time and
                                                > Infinity" that inspires making a choice between a discontinuous time, and
                                                a
                                                > discontinuous consciousness, I could better understand the reasons for
                                                your
                                                > suggestion. Frankly, I'm having a problem with either one of these being
                                                > discontinuous. The experience of duration that I mentioned above would not
                                                > be possible if either time or consciousness were discontinuous.
                                                >
                                                > Hb3g



                                                Gunars:
                                                It is not a question of choosing between discontinuous time and
                                                discontinuous
                                                consciousness. According of modern physics, there is no substance called
                                                'time', and therefore the concept 'discontinuous time' is inherently
                                                nonsensical.
                                                Should there appear to be anything akin to an illusive,
                                                tremporality-related,
                                                discontinuity associated with conscious awareness, then that discontinuity
                                                could only be inherent in conscious awareness.

                                                My interest in phenomenology, and particularly Heidegger and Levinas, arises

                                                from the fact that both philosophers used 'to common sense totally obscure
                                                images' (such as Heidegger's 'Dasein' and, in the case of Levinas, 'the
                                                temporal
                                                relation between Being and Being's Other) which can be readily explained and

                                                understood in the light of the cinematographically discontinuous conscious
                                                hypothesis, thereby lending additional support to the new hypothesis.

                                                By the way, should you be interested, I would be happy to quote and explain
                                                how I understand some of the seemingly impenetrable utterances by Heidegger
                                                and
                                                by Lervinas.




                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

                                                Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist




                                                SPONSORED LINKS


                                                Philosophy
                                                <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy+book&w1=Philosophy+book&w2=M
                                                erleau-ponty&c=2&s=40&.sig=5uQxFeDiUWl_K-ZckJ6K5g> book

                                                Merleau-ponty
                                                <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Merleau-ponty&w1=Philosophy+book&w2=Mer
                                                leau-ponty&c=2&s=40&.sig=jIAUkASUGmdzsmfF6qrJww>



                                                _____

                                                YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                                                * Visit your group "existlist
                                                <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.

                                                * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                                                * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                                <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



                                                _____



                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.