----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 11:04
PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness and
information, etc.
John M.,
This post of yours was quite thought provoking. Comments mixed
in, below:
SNIP
"Pan-sensitivity" describes
something I would attribute to the abilities of all living systems
but I think consciousness is different. "Responding to information" is
something all organisms do, even single celled organisms.
----
"I" attribute it to more. Even extend your
'living'. Consciousness is a nono,
an unidentified, universally undefined noumenon, used by researchers as they need it to their OWN
theoretical purposes. You, too.
Pan-sensitivity (redundant, really) is the
general capability of "natural systems" (ie. anything) to "react"
at least absorb impacts from changes in nature. No restrictions.
E.g.
the response of an anion to a cation, or an
audience's to a Broadway show. No 'bio'.
My own view of the definition of consciousness
has to do with the mind.
Now which one unexplained do you want to
explain with the other unexplained? Would you consider 'mind' a precious
exclusive property owned only by "humans"? I consider it an aspect we call
mentality in animals (from homo down the # of neurons, - even beyond any -)
but the phenomena are applicable throughout nature - called differently.
Deliberation is something that consciousness makes possible and
it goes beyond responding to information. Consciousness includes the
ability to deliberately use and "create
information".
Your version, not mine. I skip the next par,
it contains opinionated statements galore.
(living/nonliving systems, phenomena
that means something, 'exploits', opportunity, etc.)
I wrote: information is 'acknowledged
difference' (by whatever). Some of your statements are congruent. I also
skip the reference to "plant models" - I try to
generalize.
SNIP
>
I think maybe I'm beginning to understand: Having
recognized your own scientific tunnel vision of the past, it seems to me
that you are trying to help others avoid even starting down that path. Once
you start, it becomes very easy to forget the preliminary words "In
Science..." in the sentence: "In science, we must make arbitrary distinctions
in order to study aspects of the universe around us."
A quote from Stan Salthe: "quoting Leslie White: "science is sciencing", which I [StS] have
interpreted as just 'any disciplined observations are part of science'.
-" - I like it. The 'arbitrary distinctions' are
not end-statements, they have to be (double+) checked.
SKIP
I agree. In a recent discussion with a group of people about the
nature of the universe being infinite, one person nodded solemnly and then
said, "Yes, of course, but... what's outside of it?"
The old stale Einstein joke: what is north of
the north pole? Mixing qualia, the universe being infinite (a physical
statement, implying: in space) and considering 'beyond' in the ideational
sense.
Judith
Sorry for my negative remarks, I went through
similar questions (di-muiltichotomies) for many thousand hours over the past
16 years (back and forth) including WEB discussions by people on top of
diverse disciplines and views. I also read the opposit/e/ion of many.
John
M