virus: Angelica de Meme

Reed Konsler (
Sat, 19 Apr 1997 12:46:09 -0400 (EDT)

>From: Robin Faichney <>
>Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:49:00 +0100

>Consciousness is never what you're aware of, only what
>you're aware *with*. (Self-consciousness/awareness is
>not literally consc of consc or aware of aware else we'd
>have infinite loops.) So consc is subject, not object. Only
>objects (where that includes forces, processes etc) can
>be weighed, measured, play a part in scientific theories.

Hmm. I think I understand wat you are saying...sort of
related to Godel's idea that no system can completely
understand itself. I'm pursuaded, but not convinced that
this is true.

However, it doesn't restrict us from devolping/experiencing
new more complicated emergent conciousnesses that
subsume and are capable of describing the former.
At the limit you can imagine number of conciousnesses,
each explaining the previous one in an outwardly
exploding spiral of complexity of self-reflection
(extropian symbolism?)

Thus while I buy that if you stand at the "frontier"
you're going to have an awfully hard time explaining
what is going on...just wait a moment. The frontier
is expanding and in the next moment where you are
is "within" the realm of explaination.

>>Never say never, especially about science. The hunger to
>>understand is strong.

This is kind of what I meant. By pushing ourselves to
explain the unexplainable and understand the impossible
we push outward the Godel limit. Slowly, chaotically,
with many false starts.

But what today you describe as "unexplainable by
definition" will be explained tomorrow. On that day there
will be another mystery, equally as appaently unfathomable.
There will always be something we don't know. It is
in trying to know it that we emerge into the next
stage of questions.

>Some things are impossible by virtue of logic, definitions,
>conceptual analysis etc. This falls into that sort of class.
>Show me a black hole. And I mean *show me*, visually,
>and *a black hole*, not its side effects/whatever.

Definitions change with time. Logic is not absolute.

Show me an apple. Not just the side effects that the
light reflecting off it's surface cause in the chemical
and neurochemical parts of my brain. Bring the
"essence" of the apple in contact with my "soul"
so that I might no it really "exists".

If you don't trust x-ray image "side effects" of
cosmological phenomena (and similar data) as evidence
of their true existence why do you trust your own
eyes? The eye is just a biological camera operating
on principles very similar to a radio-telescope.

Some things are apples and some things are
black holes. Each has characteristics and can be
measured and influenced (at least theoretically).
Black holes just happen to be quite big and very
far away.

I'm an organic chemist. Show me a benzene molecule.
Not just it's "side effects". Visually show me that
objects. Some things are very very small. Do they
exist? Small quantities of benzene detected in water
was enough to remove "Perrier" from the market...
was that a fantasy?

Or radiation? Show me a gamma ray.

Or conciousness? Show me a meme.


Reed Konsler