Re: Consciousness and information, etc.

[John M <***>]

John K,
you probed the semantic quagmire of the conscious family.
Unconsciousness is NOT the opposite of consciousness, conscious (of?) is NOT
having consciousness. Anesthesiologists use the term in a purely
physiological cut-off, while psych people use it as 'awareness' - indeed a
mental aspect only.
I appreciated Hameroff - the pioneer in finding a tissue-part involved with
(his) consciousness, the in-neuron microtubules. He really went on into
Q-mind with his co-author Nobelist Penrose in a sense 'lighting up' the
thought (ie. using 'photons' as carriers of the neuronal process).
Some include in consciousness the managing of the body, some the content
of the mind - most go around 'thinking' - 'remebering' capabilities.
Whatever we don't know indeed, is good for shoving it into consciousness. It
takes it.
This is why I denied that it is an "it", it is "no thing", spelled in one
word.

John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness and information, etc.


> John M.
>
> I personally agree and like the idea of sensitivity related to induction
> of qualia, and have no problem with calling it a form of consciousness.
> I also like the idea of "sensitivity" to skirt the predictable debate
> over meanings of the c-word. For one thing, anesthesiologists point out
> that they make people "unconscious," but don't kill them, and yet most
> of our living functions (and "sensitivities") continue at an autonomic
> level, still sensitive, still "conscious"? - in what sense? So they are
> meaning by consciousness what stops under anesthetics. Hammeroff was
> particularly interested in this question where people go when they are
> out, as a practicing anesthesiologist, but his quantum mind ideas ended
> up convincing him that some form of consciousness is ubiquitous. I don't
> know the answer.
> John K.
>
> John M wrote:
>
> >,,,
> >After said that about 'info', my pan-sensitivity refers to it as a quale
to
> >respond to (any) info. Like a stone to an applied pressure: it falls
apart.
> >(Not only from 'single cell (living?) organisms' up).
> >
> >...Sorry, I cannot distinguish it from consciousness,
> >
> >