Fw: Consciousness and death

["John M" <***>]

> Jamie,
> I do not see why you wrote:
> > The idea should -not- sound strange to you, as I would
> > understand both your positions.  ..
> about the hierarchical sequence of "body generates mind"?
> In the complexity (human etc.) there are no compnents
> generated by other components, only cooperation of them
> in no subordinate sequence.
>
> > In the main, we are all reductive Causalists. ...<
> Yes, by birth <G> but I try to make sure the views which may
> be premature to apply, yet 'reducible' by the modeling of the
> world that "a cause" is a reductionist limitation within our set
> boundaries and our thinking should at least be tolerant to the
> non-reductionist acceptance of the (neglected?) correlations.
>
> > One tier of consciousness built upon another .. <
> You may tear the tiers as you wish, we still have no generally
> accepted content for the darn consciousness about which a very
> knowledgeable scientist on the JCS list enunciated:
> "Everybody knows what it is".
> Yes, but everybody differently <G>.
>
> Your last 2 pars are beyond me. I am not faithful enough.
> Maybe it is right in (your?) biology but I think in processes
> and change, rather than 'things' with inventory (energy?) .
>
> JohnM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James N Rose" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Consciousness and death
>
>
> > John Mikes replied to Judith:
> >
> > [Judith]
> > He (RR) believed consciousness is an emergent property
> > of complexity in the brain, that is also a new complex
> > system. He said that while consciousness is generated
> > by the mind, which is generated by the brain which is
> > generated by the body, ...
> >
> > [John]
> > The second part sounds strange to me. Seemingly the body,
> > more than just flesh and bones, must be a natural system right
> > into the wholeness if it 'generates' the atemporal-aspatial mind.
> >
> > John,
> >
> > The idea should -not- sound strange to you, as I would
> > understand both your positions.  Robert's expression
> > can be back traced to yours exactly of 1991:
> >
> > "It is acknowledgement of and response to information -
> > where of course info had to be identified differently from
> > the Shannon etc. bit craze: I identified the 'existence' as
> > difference and its 'accepted' form as information. I
> > differentiated the mere 'acceptance' from the absorption,
> > what may make it into knowledge. In this generalization
> > 'Ccness' is extendable to the entire world, an anion or an
> > electron acknowledges a positive charge and responds to it
> >  - hence it has Ccness."
> >
> > One tier of consciousness built upon another .. (and
> > comingled?; ahhh, but that's another issue, or maybe
> > -the- seminal topic of the past few posts on list.).
> >
> > In the main, we are all reductive Causalists. Attributes
> > of existence being emerged from or built upon some
> > prior (related) foundation of form/performance.
> >
> > As frame of reference, I'll only mention that I tend to
> > follow that trail of sentience back into the architecture
> > of dimensions.  But we are all looking at the same house
> > of consciousness in any event.
> >
> > Judith wrote also this about ccs-ness:
> >
> > [Judtih]
> > "My ultimate hope is that consciousness may be
> > the only part of a human life that is capable
> > of continuing on in some form."
> >
> > Maybe the form of our biology acts as
> > compatible binder that a more diffused
> > energy (soul?) can find home within.
> > The body condenses and localizes the
> > looser energy of sentience, and allows
> > ego/id to congeal and enact, through
> > the somatics of our bodies.
> >
> > If so, then something eternal could
> > be our inner essences.
> >
> > Jamie
>