Thinkers November 16 2010: Panpsychism

Giles Kuhn at Thinkers

Extropia DaSilva: PANPSYCHISM: You are conscious and a rock is not, right? According to panpsychism, consciousness is a property shared by everything in the universe, it is just that its presence is not always obvious to us. Is this at all correct, or is it true that consciousness is possessed by some things but not others?[2010/11/16 14:58]  Pip Torok: hi Sariah[2010/11/16 14:59]  Extropia DaSilva: hello:)[2010/11/16 14:59]  Pip Torok: meet the group[2010/11/16 14:59]  Extropia DaSilva: *The group waves*[2010/11/16 14:59]  Sariah Meredith: hello Pip, group[2010/11/16 14:59]  Zobeid Zuma: I hope there’s more explanation than that, because my first impression is: Most Ridiculous Topic Ever. :P[2010/11/16 14:59]  Extropia DaSilva: Well we are not supposed to start now but I cannot help but ask…why do you think that?[2010/11/16 14:59]  Pip Torok: will look up the note and tell sariah what the subject is ;)[2010/11/16 15:00]  Zobeid Zuma: I’ve never heard of panpsychism before, and I can’t imagine why anybody would think of such a thing, much less develop a rationale to support it.[2010/11/16 15:01]  Zobeid Zuma: Kind of like the Easter Bunny. :)[2010/11/16 15:01]  Zobeid Zuma: Except that I have, of course, heard of the Easter Bunny before. :/[2010/11/16 15:02]  Pip Torok: has anyone made a definition of “consciousness”?[2010/11/16 15:02]  Extropia DaSilva: Well, you know, a rock and a person are made up of pretty much the same stuff. Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, traces of other elements. So there is nothing qualitatively different between us. we are all clumps of star ash.[2010/11/16 15:03]  Zobeid Zuma: You don’t know that. :)[2010/11/16 15:04]  Extropia DaSilva: I do.[2010/11/16 15:04]  Extropia DaSilva: I read it in a book.[2010/11/16 15:04]  Pip Torok: but there are substances that have elements completely different from those who mentioned just now[2010/11/16 15:05]  Zobeid Zuma: /me pickets the rock crusher?[2010/11/16 15:05]  Ivy Sunkiller: greetings mortals[2010/11/16 15:05]  Extropia DaSilva: yeah but nothing on Earth. Well, apart from whatever they transmute in nuclear physics experiments.[2010/11/16 15:05]  Pip Torok: if we are conscious and a rock is .. then what do you think of the consciousness (if any) of a plant?[2010/11/16 15:06]  Zobeid Zuma: Hi Ivy[2010/11/16 15:07]  Zobeid Zuma: Before we discuss the topic, we were just having a pre-discussion of whether this is the dumbest topic ever. :D[2010/11/16 15:07]  Ivy Sunkiller: a-ha![2010/11/16 15:07]  Pip Torok: and if inanimate bodies have consciousness … why are their paths in space so predictable ….[2010/11/16 15:07]  Pip Torok: as if they werent actuall conscious at all …[2010/11/16 15:07]  Zobeid Zuma: Are they really? :)[2010/11/16 15:08]  Pip Torok: predicatble … yes … planets.. meteors … galaxies even[2010/11/16 15:08]  Ivy Sunkiller: Pip: what does being councious has to do with not being predictable, I think politicians are a perfect example that a concious being can be absolutely predictable[2010/11/16 15:08]  Extropia DaSilva: I have a topic that you might shed light on. DREXLER? IS HIS NANOTECH RUBBISH OR WHAT? Because some people seem to think his nanotech violates the laws of physics and or chemistry. But others say no it is all theoretically sound. I wish I knew who was right.[2010/11/16 15:09]  Zobeid Zuma: /me bites her tongue. . .[2010/11/16 15:09]  Pip Torok: good … you can tell me what the terrible two will do in 2 yrs when their policies dont work!! < JOKE > …[2010/11/16 15:09]  Zobeid Zuma: Well, I know his *general* theories aren’t rubbish because living cells use them all the time.[2010/11/16 15:10]  Zobeid Zuma: As for pretty renderings of diamondoid and sapphire cogs and wheels. . . That’s harder to say.[2010/11/16 15:10]  Ivy Sunkiller: chances are, we are all predictable[2010/11/16 15:10]  Extropia DaSilva: I knew you were going to say that.[2010/11/16 15:10]  Ivy Sunkiller: like million balls thrown from a cliff, it’s very hard to predict the path of them all, but it *is* possible :)[2010/11/16 15:11]  Zobeid Zuma: I think one of the biggest hurdles is not “would they work” if they existed, but more “can they be made?” Because you have to describe a whole sequence of procedures to get there, without the molecule flying apart somewhere along the way.[2010/11/16 15:11]  Pip Torok: well every snowflake is random as it falls … but the total effect on a window is a perfect “gaussian” curve[2010/11/16 15:12]  Ivy Sunkiller: Pip: it’s not random, it’s all physics :)[2010/11/16 15:12]  Ivy Sunkiller: hiya Lucca![2010/11/16 15:12]  Pip Torok: statistics i wd have said, but same difference …[2010/11/16 15:12]  Lucca Seid: hello :)[2010/11/16 15:13]  Extropia DaSilva: Uhuh. Drexler said as much in his book. That nanotech that looks easy will come only after we struggle through many difficult intermediate steps.[2010/11/16 15:14]  Extropia DaSilva: We obviously will have nanotech of some kind or other. I just wonder if it will be like robot factories on an ultra teeny scale, ala nanosystems?[2010/11/16 15:14]  Zobeid Zuma: But if you don’t know what the steps are, then you don’t know if they are possible or not.[2010/11/16 15:14]  Extropia DaSilva: Hello Lucca:)[2010/11/16 15:14]  Zobeid Zuma: We aren’t accustomed to thinking in terms of “can’t get there from here”, but that scenario is theoretically possible.[2010/11/16 15:15]  Pip Torok: havent you noticed that most scientific breakthoughs come as complete surprises? … and often the discoverer is the most surised[2010/11/16 15:15]  Pip Torok: surprised[2010/11/16 15:15]  Extropia DaSilva: Well I suppose if someone builds a prototype that answers the question.[2010/11/16 15:16]  Zobeid Zuma: They built a tiny nano-cart at Rice U with four hubs and moving wheels.[2010/11/16 15:16]  Zobeid Zuma: That’s where we are in nano-machines. We’ve invented the wheel and push-cart. :)[2010/11/16 15:17]  Pip Torok: not bad, I’d say … not bad at all! …[2010/11/16 15:17]  Extropia DaSilva: I just thought that Merkle and Frietas has amassed such a wealth of theory and experimental proofs of principle that it was basically a sound theory. But some people insist it is snakeoil.[2010/11/16 15:17]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s not where I expected the technology to be by 2010. Not when I was reading Engines of Creation back in 1986 anyhow. :/[2010/11/16 15:17]  Pip Torok: donr forget some civilizations never got round to inventing the wheel …[2010/11/16 15:17]  Extropia DaSilva: All the equations in Nanosystems go over my head, so I cannot veryify their validity.[2010/11/16 15:18]  Extropia DaSilva: You know, the best book he did (Drexler) for laypeople that is, is ‘Unbounding The Future’.[2010/11/16 15:18]  Pip Torok: but Technology is serendipity …[2010/11/16 15:18]  Extropia DaSilva: No that is my partner;)[2010/11/16 15:19]  Ivy Sunkiller: so Extie partners technology![2010/11/16 15:19]  Pip Torok: for example .. people are starting to inject stem-cells into brains of ppl with fits … but we dont KNOW (yet) how itll turn out[2010/11/16 15:19]  Extropia DaSilva: I cannot exist without technology.[2010/11/16 15:19]  Ivy Sunkiller: when it comes to the avatar, we can take that literally ;)[2010/11/16 15:20]  Extropia DaSilva: Right.[2010/11/16 15:20]  Lucca Seid: brb ~[2010/11/16 15:20]  Pip Torok: right but then avatars are simulacrums of we who type away at our keyboards …[2010/11/16 15:21]  Pip Torok: .. a new slant on “when 2 or 3 are gathered together!” …[2010/11/16 15:21]  Extropia DaSilva: Pffft that is merely a part of the system that enables my patterns to manifest as a person in the collective consciousness gathered in this room. Nothing more and nothing less.[2010/11/16 15:21]  Zobeid Zuma: Err. . .[2010/11/16 15:21]  Ivy Sunkiller: actually[2010/11/16 15:21]  Zobeid Zuma: NM[2010/11/16 15:22]  Ivy Sunkiller: I was thinking about the whole Digital Person thing (which turned out to be not the DP I thought about first), and it’s not really appropriate[2010/11/16 15:22]  Extropia DaSilva: I worked out that when 2 digital people get together and talk, there are 6 persons involved in the conversation.[2010/11/16 15:22]  Extropia DaSilva: Oh? In what way, Ivy?[2010/11/16 15:22]  Ivy Sunkiller: as long as there is an organic primary behind me[2010/11/16 15:22]  Ivy Sunkiller: I am hardly digital[2010/11/16 15:23]  Ivy Sunkiller: not more digital than someone’s photo on facebook :)[2010/11/16 15:23]  Extropia DaSilva: Atoms are divisible. So they are hardly ‘atoms’. But the name has stuck. So we stick with it. Same with digital people.[2010/11/16 15:23]  Ivy Sunkiller: yes[2010/11/16 15:23]  Zobeid Zuma: I love words that don’t mean what they sound like. I collect them.[2010/11/16 15:24]  Extropia DaSilva: No idea who coined the phrase. There is a book called ‘Digital People’ so maybe that is the origin.[2010/11/16 15:24]  Ivy Sunkiller: might be[2010/11/16 15:24]  Extropia DaSilva: OOO any examples, Zoe?[2010/11/16 15:24]  Zobeid Zuma: Oh, um. . . The classic example was the Holy Roman Empire — neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.[2010/11/16 15:24]  Extropia DaSilva: Hello Scarp:)[2010/11/16 15:24]  Extropia DaSilva: *Grins*[2010/11/16 15:25]  Scarp Godenot: Hi hi[2010/11/16 15:25]  Extropia DaSilva: Like that advert for Redrock Cider: ‘It is not red, and there are no rocks in it!’.[2010/11/16 15:25]  Ivy Sunkiller: hello Cupidon[2010/11/16 15:25]  Zobeid Zuma: But some of the most compelling examples in modern times come out of the US Congress. :)[2010/11/16 15:26]  Cupidon Steerpike: Or the ad for Colorado Bear Whiz Bear: “It’s in the water!”[2010/11/16 15:26]  Ivy Sunkiller: hi Scrap, Frederick[2010/11/16 15:26]  Zobeid Zuma: Re: Patriot Act. Defense of Marriage Act. etc., etc.[2010/11/16 15:26]  Ivy Sunkiller: gah[2010/11/16 15:26]  Ivy Sunkiller: Scarp[2010/11/16 15:26]  Ivy Sunkiller: I did it again![2010/11/16 15:26]  Extropia DaSilva: I got one from fiction. ‘The Ministry Of Truth’.[2010/11/16 15:26]  Zobeid Zuma: Yep. Same principle.[2010/11/16 15:26]  Cupidon Steerpike: Where am I … this TP’s not going well …[2010/11/16 15:27]  Zobeid Zuma: This is the *third* circle of Hell. Is that not the one you were seeking? :D[2010/11/16 15:27]  Extropia DaSilva: *Lem…the two of us need look no more…* (anyone know how the rest of Ben goes?)[2010/11/16 15:28]  Cupidon Steerpike: This is the talk smart place?[2010/11/16 15:28]  Ivy Sunkiller: yes indeed![2010/11/16 15:28]  Ivy Sunkiller: well, not always smart[2010/11/16 15:28]  Ivy Sunkiller: but you are welcome to make it so![2010/11/16 15:28]  Ivy Sunkiller: /me chuckles[2010/11/16 15:28]  Extropia DaSilva: Welll…this is Thinkers. Where we hope the talk is smart but do not always succeed.[2010/11/16 15:28]  Ivy Sunkiller: hello Violette[2010/11/16 15:28]  Cupidon Steerpike: O I was here once before! alone … I took snaps of this great furniture/landscape layout.[2010/11/16 15:28]  Extropia DaSilva: Now, parrots with no beaks, they always suck seed.[2010/11/16 15:28]  Scarp Godenot: Smart assed sometimes…. heh[2010/11/16 15:29]  Violette McMinnar: Hello[2010/11/16 15:29]  Zobeid Zuma: Hi Gwyn![2010/11/16 15:29]  Ivy Sunkiller: hi Lem, Gwyn![2010/11/16 15:29]  Cupidon Steerpike: Maybe the beaks are what’s in the way of their being recital poets.[2010/11/16 15:29]  Scarp Godenot: She was the girl in the high school yearbook who was voted most likely to suck seed.[2010/11/16 15:30]  Extropia DaSilva: Hello Gwyn! Hey, Gwyn, Zoe said my topic was stupid![2010/11/16 15:30]  Scarp Godenot: yes I said it but I feel guilty now[2010/11/16 15:30]  Lem Skall: hi everyone[2010/11/16 15:30]  Cupidon Steerpike: So, suck seed, this is the blowjob goup?[2010/11/16 15:30]  Zobeid Zuma: I was hoping for some more expanation of what underlies it, though.[2010/11/16 15:30]  Cupidon Steerpike: *group[2010/11/16 15:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me grins and says hi[2010/11/16 15:30]  Extropia DaSilva: …No sorry I chair that group on Thursday, Cuipdon.[2010/11/16 15:30]  Cupidon Steerpike: k.[2010/11/16 15:30]  Ivy Sunkiller: not yet, I can rezz some dance poles to warm up though![2010/11/16 15:30]  Scarp Godenot: /me hangs head in shame[2010/11/16 15:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha Extie![2010/11/16 15:31]  Extropia DaSilva: I would give you the summary but it is a bit of a mouthfull…[2010/11/16 15:31]  Cupidon Steerpike: Ha ha.[2010/11/16 15:31]  Ivy Sunkiller: haha[2010/11/16 15:31]  Ivy Sunkiller: hiya Rhi[2010/11/16 15:31]  Cupidon Steerpike: Probably I would choke on it.[2010/11/16 15:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol :)[2010/11/16 15:31]  Rhiannon Dragoone: hi Ivy![2010/11/16 15:31]  Extropia DaSilva: OK! Well I think we can start![2010/11/16 15:32]  Extropia DaSilva: Oh…[2010/11/16 15:32]  Cupidon Steerpike: /me wipes his mouth …[2010/11/16 15:32]  Extropia DaSilva: No I will begin..[2010/11/16 15:32]  Extropia DaSilva: Welcome to Thinkers![2010/11/16 15:32]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Hi Extripia, Zobeid, and all those who didn’t say hi to me[2010/11/16 15:32]  Extropia DaSilva: Today the topic is….(hello Rhi)…[2010/11/16 15:32]  Cupidon Steerpike: Hi Rhiannon.[2010/11/16 15:32]  Extropia DaSilva: PANPSYCHISM: You are conscious and a rock is not, right? According to panpsychism, consciousness is a property shared by everything in the universe, it is just that its presence is not always obvious to us. Is this at all correct, or is it true that consciousness is possessed by some things but not others?[2010/11/16 15:32]  Zobeid Zuma: Oh, hi Rhi. I was reading gossip. :/[2010/11/16 15:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh my. Chat lag :)[2010/11/16 15:33]  Abernathy Loomslough: Hello[2010/11/16 15:33]  Cupidon Steerpike: Yeah. The next big scientific breakthru that’s gonna happen will happen in neuro-psychology, & psychology’s biggest Q is consciousness.[2010/11/16 15:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me wonders if I’m a rock[2010/11/16 15:33]  Zobeid Zuma: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Panpsychism sounds like an extraordinary claim to me.[2010/11/16 15:33]  Extropia DaSilva: I would like to share a quote. I do not remember who from, but I think Zoe will like it. ‘What is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’. Is that true of pampsychism?[2010/11/16 15:33]  Zobeid Zuma: Where’s the evidence?[2010/11/16 15:33]  Lem Skall: I said hi to everyone[2010/11/16 15:33]  Rhiannon Dragoone: It’s a metaphysical claim so it needs no evidence[2010/11/16 15:34]  Cupidon Steerpike: O it’s a silly fantasy.[2010/11/16 15:34]  Cupidon Steerpike: The rocks & puppets are my friends.[2010/11/16 15:34]  Scarp Godenot: Consciousness need an object, something to be conscious of. If all matter is ‘conscious’ it isn’t discrete and defined enough to have an object to be conscious of…..[2010/11/16 15:34]  Zobeid Zuma: From my standpoing, yes.[2010/11/16 15:34]  Rhiannon Dragoone: You didn’t to me Lem but hi[2010/11/16 15:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Where is the mind that observes, in a rock?[2010/11/16 15:34]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, there wouldn’t be a mind in a full blown sense, simple a spiritual or vital quality[2010/11/16 15:35]  Cupidon Steerpike: Ya ya, there are levels. Rock, flower, gerbil, russian novelist.[2010/11/16 15:35]  Rhiannon Dragoone: I’m thinking Whitehead here[2010/11/16 15:35]  Extropia DaSilva: Maybe it thinks on different scales or something?[2010/11/16 15:35]  Ivy Sunkiller: maybe the rock isn’t concious itself, but rather makes a greater conciousness with the whole universe?[2010/11/16 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ahhh but then it’s just playing around with words, Rhi[2010/11/16 15:35]  Scarp Godenot: How does a rock identify its boundaries of non rock?[2010/11/16 15:35]  Lem Skall: are we really talking consciousness or self-awareness?[2010/11/16 15:35]  Zobeid Zuma: I read a webcomic where the gerbils were smarter than the Russian novelists. . . .[2010/11/16 15:35]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, is it? That would depend on the pragmatic consequences of the ascription, it seems to me[2010/11/16 15:35]  Lem Skall: Rhi, I said “hi everyone” ;P[2010/11/16 15:35]  Extropia DaSilva: I do not know, Lem.[2010/11/16 15:35]  Cupidon Steerpike: I hope we are not going to keep saying ‘Everything is the same, everything is on a level …'[2010/11/16 15:36]  Zobeid Zuma: No wait, it was guinea pigs. :P[2010/11/16 15:36]  Scarp Godenot: Consciousness implies the existence of ‘otherness’.[2010/11/16 15:36]  Cupidon Steerpike: Yes the punch of the words come in differences.[2010/11/16 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Consciousness is not the same thing as ‘vital energy’ (whatever it means)[2010/11/16 15:36]  Rhiannon Dragoone: That was before i arrived Lem, i have a rock here that tells me things[2010/11/16 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: in the sense that we can isolate a single cell of our organism and say that it is not conscious, but ceryainly alive[2010/11/16 15:36]  Cupidon Steerpike: k there is sentience & sapience …[2010/11/16 15:36]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, well, one of the points is that there is a non-local quality to supposedly inanimate objects[2010/11/16 15:36]  Rhiannon Dragoone: The non-locality would be a mental attribute[2010/11/16 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m fine with ‘qualities'[2010/11/16 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m not fine with ‘consciousness’ :)[2010/11/16 15:37]  Zobeid Zuma: HeLa cells are alive, and tecnically sorta kind human. . .[2010/11/16 15:37]  Extropia DaSilva: Do you think other animals, in some sense or other, think ‘oh how wonderful it would be, to be human and have a consciousness as deep as all that, I am so shallow minded in comparison’.?[2010/11/16 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m sure not, Extie :)[2010/11/16 15:37]  Ivy Sunkiller: I don’t expect my hand to be conciouss if I cut it off[2010/11/16 15:37]  Ivy Sunkiller: :p[2010/11/16 15:37]  Cupidon Steerpike: Ext, no.[2010/11/16 15:37]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Well, you take non-localilty; its a short step to eternality, and from that to a spiritual quality[2010/11/16 15:37]  Extropia DaSilva: Might be a bit hard to express their thoughts like that, I guess:)[2010/11/16 15:37]  Zobeid Zuma: Dogs might think that. Cats, no.[2010/11/16 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But they certainly are aware of surroundings and are able to make a few decisions based on those; at least from the insect level upwards.[2010/11/16 15:38]  Lem Skall: then are we ever unconscious? even when we’re dead?[2010/11/16 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: While rocks most certainly aren’t.[2010/11/16 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: A very good question, Lem :)[2010/11/16 15:38]  Rhiannon Dragoone: The subatomic particles could even be related, and then they could technically teleport, contain information, all aspect of the mind[2010/11/16 15:38]  Cupidon Steerpike: But, it has seemed, that as zoo science marches forward, the gap between the experiences of humans & those other animals keeps shrinking.[2010/11/16 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: It takes a mind to recognise other minds (I’m sort of quoting Scarp, I know…)[2010/11/16 15:38]  Cupidon Steerpike: Still, imagine being an earthworm.[2010/11/16 15:38]  Frederick Hansome: Could we agree that only that which is alive can have any level of consciousness?[2010/11/16 15:38]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Not if we accept simultaniety, non-locality and other aspects of quantum physics[2010/11/16 15:38]  Zobeid Zuma: No.[2010/11/16 15:38]  Extropia DaSilva: So do we believe in Hoffstadter’s concept of consciousness sort of diminishing as we go from man to dog to cat to insect….to atom where it is basically not there?[2010/11/16 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would certainly agree, Frederick[2010/11/16 15:38]  Cupidon Steerpike: Eternity … spiritual quality …[2010/11/16 15:39]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Extropia, nope, as when we go into sub-zero dimensionality[2010/11/16 15:39]  Rhiannon Dragoone: oh, what’s the use[2010/11/16 15:39]  Rhiannon Dragoone: i think i’ll just sit[2010/11/16 15:39]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: We’re all clouds of particles anyway.[2010/11/16 15:39]  Extropia DaSilva: Aww do not give up already Rhi![2010/11/16 15:39]  Lem Skall: ah, interesting, at what physical level is there consciousness? atom? quark?[2010/11/16 15:39]  Cupidon Steerpike: Lern, we are less often conscious as we’d like to believe, & animals seems more & more conscious. Still, there are layers …[2010/11/16 15:39]  Zobeid Zuma: I do think there has to be some degree of complexity and organization to support consciousness though.[2010/11/16 15:39]  Scarp Godenot: It is our naming and language that separates a ‘thing’ from another ‘thing’. Or from the matter around the defined thing. If every ‘thing’ has consciousness, one needs to define the ‘things’ So I don’t think it is possible for undefined ‘things’ to[2010/11/16 15:40]  Scarp Godenot: have discrete conciousness.[2010/11/16 15:40]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, Rhi, if what you mean is… “what do we all share in common with rocks” — there is certainly something: we’re all just probabilistic clouds of particles with a bit more density.[2010/11/16 15:40]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Zobeid, no we don’t[2010/11/16 15:40]  Abernathy Loomslough: So, if we’re all clouds of particles, consciousness can be defined by how those particles interact, rather than their existence?[2010/11/16 15:40]  Zobeid Zuma: No?[2010/11/16 15:40]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, nope, that’s not what i was saying[2010/11/16 15:40]  Ivy Sunkiller: I kinda like to define conciousness by the ability to feel remorse[2010/11/16 15:40]  Gilles Kuhn: Lem i doubt individual quark have consciousnesss nor atoms[2010/11/16 15:40]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, so what did you mean, Rhi?[2010/11/16 15:40]  Cupidon Steerpike: Yes, subatomic particles have relationships with other particles … k, I’m going to dictionary.com & looking up SAPIENCE and SATIENCE.[2010/11/16 15:40]  Lem Skall: do 2 atoms have consciousness?[2010/11/16 15:40]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gilles, well, they have characteristics that used to be mental; they resemble Leibnitz’ spiritual toms[2010/11/16 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, it’s not that much, Ivy — insects are conscious about their surroundings, process information, make decisions (albeit simple ones).[2010/11/16 15:41]  Extropia DaSilva: Should we differentiate between awareness on some level, and full-blown self-consciousness? I do not think we need to suppose rocks have self-awareness as I understand it.[2010/11/16 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But feeling remorse? I doubt it. Pain? Sure[2010/11/16 15:41]  Gilles Kuhn: and consciousness is something we experiment day to day only problem is that material instrumental science cannot observe it directly[2010/11/16 15:41]  Scarp Godenot: If atoms have consciousness, it is not the type of consciousness that we refer to when we compare it with our own ‘consciousness’.[2010/11/16 15:41]  Rhiannon Dragoone: and if we have a functionalitic analysis of rocks in the ecoystem, they hav epurpose[2010/11/16 15:41]  Lem Skall: do waves in the ocean have consciousness? does rain? wind? earthquakes?[2010/11/16 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: If atoms have consciousness then it’s just using a word out of context :)[2010/11/16 15:42]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, that’s the whole purpose of panpcycism, to emphasize the subjective or innter side[2010/11/16 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: “purpose”[2010/11/16 15:42]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, noi its not, if you understand the context[2010/11/16 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm[2010/11/16 15:42]  Extropia DaSilva: I say no Lem. But that could be my narrow perceptiion not seeing what is there.[2010/11/16 15:42]  Abernathy Loomslough: If we’re going to define consciousness as the ability to feel pain then we’re saying that it is impossible to have consciousness without a working nervous system.[2010/11/16 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, I need that context to be explained then, Rhi :)[2010/11/16 15:42]  Ivy Sunkiller: Gwyn: that’s why in my definition insects aren’t conciouss, gives me a good excuse to kill flies when they are around me :P[2010/11/16 15:42]  Gilles Kuhn: rhi lzibniz monads are the primitive of the forca activa as defined by his time physicist its a bit more subtle…[2010/11/16 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Abernathy, even a very simple one, yes[2010/11/16 15:42]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, i’ll be glad to sometime when i’m not being ignored[2010/11/16 15:42]  Cupidon Steerpike: k, 2 things: 1. a sunbeam falls onto the leaves of flower, the flower bends up to get the sunlight better.[2010/11/16 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aww Rhi :([2010/11/16 15:42]  Lem Skall: waves interfere, isn’t that consciousness then according to some people say here?[2010/11/16 15:42]  Gilles Kuhn: Leibnitz*[2010/11/16 15:42]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, the connection between monads and quarks though is the non-locality of the two[2010/11/16 15:43]  Cupidon Steerpike: 2. an ex-girlfriend calls me the phone, & I think of what to say …[2010/11/16 15:43]  Cupidon Steerpike: Sentience vs sapience.[2010/11/16 15:43]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s a physical property of the way the flower is built, Cupid… but it doesn’t mean that the flower is “aware” of the sunbeam[2010/11/16 15:43]  Frederick Hansome: Let’s not get too complicated. Consciousness simply means awareness. OK?[2010/11/16 15:43]  Lem Skall: Rhi, you may get ignored now because there is another naked woman[2010/11/16 15:43]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Tjere[2010/11/16 15:43]  Abernathy Loomslough: But if you had someone who had nerve damage, becoming insensible to pain somehow, but still fully cognizant, then they would cease to hav consciousness due to their inability to feel pain?[2010/11/16 15:43]  Gilles Kuhn: non locallity you mean non lorentz ivariance rhi ?[2010/11/16 15:43]  Rhiannon Dragoone: There’s more to consciousness than either sentience of sapience[2010/11/16 15:43]  Gilles Kuhn: invariance[2010/11/16 15:43]  Cupidon Steerpike: Giles Goat-Boy …[2010/11/16 15:44]  Rhiannon Dragoone: And even beings without a nervous system can feel pain[2010/11/16 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m not sure that “feeling pain” is the only way to define consciousness…[2010/11/16 15:44]  Gilles Kuhn: goat where Miam *lick lips ;-)[2010/11/16 15:44]  Abernathy Loomslough: Agreen, Gwyn.[2010/11/16 15:44]  Extropia DaSilva: Hello Orfeu. WB to Thinkers![2010/11/16 15:44]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, nope its not; there are other traditonal elements[2010/11/16 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rhi: you mean plants?[2010/11/16 15:44]  Zobeid Zuma: Incidentally. . . If we *did* somehow prove, or come to accept, that all objects are conscious. . . You might not like the results. It would cheapen consciusness.[2010/11/16 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: “traditional elements”…[2010/11/16 15:44]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Hence the connection between Leibniz and Whithead[2010/11/16 15:44]  Orfeu Miles: GREETINGS FRIENDS…FORGIVE MY TARDUNESS[2010/11/16 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (hi Orfeu)[2010/11/16 15:44]  Rhiannon Dragoone: hi Orfeu[2010/11/16 15:44]  Orfeu Miles: waves…at all and sundry[2010/11/16 15:44]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, scroll up; i’ve mentioned the traditional elments a few times now[2010/11/16 15:45]  Scarp Godenot: Hmmm I’m thinking that conciousness needs to have senses of some sort and ‘will’ of some sort in order to fulfull the defnition of something similar to what we call our own consciousness.[2010/11/16 15:45]  Rhiannon Dragoone: And “non”animate” objects can have them; do hav ethem[2010/11/16 15:45]  Ivy Sunkiller: oh I don’t think it’s the only way Gwyn, just the most, hum, applicable?[2010/11/16 15:45]  Abernathy Loomslough: I don’t think so, Zo. That’s a bit like saying that everything affected by Newton’s Third Law cheapens physics.[2010/11/16 15:45]  Zobeid Zuma: We could become like the ancient Greeks or Romans who thought there were spirits and gods in everything — they weren’t gentle people. Because if everything has a spirit, then it becomes blatantly obvious that you have to trample other spirits to lie.[2010/11/16 15:45]  Zobeid Zuma: *live.[2010/11/16 15:45]  Lem Skall: oh, more than one other naked woman[2010/11/16 15:45]  Extropia DaSilva: I was saying to Zoe at the start that what we see in the world around us is all just star ashes. So what is it that makes some clumps of star ash gifted with a mind but not others?[2010/11/16 15:45]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Extripia, is how related they are in non-local space[2010/11/16 15:45]  Gilles Kuhn: because qm theoretical consequence is indeed non locality due to EPR and due to the fact schrodinger equation is not lorentz invartiant but that apply to all elementary particle not only quark[2010/11/16 15:45]  Extropia DaSilva: Obviously, goal-orientated actions.[2010/11/16 15:45]  Ivy Sunkiller: naked women, where?[2010/11/16 15:46]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, i think we need to talk sometime about this.[2010/11/16 15:46]  Extropia DaSilva: A wolf!!!![2010/11/16 15:46]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Schrodinger shows how we can extend consciousness as an undergird to space-time[2010/11/16 15:46]  Orfeu Miles: My definition of intelligence is anyone who thinks like me.:-)…perhaps Humans only acknowledge consciousness that is like them[2010/11/16 15:46]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I have a problem in scrolling up, I’m sorry. I just saw a lot of concepts related to Leibnitz and Whitehead which don’t mean a thing to me, about non-locality[2010/11/16 15:46]  Zobeid Zuma: And if you can trample the spirit in a rock, then trampling a plant, or an insect, or your neighbor is merely a matter of degree.[2010/11/16 15:46]  Rhiannon Dragoone: And thanks for sitting next to me[2010/11/16 15:46]  Extropia DaSilva: Oh that is the cover star of this week’s transcript for sure![2010/11/16 15:47]  Ivy Sunkiller: hiya K![2010/11/16 15:47]  Khannea Suntzu: FUCK[2010/11/16 15:47]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, well, i’m tired of saying it and not being listened to, so i guess you’ll miss out[2010/11/16 15:47]  Gilles Kuhn: schrodinger i know his work in physics rhi i didnt know he said anything about consciousness[2010/11/16 15:47]  Rhiannon Dragoone: hi khannea[2010/11/16 15:47]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, though, seems to get my point[2010/11/16 15:47]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Perhaps I’m listening but not understanding, Rhi[2010/11/16 15:47]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Two different things :)[2010/11/16 15:47]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: All I understood so far is “Non-locality”[2010/11/16 15:48]  Abernathy Loomslough: Well Zo, if you can destroy a rock, then destroying a plant, or an insect or a neighbor is only a matter of degree. The morality of recognizing sentience is a deceiving idea.[2010/11/16 15:48]  Rhiannon Dragoone: ok, Gwyn[2010/11/16 15:48]  Extropia DaSilva: You are doing better than me, then, gwyn:)[2010/11/16 15:48]  Lem Skall: I don’t understand anything of this discussion[2010/11/16 15:48]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: How exactly that is supposed to be even remotely related to what I understand consciousness to *be* eludes me completely.[2010/11/16 15:48]  Extropia DaSilva: Nor I, Lem.[2010/11/16 15:48]  Zobeid Zuma: I’m not saying it’s true or untrue, I’m just saying don’t advance the argument for the wrong reasons. :)[2010/11/16 15:48]  Lem Skall: maybe we’re not conscious, Extie[2010/11/16 15:48]  Rhiannon Dragoone: the point is that at the sub atomic level, there is non-locality; two different particles, unrelated in local space and time, can influence each other; and that shows a spiritual dimention, in the sense of a non-material dimension to matter[2010/11/16 15:48]  Gilles Kuhn: non localitty has nothing to do with consciousness either in actual theories before maxwell and michelson morley non locatlity was perfectly ok in physic[2010/11/16 15:49]  Rhiannon Dragoone: It’s a short leap from that to pansychissm[2010/11/16 15:49]  Zobeid Zuma: This “panpsychism” doesn’t strike me as a path to universal peace, love and understanding.[2010/11/16 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: How come, Rhi? It’s just a physical phenomenon[2010/11/16 15:49]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, well, it does, in that the observer effect comes in[2010/11/16 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I kick a rock; where is the spiritual dimension in that?[2010/11/16 15:49]  Abernathy Loomslough: Panpsychism, to me, seems more like a mental excercise than any kind of sustainable ethos.[2010/11/16 15:49]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Well, the two particles are paced with information about each other, and that presupposes a kind of awareness[2010/11/16 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah![2010/11/16 15:49]  Orfeu Miles: Maybe the rock kicked you gwynn :-)[2010/11/16 15:49]  Zobeid Zuma: mental exercise = flight of fancy[2010/11/16 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok![2010/11/16 15:49]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Abernathy, well, it can go green[2010/11/16 15:49]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Hi Atari[2010/11/16 15:50]  Extropia DaSilva: At risk of offending Rhi, QM serves two purposes. Terrific accuracy at predicting the behaviour of particles for physicists, and serving up no end of impressive-sounding twaddle from new-agers.[2010/11/16 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, ok. So the issue here is information transfer.[2010/11/16 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm[2010/11/16 15:50]  Ataraxia Azemus: Hi hi :)[2010/11/16 15:50]  Orfeu Miles: LOL Extie[2010/11/16 15:50]  Scarp Godenot: In order to have consciousness I propose that it needs these qualities 1) it needs to be discrete and definable as to its form and boundaries. 2)be able to sense that which is ‘other’ to itself and 3) be capable of ‘will’ or having the ability to act.[2010/11/16 15:50]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Extripia, well to call what I said traddle is question begging, of course, but you know that[2010/11/16 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But in my mind (assuming I still have one!), consciousness is about information *processing* and not merely transfer.[2010/11/16 15:50]  Rhiannon Dragoone: At least you listened to the traddle[2010/11/16 15:50]  Frederick Hansome: This group seems to be populated with those who have a need to “impress” rather than an examinaltion of the possibilities of panpsychism. Too bad.[2010/11/16 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: See, I like Scarp’s definition.[2010/11/16 15:51]  Gilles Kuhn: you cannot use that rhi an observer in qm can be perfectly anny kind of interaction that destroy the quantum state the fact that the interaction connect or no to a conscious observer is irrlelevant[2010/11/16 15:51]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: The focus is on the will; not on the information.[2010/11/16 15:51]  Lem Skall: Scarp, Society is not discrete or definable and yet I would argue it is conscious[2010/11/16 15:51]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Fred, i’ve always wanted to go with a positive interepretation of a metaphysics[2010/11/16 15:51]  Zobeid Zuma: I’ve mentioned the possibilities, and I don’t particularly like them. :P[2010/11/16 15:51]  CuffedBreast: whispers: Khannea Suntzu touches her swollen breast with spiky steel[2010/11/16 15:51]  Abernathy Loomslough: The lack of a definable measurement of something does not necessarilly mean it doesn’t exist. A consciousness, as we’ve apparently already established, isn’t particularly kind to those attempting to define it, much less measurement, but it does seem to be something we all agree exists.[2010/11/16 15:51]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, I’m fine in accepting the possibilitie; but I have to be sure we’re starting from valid assumptions :)[2010/11/16 15:51]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, well, they’ve done studies where X in one city can influence the way a particle spins in another[2010/11/16 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree so far, Abernathy![2010/11/16 15:52]  Rhiannon Dragoone: That implies both the influence of consciousness on the subatomic level and non locality[2010/11/16 15:52]  Lem Skall: Fred, and that comment was NOT made to impress with your superiority?[2010/11/16 15:52]  Gilles Kuhn: abe yes as it is our prime immediate experience but as i said instrumental science cannot observe it directly yet….[2010/11/16 15:52]  Rhiannon Dragoone: And I’m not useing words just to impress; there are underlying connections and patterns at the subatomic level[2010/11/16 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But that is just the *object* of an action, Rhi[2010/11/16 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: The intention to act itself is on the mind, not on the particles[2010/11/16 15:53]  Gilles Kuhn: yes rhi but the fact is that the observer can perfectly be a machine which is not conscious[2010/11/16 15:53]  Lem Skall: do you need a MIND to be conscious?[2010/11/16 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m fine with the connections — quantum entanglement is more than proved[2010/11/16 15:53]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, perhaps so, but if you define matter in terms of extension and locality, by which i simply mean a spatio-temporal location, then traditional matter doesn’t apply here[2010/11/16 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Lem: in my definition, yes[2010/11/16 15:53]  Extropia DaSilva: But does measurement have to mean conscious observation? I thought it wa enough to have one particle bump into another to collapse the wave function whatever that is?[2010/11/16 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh I’m fine with that, Rhi[2010/11/16 15:53]  Ataraxia Azemus: Consciousness makes minds, I think[2010/11/16 15:53]  Frederick Hansome: No, Lem, it is my inferiority that is crying out for reasonableness in the discussion[2010/11/16 15:53]  Gilles Kuhn: extropia no[2010/11/16 15:53]  Lem Skall: so plants are not conscious?[2010/11/16 15:53]  Extropia DaSilva: No?[2010/11/16 15:53]  Abernathy Loomslough: So what we’re doing is establishing a theory of the behavior of consciousness based on our knowledge of its existence, despite being unable to measure it scientifically.[2010/11/16 15:53]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, i understand that, but that begs the question–as if we are pondering whether a rock is aware, then a machine can be aware too[2010/11/16 15:53]  Lem Skall: maybe?[2010/11/16 15:53]  Extropia DaSilva: See why I failed my phd in quantum field theory now?[2010/11/16 15:54]  Rhiannon Dragoone: So you can’t use the machine as unaware card without begging the question[2010/11/16 15:54]  Gilles Kuhn: “observation” is only an interaction destroying the quantum state no need for conscious observer[2010/11/16 15:54]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not to me, Lem. They may react to inputs, or at least they do so from an external observer, but they are not themselves information processors and acting uponinformation[2010/11/16 15:54]  Extropia DaSilva: the question being begged is….?[2010/11/16 15:54]  Scarp Godenot: Well, when it gets right down to it. If we are not able to percieve or measure any effects created by a ‘consciousness’. Or even to define what those effects might be, all we are dealing with is bullshit or at best wishful thinking…..[2010/11/16 15:54]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me grins at Scarp’spragmatism[2010/11/16 15:54]  Rhiannon Dragoone: no need for a conscious observer, but if we define matter traditionally, and whitehead was, then there are elements to matter that are spiritual in nature[2010/11/16 15:55]  Gilles Kuhn: rhi we have no evidence AT ALL of any kind of awareness nor consciousness in non lliving thing and in those only for superior multicellular animals[2010/11/16 15:55]  Rhiannon Dragoone: And that’s all the panpsychist is saying[2010/11/16 15:55]  Orfeu Miles: smiles…been 2 years since I was here…and we are still having the weekly debate on what ‘is” means….how very re-assuring LOL[2010/11/16 15:55]  Ataraxia Azemus: We can define and describe aspects of consciousness we experience[2010/11/16 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: By “spiritual” you mean “mind-related” I suppose[2010/11/16 15:55]  Lem Skall: when would AI be considered conscious?[2010/11/16 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (Orfeu, glad you’re back 🙂 )[2010/11/16 15:55]  Abernathy Loomslough: No, Scarp, what we are doing is dealing with a greased pig. it exists, we can see it, we can touch it, but damned if we can catch the little bastard.[2010/11/16 15:55]  Ataraxia Azemus: When it starts to sass.[2010/11/16 15:55]  Frederick Hansome: I maintain that anything that is alive and can reproduce, including plants, has a level of consciouisness.[2010/11/16 15:55]  Extropia DaSilva: Some things never change, Orfue.[2010/11/16 15:55]  Gilles Kuhn: Lem when he pass a turing test obviously lol[2010/11/16 15:55]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, its not a matter of evidence; its a matter of interpretation; yes, there can be some naturalistic explanation for the apparent influence of mind in remote influencing cases[2010/11/16 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Frederick: I wuld say, “it’s merely alive”[2010/11/16 15:56]  Ataraxia Azemus: Haha Abernathy[2010/11/16 15:56]  Lem Skall: Fred, a cell reproduces[2010/11/16 15:56]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Energy fields that are subtle, perhaps; like in Chinesse medicine[2010/11/16 15:56]  Gilles Kuhn: Fred you maintian that ok but could you substantiate the claim[2010/11/16 15:56]  Extropia DaSilva: You see. in 2100 I will still be holding ‘singularity is near’ discussions;)[2010/11/16 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now I agree that it’s all a matter of interoretation :)[2010/11/16 15:56]  Rhiannon Dragoone: But if we are to take Whitehead seriously, just to see how far we can take him, then why not?[2010/11/16 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Verylikely, Extie :D[2010/11/16 15:56]  Frederick Hansome: Some plants exhibit phototropism. That shows an awareness/consciousness of light[2010/11/16 15:56]  Gilles Kuhn: choke at the mention of “subtle” energy field[2010/11/16 15:56]  Extropia DaSilva: what did this whitehead say, anyway?[2010/11/16 15:56]  Scarp Godenot: Rocks aren’t conscious, there, I’ve said it. There is zero evidence of any effect caused by rock consciousness. I think this is an empty concept. Move on…….[2010/11/16 15:56]  Orfeu Miles: ( LOL extie…we might all be a single entity by then….rcok-shaped)[2010/11/16 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Welllllllll Frederisk. That’s like saying that when you set fire to a bit of paper, it burns; so it’s conscious to fire.[2010/11/16 15:57]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: While in reality it’s really just a physical consequence :)[2010/11/16 15:57]  Gilles Kuhn: Fred no that show cells react to light and by a enterely automatic process the plant move[2010/11/16 15:57]  Lem Skall: it is only a reaction to light, not consciousness, reaction is not consciousness[2010/11/16 15:57]  Frederick Hansome: No, the paper id not alive[2010/11/16 15:57]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, its a topic in itself; and it wouldn’t lend necessarily to either panpsycism of hylozoism, but again, why not see how far we can go?[2010/11/16 15:57]  Abernathy Loomslough: Well, we can’t just move on Scarp. This is kinda the point of the discussion. We have to poke it with a stick for a while.[2010/11/16 15:57]  Rhiannon Dragoone: As a group we are dismissing panpsychism out of hand, and why not see what we can lern from it?[2010/11/16 15:57]  Ataraxia Azemus: Is the stick aware of the poking?[2010/11/16 15:57]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But a plant would be conscious because it’s alive…?[2010/11/16 15:57]  Lem Skall: a mirror reflects light, is that consciousness?[2010/11/16 15:57]  Abernathy Loomslough: Is consciousness aware of the stick? A conundrum indeed.[2010/11/16 15:57]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem why isn’t it?[2010/11/16 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: A mirror can even reflect a person speaking and acting — so is the mirror conscious?[2010/11/16 15:58]  Ataraxia Azemus: Those are just physical reactions, though. That’s different from an entity *causing* reactions.[2010/11/16 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: Ok well…most people suppose an ovum is not conscious, and that a person is. So somewhere between the two it must appear. So where?[2010/11/16 15:58]  Lem Skall: well, Rhi, is light conscious of the ,irror?[2010/11/16 15:58]  Frederick Hansome: Anyone besides myself not know what “hylozoism” is?[2010/11/16 15:58]  Gilles Kuhn: i dont dismiss panpsychism a priori but we have no empirical means to prove or disprove it so its only speculative metaphysic[2010/11/16 15:58]  Scarp Godenot: ??? The evidence has been worked through and presented and I have reached a conclusion. That is all I said there. If you have counter evidence, present it.[2010/11/16 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think that Atari has made a point.[2010/11/16 15:58]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, that’s why i first positied a pragmatic test[2010/11/16 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: Giles, as I quoted at the start ‘that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’.[2010/11/16 15:58]  Rhiannon Dragoone: What consequences would there be to us, if we accepted it?[2010/11/16 15:59]  Lem Skall: Extie, people can’t agree on when life starts, how are we going to agree on consciousness?[2010/11/16 15:59]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let’s get the stick analogy again. If I decide to hit the rock with a stick, I’m interacting with matter at a distance, via the stick. That doesn’t mean that the stick is, in itself, conscious or part of my mind.[2010/11/16 15:59]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Extripia, seems a lame excuse for begging the question[2010/11/16 15:59]  Scarp Godenot: We would be deluded, Rhiannon, just like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[2010/11/16 15:59]  Extropia DaSilva: But nobody believes in it.[2010/11/16 15:59]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: At least the FSM is a meme :)[2010/11/16 15:59]  Gilles Kuhn: agreed extropia but its not so easy as you have to define evidence empirical one can be tricky and its not the only one that is reasonnable[2010/11/16 15:59]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Scarp, well, another begging of the question;ur assuming tht its delusional[2010/11/16 15:59]  Scarp Godenot: That is my point[2010/11/16 15:59]  Rhiannon Dragoone: But Alfred Lord Whitehead believed in it[2010/11/16 15:59]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Wiccans believe in it[2010/11/16 15:59]  Extropia DaSilva: in what?[2010/11/16 15:59]  Zobeid Zuma: I asked a while ago what the consequences would be. And I suggested it would make us more callous if we accepted it.[2010/11/16 16:00]  Rhiannon Dragoone: You’re dismissing a whole religious sensibility, Ex[2010/11/16 16:00]  Extropia DaSilva: The flying spaghettit monster?[2010/11/16 16:00]  Lem Skall: pfft, religion[2010/11/16 16:00]  Rhiannon Dragoone: So what’s the purpose of the discussion, then?[2010/11/16 16:00]  Extropia DaSilva: Get away![2010/11/16 16:00]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, empathy with particles :)[2010/11/16 16:00]  Extropia DaSilva: You lot have to make the purpose, It does not exist in and of itself.[2010/11/16 16:00]  Scarp Godenot: If your belief has no basis in evidence or sensory input. It might be fun and all that, but it is irrelevant to any real purpose.[2010/11/16 16:01]  Lem Skall: according to Fred the purpose is for us to look important[2010/11/16 16:01]  Rhiannon Dragoone: well, so fr i’m getting the impression the purpose is to mock a belief without really trying to understand it[2010/11/16 16:01]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Granted, Ihave the opposite approach — particles are important (‘sacred’ if you wish) because they create a whole Universe for my mind to interact with; I don’t need to presume they’re ‘conscious’ to feel empathy with them.[2010/11/16 16:01]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, i’m beginning to agree with him, at least this week[2010/11/16 16:01]  Zobeid Zuma: It might have practical implications Scarp. . . if you could make money selling Pet Rocks. :D[2010/11/16 16:01]  Scarp Godenot: How is it possible to understand something that can’t even be defined?[2010/11/16 16:01]  Abernathy Loomslough: I thought the purpose of the discussion was for everyone to be as intelligent as they can in an attempt to learn more. The likelihood of us coming upon some grand unifying proof of consciousness is fairly small.[2010/11/16 16:01]  Zobeid Zuma: /me is old enough to remember the Pet Rock fad, sadly. :([2010/11/16 16:01]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Zobeid, well, what about this? Carl Becker thought that progress meant the decralizatiion of nature[2010/11/16 16:01]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Stranger things have happened, Abernathy :)[2010/11/16 16:02]  Gilles Kuhn: i will do advocatus diaboli a bit lot of people use argument in favor of dualism ridiculising the fact that only neurons can create consciousness by replacing them for example by chinese people in boxes or waterpipes etc thus a reverso i tend to say well why not waterpipe or chinese in group can create a consciousness which open the way to panpsychism etc[2010/11/16 16:02]  Rhiannon Dragoone: And if we sacrilize nature through believing it to be aware, wouldn’t that happen?[2010/11/16 16:02]  Lem Skall: Rhi, can you understand a belief if you don’t believe it?[2010/11/16 16:02]  Orfeu Miles: Abernathy…I thought the point was to tpye the first thing that pops nto your mind….as fast as possible[2010/11/16 16:02]  Extropia DaSilva: But if something exists, it exists, with or wihout measurement. Like um..the strong nuclear force did not just pop into being because…oh I forget who, wrote ‘1st three minutes’…said we needed it.[2010/11/16 16:02]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Then again hmm one might wonder if we would have conscious minds if it weren’t for the rest of the Universe existing in the first place…. gah, there goes the Anthropic Principle :([2010/11/16 16:02]  Zobeid Zuma: What is “decralization”?[2010/11/16 16:02]  Scarp Godenot: You can have respect for nature and the universe without pretending it has consciousness.[2010/11/16 16:02]  Extropia DaSilva: Weinberg?[2010/11/16 16:02]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, that is why, at the beginning of the discxussion, I suggested we see how far panpsychism can take us[2010/11/16 16:02]  Ivy Sunkiller: about plants – I think that any for of conciousness requires something that we can call a “mind”, which in terms of organic life is nervous system of some sort. The plant can be “aware” of it’s surroundings just like detector in electronic doors is “aware” of presence in it’s range, opening the door, doesn’t make neither of them councious.[2010/11/16 16:03]  Rhiannon Dragoone: desacralization, i mis spelled it[2010/11/16 16:03]  Zobeid Zuma: /me doesn’t know that word either. . .[2010/11/16 16:03]  Lem Skall: Rhi, can it get us out of the recession?[2010/11/16 16:03]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Nature used to be considered sacred; but when we took the spiritual out of nature, making it supernatural, it allowed us to exploit it[2010/11/16 16:03]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, if we all practiced ecological relationships, then yes[2010/11/16 16:03]  Ataraxia Azemus: I think “consciousness” too often means “ego” in convos like this :)[2010/11/16 16:03]  Gilles Kuhn: lem yes you can and you can have held belief before that you dont believe anymore and understand them[2010/11/16 16:03]  Extropia DaSilva: But it will never take you anywhere if you think of ‘consciousness’ in anything like antrhopomorphic terms. A rock might have a wholley alien consciusness.[2010/11/16 16:04]  Gilles Kuhn: extropia force and theoretical object dont exist ontologically they are concepts ….[2010/11/16 16:04]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Good point, Ex[2010/11/16 16:04]  Zobeid Zuma: Yes, that was my point, Rhi. The ancients believed spirits were everywhere. It didn’t make them into gentle hippies.[2010/11/16 16:04]  Rhiannon Dragoone: hi Nawlins![2010/11/16 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ivy, that’s a bit what I think too. I mean, if the sunbeam touches the flower and it opens because of physical processes that react to the sun, that’s not “conscious” (according to *my* definition at least), because the plant has no will to do things oth[2010/11/16 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: *otherwise)[2010/11/16 16:04]  Scarp Godenot: Yes, Ivy. Good point there.[2010/11/16 16:04]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Zobeids, but it did have practical consequences[2010/11/16 16:04]  Zobeid Zuma: Practical consequences, such as?[2010/11/16 16:04]  Rhiannon Dragoone: And yes, i’m not advocating panpsycism, i just think we should explore it, and one of its implications is an ecological awareness–making nature sacred again[2010/11/16 16:04]  Orfeu Miles: Hard for us tohear a mountain speak…it may take 10,000 years to from a sentence…I mean…noy exactly “Shiny” is it ??[2010/11/16 16:04]  Abernathy Loomslough: But Zo, not believing spirits are in everything didn’t make anyone gentle hippies either. The consequences of the concept are rather moot, at least when it comes to human behavior.[2010/11/16 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: On the other hand, at least from the insect level upwards, all animals are able to proces information and act upon that information.[2010/11/16 16:05]  Scarp Godenot: We can explore ecological awareness fully without giving it religious overtones.[2010/11/16 16:05]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Zobeid, I mentioned Carl Becker earlier; the lack of progress in medieval times, he thought was do to making nature sacred[2010/11/16 16:05]  Lem Skall: ok, let’s assume then that everything has consciousness, where would that take us? do we need to respect rocks as much as we respect other humans or life in general?[2010/11/16 16:05]  Rhiannon Dragoone: That’s a practical consequence[2010/11/16 16:05]  Extropia DaSilva: Technology is sacred. technology is a reprogramming of nature. Ergo, nature is sacred.[2010/11/16 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rhi, in my world-view, te whole universe is ‘sacred’ not because it’s conscious; but because I wouldn’t have a conscious mind without the universe existing 🙂 (or vice-versa!)[2010/11/16 16:05]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, thank you, that is exactly the question[2010/11/16 16:05]  Gilles Kuhn: sacralisation is the reverse of enlightment and rationnality rhi beware[2010/11/16 16:05]  Zobeid Zuma: There was a lot of progress in medieval times.[2010/11/16 16:06]  Lem Skall: screw rocks!!!![2010/11/16 16:06]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, well, that woudl be a good reason, perhaps, for rejecting panpsychism, but Lem is right about the questions of rights[2010/11/16 16:06]  Orfeu Miles: Lem is we respect rocks, as much as humans…then rocks are fucked!!! LOL[2010/11/16 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s hard![2010/11/16 16:06]  -dD- Sasy – Adjustable (Jet): floating text[2010/11/16 16:06]  Rhiannon Dragoone: And there are those who wish to give nature as a whole rights[2010/11/16 16:06]  Gilles Kuhn: yes they find good manner of burning books its call paper way more handy to burn that stone tablet lol[2010/11/16 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But but but… nature’s just a bunch of randomly-assembled probability densities of particles :)[2010/11/16 16:07]  Extropia DaSilva: …you know there is this hypothesis that the first ever replicators were clay crystals, so maybe the grand ancestor of all life was rocks? Dunno what that means for this topic, just thought I would share:)[2010/11/16 16:07]  Lem Skall: a rock doesn’t respect me when it falls on my head, why would I respect IT? It’s every consciousness for itself![2010/11/16 16:07]  Zobeid Zuma: But anyhow, my point is that we shouldn’t define truth — or even pursue it — based on what we think would be good for us, or good for society. Truth doesn’t conform to our needs or wishes.[2010/11/16 16:07]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, there you go begging the question again[2010/11/16 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: While *we* have minds ;)[2010/11/16 16:07]  Scarp Godenot: Lem, the point I made at the very beginning of this discussion is that the definitiion of a Thing and the boundaries of the thing are only applied by us and our language. Otherwise is is undivided matter..[2010/11/16 16:07]  Abernathy Loomslough: Also a lot of witch burning and war in medieval times. Rational, nonspiritual thought generally means that humans find rational, unspiritual reasons to not be gentle hippies rather than irrantional, spiritual reasons to not be gentle hippies.[2010/11/16 16:07]  Gilles Kuhn: nature is a word that we have invented and of moving meaning[2010/11/16 16:07]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Ex, well, it shows a vital element to rocks, perhaps[2010/11/16 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nature is just “outside of self”[2010/11/16 16:07]  Ivy Sunkiller: separating life forms that are concious from those that aren’t is way more interesting. I remember seeing some experiment about a bee trying to find it nest that was removed artificially, it kept comming back to the same spot not able to learn that it wasn’t there anymore.[2010/11/16 16:07]  Extropia DaSilva: OK Scarp let is start at the beginning…A is A….[2010/11/16 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ivy: *learning* is a function of a higher level of mind :)[2010/11/16 16:08]  Gilles Kuhn: which is perfectly true and totally void of any info extropia[2010/11/16 16:08]  Zobeid Zuma: “If only we’d all belive X, everything would be great!” doesn’t make X true.[2010/11/16 16:08]  Extropia DaSilva: (Tries to remember what Johhn Galt derived from ‘A is A’. something like ‘existence exists’.)[2010/11/16 16:08]  Abernathy Loomslough: Which is why we’re not attemtping to argue that, Zo.[2010/11/16 16:08]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, well, insects can learn, and if they have this “higher level of mind,” surely a rock could too[2010/11/16 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (no, it would just ask us to define what “everything” and “great” means)[2010/11/16 16:08]  Lem Skall: I think Rhi’s question is “what if we all believed X?”[2010/11/16 16:09]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: My problem is with the “surely”, Rhi.[2010/11/16 16:09]  Ivy Sunkiller: Gwyn: question is – where does the hardware program ends and conciousness begins? :)[2010/11/16 16:09]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, no my question is more, “What can we learn from X by positing it and running with it–seeing its consequences[2010/11/16 16:09]  Gilles Kuhn: extropia principle of logical identity was created by parmenides but it bring him to deduce absurdities[2010/11/16 16:09]  Ivy Sunkiller: ends = end[2010/11/16 16:09]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: heh ivy. That’s a question that is beyond physics right now ;)[2010/11/16 16:09]  Gilles Kuhn: by consciousness you need to think qualic impression[2010/11/16 16:09]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Well, Gwyn, where would the line be drawn? Not at neurology if insects are sentient[2010/11/16 16:09]  Orfeu Miles: Ok I will try it as an experiment..I will go around for a day believeing rocks are conscious….report here next week[2010/11/16 16:09]  Extropia DaSilva: As O’ Brian said, Lem, ‘If I believe it and you believe it, it happens. Reality exists only in the collective consciousness’.[2010/11/16 16:09]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I have no answer that is scientifically acceptable.[2010/11/16 16:09]  Gilles Kuhn: and good luck to demonstrate you have them[2010/11/16 16:09]  Scarp Godenot: A better question, does consciousness in animals require that they first be self consciousness?[2010/11/16 16:10]  Scarp Godenot: conscious[2010/11/16 16:10]  Extropia DaSilva: No.[2010/11/16 16:10]  Rhiannon Dragoone: And if we atke some of their QM qualities, we can make a case for them being, at bottom, non-material[2010/11/16 16:10]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not really, Scarp[2010/11/16 16:10]  Ataraxia Azemus: Nope.[2010/11/16 16:10]  Gilles Kuhn: no scarp qualic impression is good enough[2010/11/16 16:10]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, for the metaphysics of it, yes[2010/11/16 16:10]  Lem Skall: ok, Rhi, I’ll bite, we would be deadlocked because we couldn’t eat anything, we couldn’t breathe without changing oxygen into carbon dyoxide and we would die, but heck we would still be conscious[2010/11/16 16:10]  Rhiannon Dragoone: hi Luisa![2010/11/16 16:10]  Luisa Bourgoin: ‘ullo![2010/11/16 16:10]  Scarp Godenot: Is a bacteria conscious?[2010/11/16 16:10]  Ivy Sunkiller: if being self aware is not a requirement for conciousness, then the electronic door detector is concious![2010/11/16 16:10]  Ataraxia Azemus: Hi Luisa[2010/11/16 16:10]  Gilles Kuhn: after dying i dont think so…[2010/11/16 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok i see the point, Rhi. So it’s really one of those black/white questions. Either everything has consciousness, or nothing has, since any kind of ‘classification’ of wat a mind is or isn’t is purely conceptual and artificial.[2010/11/16 16:11]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, or we might develop rituals to allow for our human behavior–like the Tarasha tribe[2010/11/16 16:11]  Extropia DaSilva: Not like I am, no Scarp.[2010/11/16 16:11]  Orfeu Miles: Lem we believe Humans are conscious…but we still kill them and eat their brains…er…somtimes[2010/11/16 16:11]  Khannea Suntzu: We are moving into such bewildering territories with computing and internet that are buillshit ridden primate brains start hallucinating up celestial RFID tags everywhere. Oh please stop.[2010/11/16 16:11]  Ataraxia Azemus: Good answer, Extie :)[2010/11/16 16:11]  Gilles Kuhn: ivy repeat no because he has no qualic impression[2010/11/16 16:11]  Abernathy Loomslough: Oh, I disagree completely, Lem. I believe that we would be almost exactly the same. Our moralities would shift to accomidate survival.[2010/11/16 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not quite, Ivy[2010/11/16 16:11]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, yeah, that is one way to put it[2010/11/16 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, Rhi[2010/11/16 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well… I’ve persuaded myself that there can only be those two answers really :)[2010/11/16 16:12]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Panpsychism is a monistic view after all, and it tends to reduce everything to one kind of thing[2010/11/16 16:12]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Quite so.[2010/11/16 16:12]  Lem Skall: Rhi, ok, so we would just be primitive like the Tarasha tribe[2010/11/16 16:12]  Lem Skall: no thank you[2010/11/16 16:12]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me browses through her Spinoza and nods[2010/11/16 16:12]  Scarp Godenot: The bacteria posessed my three criteria. 1) discrete and defined 2) aware of things not itelf and 3) able to act[2010/11/16 16:12]  Ivy Sunkiller: well, point me to a beaing that is not self aware but is councious[2010/11/16 16:12]  Ivy Sunkiller: one example please :)[2010/11/16 16:12]  Khannea Suntzu: Animalismophilia[2010/11/16 16:12]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ivy: bacteria[2010/11/16 16:12]  Extropia DaSilva: Odd though. A recenty dead person looks pretty much the same as an alive person. But there is no consciousness. But what, really, is missing?[2010/11/16 16:12]  Gilles Kuhn: scarp and they dont perceive anything in a qualic manner so they dont have my SOLE criteria[2010/11/16 16:13]  Abernathy Loomslough: The idea of animism as primitive confuses me. It seems, to me, to be just a different theological standpoint rather than a primitive concept.[2010/11/16 16:13]  Lem Skall: the Tarasha tribe prolly doesn’t know that bacteria even exists[2010/11/16 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: One of the hardest questions to answer, Extie :)[2010/11/16 16:13]  Luisa Bourgoin: on my way in, rezzing blindness, I knocked over Gwyn (probably unconscious now) so there’s the obersvation: states change[2010/11/16 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha Luisa!!![2010/11/16 16:13]  Khannea Suntzu: /me gropes extropia and Let There Be Difference.[2010/11/16 16:13]  Ivy Sunkiller: Gwyn: I really can’t agree :)[2010/11/16 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: so well put :)[2010/11/16 16:13]  Extropia DaSilva: *Narrows her eyes and purrs*[2010/11/16 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ivy: certainly under Scarp’s definition[2010/11/16 16:13]  Scarp Godenot: So Gilles, consciousness needs to be discerning?[2010/11/16 16:13]  Ivy Sunkiller: well, the problem is, we are all using different defintions ;)[2010/11/16 16:13]  Abernathy Loomslough: Lem Lem Lem. You’re mistaking correlation and causality. They aren’t primitive due to their beliefs, they are simply primitive and have their beliefs.[2010/11/16 16:14]  Ataraxia Azemus: I think maybe it leads to a different lifestyle, Abernathy. It’s hard to respect life and have an industrial farming/meat industry at the same time.[2010/11/16 16:14]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m quite willing to use Scarp’s definition as a working hypothesis.[2010/11/16 16:14]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, that is one possibility, hence Becker’s point about descralizing nature leading to material progress[2010/11/16 16:14]  Gilles Kuhn: animism is only to ascribe intentionality and qualic perception and so consciousness which are our immediate and most primal feeling and knowledge to all what we perceive is supreme anthropomorphism[2010/11/16 16:14]  Lem Skall: Ata, it’s a duality, they lagged in evolving because they stuck to their beliefs[2010/11/16 16:14]  Rhiannon Dragoone: We owe our computers to the Prophet Elijah[2010/11/16 16:14]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I like that, Gilles, and I think that pretty much summarises the whole discussion :)[2010/11/16 16:14]  Lem Skall: but anyway, this is the difference between belief and the search for TRUTH[2010/11/16 16:14]  Zobeid Zuma: /me dredges up a favorite old link –> http://users.bestweb.net/~bennetc/mineral.html%5B2010/11/16 16:15]  Extropia DaSilva: Abernethy, I expect they have folk knowledge of their environment that is far more useful than most of the stuff that fills my head, which is of no survival value whatsoever:)[2010/11/16 16:15]  Abernathy Loomslough: I fully and totally respect life. I also fully and totally enjoy steak. This does not mean I don’t care about the cow, this simply means that I am willing to sacrifice her so I can be fed.[2010/11/16 16:15]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Abernathy, true enough, but he was running with my idea of pragmatic consequences as a test for metaphysics'[2010/11/16 16:15]  Extropia DaSilva: The atoms in that steak existed long before the cow did and will exist long after you are gone. We are all just temporary aggregates of atoms:)[2010/11/16 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh yes. And ever-changing ones too.[2010/11/16 16:16]  Gilles Kuhn: and atoms to are temporary btw[2010/11/16 16:16]  Ivy Sunkiller: bloody matter stealing animals![2010/11/16 16:16]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Abernathy, yes,[2010/11/16 16:16]  Lem Skall: should we live n a world of belief or should we search for scientific truth? we may be actually happier with the first one[2010/11/16 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye, Gilles, even though they take a long time to fade[2010/11/16 16:16]  Ataraxia Azemus: That’s not quite what I meant. In a tribal society, you’d hunt or slaughter something yourself, or you’d know someone who did. There would be a more direct relationship between you and the animal that simply isn’t there when things are raised en masse for slaughter.[2010/11/16 16:16]  Orfeu Miles: Yes extie…the old”You never buy beer…you just lease it” argument[2010/11/16 16:16]  Gilles Kuhn: but dont forget sum is more than parts[2010/11/16 16:16]  Extropia DaSilva: Yes only Spinoza’s One substance is eternal.[2010/11/16 16:16]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, its not an either or, but a both and[2010/11/16 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me *nods* @ Extie[2010/11/16 16:16]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Ex, and conscious, and we are all a part of that[2010/11/16 16:17]  Lem Skall: I can’t see belief and scientific method coexisting[2010/11/16 16:17]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Hence, why Spinoza ends up dialectically merging with Hegel[2010/11/16 16:17]  Lem Skall: rather faith than belief[2010/11/16 16:17]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, i can’t see them not, as science rests on fundamental assumptions that have to be taken on faith[2010/11/16 16:17]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm. I don’t read Spinoza exactly that way; that is the easier way to put what he had in mind into words.[2010/11/16 16:17]  Luisa Bourgoin: Orfeu, beer substantially changes state in between leasing cycle[2010/11/16 16:17]  Ataraxia Azemus: You might personally still respect the plants and animals you eat, but that doesn’t quite gel with a large scale industrial society.[2010/11/16 16:17]  Orfeu Miles: Lem…depends which Domain…belief is a private matter…Science is up for public discussion[2010/11/16 16:17]  Extropia DaSilva: So consciousness is simple and made of itself? As in we cannot ask what causes consciousness to exist, it just IS? And it is not made up of anything more fundamental but again just IS?[2010/11/16 16:18]  Lem Skall: those are not faith, they are just assumptions that we keep questioning and replacing with other assumptions[2010/11/16 16:18]  Gilles Kuhn: oh hegel was a glutton he tried to put all of his predecessor in his system probably he was tolkien inspiration for Sauron ;-)[2010/11/16 16:18]  Abernathy Loomslough: The personal relationship between hunter and prey, while a romantic notion, doesn’t really seem to mesh, for me. I don’t see a difference between a father killing a boar and feeding his family and a butcher killing a pig and giving me bacon, except that I can leave it to professionals.[2010/11/16 16:18]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Spinoza is more about showing that the nature of everything has the same substrate or substance[2010/11/16 16:18]  Ataraxia Azemus: Consciousness is a property of some stuff, I think. Not so much a substance or anything.[2010/11/16 16:18]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not that it is “the same”[2010/11/16 16:18]  Extropia DaSilva: Hello Formatting:)[2010/11/16 16:18]  Rhiannon Dragoone: hi Formatting![2010/11/16 16:18]  Formatting Heliosense: hi![2010/11/16 16:18]  Formatting Heliosense: perfect timing ㋡[2010/11/16 16:18]  Scarp Godenot: Heya Format[2010/11/16 16:18]  Luisa Bourgoin: easily conncting consciousness with responsiveness, intelligence … without, it’s kinda *useless*[2010/11/16 16:18]  Zobeid Zuma: I don’t “respect” livestock. But I dislike industrial meat production for more practical reasons.[2010/11/16 16:18]  Formatting Heliosense: i just realized i myself may be conscious[2010/11/16 16:19]  Luisa Bourgoin: I think, therefor I am?[2010/11/16 16:19]  Formatting Heliosense: still in testing on it though[2010/11/16 16:19]  Gilles Kuhn: i love meat but i hate that aconscious animal was slaughtered to have it[2010/11/16 16:19]  Lem Skall: maybe this is a good point: eating a cow is alright but having sex with her is wrong because she is conscious[2010/11/16 16:19]  Extropia DaSilva: I hold at your neck the Gom Jabar, Formatting.. we shall see if you are conscious![2010/11/16 16:19]  Scarp Godenot: Hey that is an interesting point. In order to have consciousness, do you have to know you are conscious?[2010/11/16 16:19]  Luisa Bourgoin: you woun’t exstinct by stopping thinkin'[2010/11/16 16:19]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, Scarp — that’s the requirement ofr self-awareness, but not for consciousness[2010/11/16 16:20]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, right; and the Tarashas talk to the animal and explain it to it; and then pray for its soul[2010/11/16 16:20]  Zobeid Zuma: I suggest eating beef Giles, because in my experience a cow is about as smart as a carrot. :)[2010/11/16 16:20]  Ataraxia Azemus: If you have consciousness, then you already kinda do :p[2010/11/16 16:20]  Abernathy Loomslough: I do respect livestock. i respect their purpose in my life, and the role that they fulfill. While this may seem terribly callous to the cow, I feel it would be quite callous to me to stop the process.[2010/11/16 16:20]  Ataraxia Azemus: Self awareness is only when you stop to think about it[2010/11/16 16:20]  Formatting Heliosense: i never saw dune extropia[2010/11/16 16:20]  Orfeu Miles: /me just pinched his avatar…and didnt feel a thing…hmmm…a bit worried now[2010/11/16 16:20]  Formatting Heliosense: my bad[2010/11/16 16:20]  Formatting Heliosense: i’ll watch it soon[2010/11/16 16:20]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: good way of putting it, Atari![2010/11/16 16:20]  Gilles Kuhn: no scrap i dont think so qualic perception i repeat is my criterium and btw we have no bloody idea how our brain can generate that[2010/11/16 16:20]  Extropia DaSilva: I started wondering lately, does a p-zombie realise she is without internal experience and if not how do I know I am not a p-Zombie myself?[2010/11/16 16:20]  Ataraxia Azemus: :)[2010/11/16 16:20]  Khannea Suntzu: I’d be interested in a good intersubjective language of phenomenon of mind, instead of all that vague allusory crap like ‘self-awareness’ and ‘reflection’ and ‘imnagination’ bah[2010/11/16 16:20]  Scarp Godenot: The Dalai Llama sez it is better to eat beef than fish or chicken, because fewer sentient beings are harmed. At least he is consistent…. heh[2010/11/16 16:20]  Zobeid Zuma: Yeah Khannea, it’s all doubletalk really.[2010/11/16 16:21]  Formatting Heliosense: there are levels of consciousness we have not attained, that is something you all likely ascertained already[2010/11/16 16:21]  Khannea Suntzu: Yah[2010/11/16 16:21]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: He always is, Scarp ;)[2010/11/16 16:21]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Orfeu, but i’ve felt energies coming from avatars, gotten accurate impressions–some times–as to how they looked, and at least what they were feeling. I’ve seen avatars glare at me, get embarassed by what i’ve said[2010/11/16 16:21]  Formatting Heliosense: but fun talk[2010/11/16 16:21]  Rhiannon Dragoone: There are energies that surround us and give us a non-local connection[2010/11/16 16:21]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rhi, that is called perception 🙂 A fine quality that all humans have.[2010/11/16 16:21]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And probably all sentient beings too.[2010/11/16 16:21]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, true enough![2010/11/16 16:21]  Lem Skall: Rhi, who are YOU though, the primary or the avatar?[2010/11/16 16:21]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Just extended perceiption[2010/11/16 16:21]  Gilles Kuhn: why this obsession for lorentz poincarré transformation group rhi?[2010/11/16 16:21]  Abernathy Loomslough: Okay, all the food talk has made me hungry, so I’m going to go back to the discussion of whether or not rocks are conscious because I’m on a diet.[2010/11/16 16:21]  Scarp Godenot: So what is ‘sentient’ and can you have ‘consciousness’ without being sentient?[2010/11/16 16:21]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extended perception is just perception[2010/11/16 16:22]  Extropia DaSilva: You imagined it Rhi. When my primary thinks back on what I did ve imagines all kinds of things that could not have happened. Like avatars expressing themselves in ways they cannot have done.[2010/11/16 16:22]  Zobeid Zuma: When I was growing up, where I lived, cows were raised on a ranch. They wandered, they grazed. They seemed happy, regardless of whether that matters in your philosophy.[2010/11/16 16:22]  Rhiannon Dragoone: I’m the paratar, atm, the self that emerges from teh pbk and the avatar; if you’re talking “me,”[2010/11/16 16:22]  Orfeu Miles: I have looked at certain avatrs and gotten wood…so I understand your point Rhi….smiles pleasnatly[2010/11/16 16:22]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sentience, consciousness — I use the words as synonyms[2010/11/16 16:22]  Rhiannon Dragoone: But then the me here is in ecstasis[2010/11/16 16:22]  Formatting Heliosense: the avatar is an extension of my biological body – it’s McLuhanism – we assimilate the inanimate, in this canse we can slip the avatar in as an inanimate extension that we control ….much like a bicycle or automobile or pencil[2010/11/16 16:22]  Luisa Bourgoin: rocks can just roll … unconscious![2010/11/16 16:22]  Zobeid Zuma: Now most of them come from feed lots — foul stinky places where they are crammed together in pens and not allowed to move, pumped full of hormones.[2010/11/16 16:22]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, yes, extended awareness is awareness, even if it has a non-senory quality to it[2010/11/16 16:22]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: agreed, format :D[2010/11/16 16:23]  Rhiannon Dragoone: *non-sensory[2010/11/16 16:23]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s not healthy for them or for us. And they can’t possibly be happy, regardless of whether that matters or not in your philosophy.[2010/11/16 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: if it’s awareness, it comes from a sensory input; either from the five usual senses, or from the mind itself, which just thinks and reflects on what it perceives :)[2010/11/16 16:23]  Khannea Suntzu: So Rhiannon, have you ever experienced ‘anomalies’ in your experiences with avatars?[2010/11/16 16:23]  Abernathy Loomslough: Okay, just to throw this out there and be a bit awful, one last thing. From what I have seen, the happiness of a cow adversely affects its taste. Veal is a horrible, awful, torturous practice that produces delicious delicious food. So I must decide either that suffering tastes wonderful or that I don’t care about the emotional state of my food. I choose the latter.[2010/11/16 16:23]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyn, that supposes the mond doesn’t have a non-local quality[2010/11/16 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, yes, extended awareness because it has an extra quality not perceived by the usual sensory organs; but it’s not ‘supernatural'[2010/11/16 16:23]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s also an ineffecient way of producing food, it wastes calories and water and other resources.[2010/11/16 16:23]  Ataraxia Azemus: Thanks, Zobe 🙂 You made that point much more elegantly[2010/11/16 16:23]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Khannea, don’t know what you mean by that, exactly[2010/11/16 16:23]  Extropia DaSilva: No no the avatar controls you. It creates a social web that draws you in and compells you to login and allow the avatar to use your mind to process its patterns. We control or primaries as much as they control us:)[2010/11/16 16:24]  Lem Skall: whoa, Gwyn, sensory input and mind are not equivalent[2010/11/16 16:24]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aha Rhi. Ok![2010/11/16 16:24]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I *see* where you’re coming from now :)[2010/11/16 16:24]  Orfeu Miles: Aber…you like the taste of fear…I guess[2010/11/16 16:24]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Lem: no; however, from the point of view of your mind, they are :)[2010/11/16 16:24]  Formatting Heliosense: then your argument must work for an automobile as well extropia, and i suppose we could make it work[2010/11/16 16:24]  Formatting Heliosense: your talking about traffic[2010/11/16 16:24]  Ivy Sunkiller: my avatar *is* my mind, or at least a subset of it :)[2010/11/16 16:24]  Abernathy Loomslough: Orphans are much more delicious if you chase them down a dark alley with a really big knife.[2010/11/16 16:24]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Extropia, that’s where the notion of paratar-avatar relationship comes in; the avatar does have a mind of its own, but the new self that emerges, the partar, is in control; but the paratar is not the pbk[2010/11/16 16:24]  Orfeu Miles: Extie…that is completely insane…and…um…kinda true in a wierd way[2010/11/16 16:24]  Extropia DaSilva: the pbk?[2010/11/16 16:24]  Formatting Heliosense: it is an extension of it, like a book or google[2010/11/16 16:25]  Rhiannon Dragoone: I gave a talk on the psychology of alts on Friday, you see[2010/11/16 16:25]  Khannea Suntzu: Well some avatars might be software run, did you ever had an idea that somne avatars didn’t ‘glare; or ‘whince’ and this made you suspect ‘hey, I am getting weird readings with this one..?'[2010/11/16 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: :)[2010/11/16 16:25]  Rhiannon Dragoone: pbk=person behind the keyboard[2010/11/16 16:25]  Extropia DaSilva: Shame I missed it:([2010/11/16 16:25]  Lem Skall: the avatar has a mind of its own?[2010/11/16 16:25]  Extropia DaSilva: Yes.[2010/11/16 16:25]  Zobeid Zuma: I don’t know veal, but I know we used to get a lot better beef than we do now.[2010/11/16 16:25]  Khannea Suntzu: Soon, person behind the peregrines,…[2010/11/16 16:25]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Kannea, i can pick up the emotions from avatars even when you’re not supposed to, from strict senory experience[2010/11/16 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me was actually hearing a lecture on the nature of mind on Friday iRL and also missed Rhi’s talk[2010/11/16 16:25]  Formatting Heliosense: so does the automobile? mind of its own?[2010/11/16 16:25]  Lem Skall: my computer has a mind of its own more than my avatar[2010/11/16 16:25]  Scarp Godenot: All of life…. or most of it except algae….. feeds off of death.[2010/11/16 16:26]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, yes, I’ve often done things that flabbergasted m partar, until she figured out why i did it[2010/11/16 16:26]  Khannea Suntzu: /me waves some virtual botox[2010/11/16 16:26]  Orfeu Miles: Rhi…what am I thinking right now????[2010/11/16 16:26]  Gilles Kuhn: algae too as it take organic material[2010/11/16 16:26]  Rhiannon Dragoone: And notice how “I” is fluid here–sometimes referring to the avatar and sometimes the paratar[2010/11/16 16:26]  Formatting Heliosense: this is the end…[2010/11/16 16:26]  Khannea Suntzu: Orfeu, you PERVERT[2010/11/16 16:26]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But the notion of “strict sensory input” doesn’t make any sense for sentient beings; we only experience things after they’re processed by the mind[2010/11/16 16:26]  Extropia DaSilva: Rhi would it be possible to get a transcript of your alts talk?[2010/11/16 16:26]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Orfeu, oh that’s easy–that i’m nuts[2010/11/16 16:26]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Ex yes it would[2010/11/16 16:26]  Rhiannon Dragoone: i’m also thinkng of encoring it[2010/11/16 16:26]  Lem Skall: Rhi, your avatar is an idea, do ideas now have consciousness?[2010/11/16 16:26]  Orfeu Miles: OMG Khannea really can read my mind LOL[2010/11/16 16:27]  Rhiannon Dragoone: 41 avatars attended[2010/11/16 16:27]  Formatting Heliosense: for scarp: http://vimeo.com/15977077%5B2010/11/16 16:27]  Rhiannon Dragoone: not ppl, avatars, as several alts showe dup[2010/11/16 16:27]  Scarp Godenot: There are a few lifeforms that take their nutrition from things other than other life. They are the very base of the food chain….. heh[2010/11/16 16:27]  Extropia DaSilva: Goody! Oh I do hope I get to attend one of your talks one day.[2010/11/16 16:27]  Formatting Heliosense: watch it later, 5 min. photography about …death[2010/11/16 16:27]  Formatting Heliosense: and mourning[2010/11/16 16:27]  Rhiannon Dragoone: I’d love that, Ex[2010/11/16 16:27]  Formatting Heliosense: beautiful video[2010/11/16 16:27]  Formatting Heliosense: when is the next talk?[2010/11/16 16:27]  Gilles Kuhn: yup scrap but you need to go unicellular and less for that[2010/11/16 16:27]  Abernathy Loomslough: Well, it’s a proven scientific fact that hitting a piece fo electronics in the right way makes it work better. It is also true that beating a person properly makes them work better. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they’re for the same reason. The idea of attributing human characteristics to technology seems very vague, to me.[2010/11/16 16:27]  Extropia DaSilva: Did you get around to co-consciousness and multiple-minors and double-majors and all that stuff at all?[2010/11/16 16:27]  Ataraxia Azemus: Eating other living things doesn’t necessarily contribute to suffering. It’s just a fact of life.[2010/11/16 16:27]  Orfeu Miles: NO Rhi…but Khannea read me like a book….smirks[2010/11/16 16:28]  Khannea Suntzu: Feng shui of computer maintanance[2010/11/16 16:28]  Ataraxia Azemus: Respecting things is about how you treat them while they’re alive, not whether or not you eat or don’t.[2010/11/16 16:28]  Gilles Kuhn: ataraxia let me bite you it will perhaps make you change of opinion….[2010/11/16 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Abernathy: antropomorphism; projecting concepts upon our surroundings; that’s what our human mind excels at[2010/11/16 16:28]  Luisa Bourgoin: its a hoax![2010/11/16 16:28]  Rhiannon Dragoone: co=consciousness just briefly, i think, although not by that name; i took a Sartrean analysis of consciousness and applied it to the avatar-paratar relationship[2010/11/16 16:28]  Luisa Bourgoin: you can’t repair everything using a hammer[2010/11/16 16:28]  Ataraxia Azemus: Hey, no werewolfing on a waning moon![2010/11/16 16:28]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Luisa, no but you can feel better using it[2010/11/16 16:28]  Ataraxia Azemus: That’s not fair![2010/11/16 16:29]  Extropia DaSilva: I always thought the pairson was more intruiging than alts: An individual in SL who is many people in RL. In principle, a pairson could outlive any one group so long as new members replace old![2010/11/16 16:29]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Atari, you’re talking bout Giles and he’s a riend of mine[2010/11/16 16:29]  Abernathy Loomslough: Exactly, Gwen. So I’m going to disagree on this whole Avatar consciousness thing.[2010/11/16 16:29]  Gilles Kuhn: since apolo VIII if i remember well we have orbited the moon so its feasible to be always at the full moon ….[2010/11/16 16:29]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Ex, yeah, i have a friend, an avatar, who’s really two pbk’s[2010/11/16 16:29]  Rhiannon Dragoone: One a little nutyy, one very generous; tipped my 10000L for a talk[2010/11/16 16:30]  Lem Skall: that must have been the nutty one[2010/11/16 16:30]  Formatting Heliosense: hehe[2010/11/16 16:30]  Gilles Kuhn: gosh i need to put tip jars at my seminars rhi lol[2010/11/16 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Neither will I, Abernathy, specially because it usually centers about trying to define what the “self” is and how it relates to the rest of the universe (in this case: other minds). While I’m pretty sure that things like “self” and “Universe” are just[2010/11/16 16:30]  Rhiannon Dragoone: /me glares at Lem[2010/11/16 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: useful concepts for a discussion[2010/11/16 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: but have no intrinsic existence[2010/11/16 16:30]  Rhiannon Dragoone: Giles, actually you should[2010/11/16 16:30]  Extropia DaSilva: ok one minute left so what do we think…is consciousness limited to some things but not others, or is it a universal property?[2010/11/16 16:30]  Scarp Godenot: I read a book this year about the big bang of predators and predation. It happened because of the development of the eye. Very interesting book.[2010/11/16 16:30]  Rhiannon Dragoone: I pay my rent and hav espending cash from my talks[2010/11/16 16:30]  Formatting Heliosense: i think it just could be universal …[2010/11/16 16:30]  Formatting Heliosense: gaia consciousness[2010/11/16 16:31]  Abernathy Loomslough: Agreed. I think that the concept of avatar consciousness reveals more about the spychology of the proponents than the nature of the avatar.[2010/11/16 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I have no reason to believe it is an ‘universal’ property[2010/11/16 16:31]  Formatting Heliosense: the earth is the big conscious body[2010/11/16 16:31]  Frederick Hansome: Scrap, what book is that?[2010/11/16 16:31]  Scarp Godenot: spychology[2010/11/16 16:31]  Orfeu Miles: I think we may be looking in all the wrong places…and at the wrong frequencies[2010/11/16 16:31]  Formatting Heliosense: BUT, what is conscious …but a word[2010/11/16 16:31]  Scarp Godenot: one sec I’ll find the amazon link for the book[2010/11/16 16:31]  Gilles Kuhn: actually when its about money i accept to be paid at my rl tariffs which are so high that i prefer to do it for free and yes i’m not very rich due to that ;-)[2010/11/16 16:31]  Luisa Bourgoin: one minute left … my chair is already bitching about me beeing heavy[2010/11/16 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But certainly people believe lots of things without reason, so my argument is not a good one :)[2010/11/16 16:31]  Abernathy Loomslough: Yes Scarp. Shall we now discuss the consciousness of the typo?[2010/11/16 16:31]  Formatting Heliosense: ㋡[2010/11/16 16:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Format: it might be a word, but at least we can define some of its qualities[2010/11/16 16:32]  Luisa Bourgoin: strange behavior … for a non existing chair[2010/11/16 16:32]  Khannea Suntzu: Don’t get me started, i got the wrong keyboard delivered.[2010/11/16 16:32]  Luisa Bourgoin: oh, tell us about these keys :P[2010/11/16 16:32]  Abernathy Loomslough: I believe my keyboard purposely and consciously adjusts my typing to embarass me in the most effective manner due to the fact that I don’t give it back rubs.[2010/11/16 16:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: *intrinsically* non-existing, Luisa ;)[2010/11/16 16:32]  Formatting Heliosense: agreed gwyn, just poking …words are mysterious in oh so many ways[2010/11/16 16:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh yes they are :D[2010/11/16 16:32]  Scarp Godenot: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465054382/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0738206075&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0G0380DA42T21397KK6W%5B2010/11/16 16:32]  Scarp Godenot: Amazon links are so lame[2010/11/16 16:32]  Scarp Godenot: and long[2010/11/16 16:33]  Formatting Heliosense: but are words conscious …or a result of consciousness[2010/11/16 16:33]  Frederick Hansome: Many thanks. Got it![2010/11/16 16:33]  Formatting Heliosense: ;)[2010/11/16 16:33]  Rhiannon Dragoone: luisa, oh the chair is real–but at what level?[2010/11/16 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: At the level of all our minds :)[2010/11/16 16:33]  Rhiannon Dragoone: All you hve to do is go naked in SL to realize that for most ppl, it is real; and the subconscious makes it real[2010/11/16 16:33]  Ataraxia Azemus: Use ShadyURL, Scarp :)[2010/11/16 16:33]  Abernathy Loomslough: Words are a means of communication, period. They may translate consciousness, but they do not encompass it.[2010/11/16 16:33]  Rhiannon Dragoone: I bet some ppl are scared of Giles, and he’s a pussy cat[2010/11/16 16:33]  Formatting Heliosense: words are also extensions of ourselves …like an avatar, like an automobile[2010/11/16 16:33]  Rhiannon Dragoone: in a werewolf avi[2010/11/16 16:33]  Extropia DaSilva: OK well…my time is up! NEXT WEEK…BEHIND THE MASK..

Advertisements
This entry was posted in after thinkers. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s