From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:00:59 -0600 Archived: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:11:23 -0400 Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken? >From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:31:16 +0100 >Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken? >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:17:24 +0100 >>Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken? >>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:08:15 -0600 >>>Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken? >>>I can't agree that "according a special status to consciousness" >>>amounts to anything like "anthropocentric conceit". Indeed, I >>>would contend that the "special" (perhaps metaphysical) nature >>>of consciousness argues for it being a property of the universe >>>itself, rather than of the human species. I.e., the whole thing >>>is sentient, not just (if even) us individually. >Well, Michael, if you don't have consciousness then your ability >to write about your doubt about having consciousness belongs >firmly in the realm of the truly inexplicable. In Cartesian >terms, you post, therefore you think (which, of course, doesn't >rule out posting before you think. as some members clearly >do...). Here I thought that I'd exited this thread gracefully, only to be hauled out of bed to answer charges of inexplicability! At no point have I expressed doubt of having consciousness. The latter is about the only thing of which I have absolute certitude, opinions of other Listers notwithstanding. What I questioned (via the "if even" qualifier in my original post), was the concept of consciousness sequestered into multiple independent individuals who cavort amongst inert obstacles, as opposed to consciousness being a more fundamental and ubiquitous property of the universe itself. >I'd suggest that the evidence for the universe not being >conscious is as strong as the evidence for your being conscious. I agree. You have equal amounts of evidence for both propositions. It's a nice round figure. >>"Humanity is bigger than any one individual, and it seems to >>have collective purposes of its own that individuals cannot >>easily detect, let alone grasp as a whole." >I think the most polite way I can describe that view is >'teleological claptrap'. Man is a social animal and often groups >of men work together with a common purpose. That's about as far >as it goes. To reify the whole of humanity into a meta-entity >that is capable of having a purpose mysteriously obscured from >the individuals who constitute that entity is a small step for >two deluded men, but a giant leap back into the dark ages for >mankind. Far better that we preserve our dignity by taking >direct responsibility for the future and attempt to shape it >according to our best instincts. \ Here I think, for my own part, I must be misinterpreting you. One could insert a variety of phenomena (anything from slime- molds to ant colonies) in place of "humanity" in the quote above, to arrive at what would seem to be a rather uncontroversial observation. To reject in principle that it can be applied to humanity might be considered, to borrow the phrase, anthropocentric conceit. >>It wouldn't have resonated with me in a 'New Age' publication >>but that was written by a mathematician and a biologist; the >>Profs Stewart and Cohen >See, some mathematicians and biologists have got religion, some >have lost it, and some still need to find a 'meaning' to things. >That doesn't mean it's there. Concluding again on a note of solid agreement! Don't make me come back. Best Regards Mike Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp