Subject: Re: Bios Theoretikos--funny stuff.


>Lisa D. wrote :
>
>>Yes I do mean conscienceness, it was rather late last night..

Few explanations on conscience that I am aware of are as elaborate as that.
Could conscience be 'energy' stored or released. In quantum mechanics energy
is in neither state exclusively since the energy stored within any small
particle is in a free state. At the level at which classical mechanics
operates, energy is either in a state of pure potential, or it is kinetic or
it is in a chemical releasing state (exothermic state). So there is
potential energy and there is kinetic energy.

The classical definition of energy renders energy as 'something capable of
doing work' and as a result energy is quantified as watts, horsepower, etc.

Now when someone speculates that consciousness is energy, there is reason to
believe that it is. Since any phenomenon in nature which is not at absolute
zero is active, it either stores or releases energy.

Consciousness is an empty term unless there is a 'concomitant' attending
consciousness. Husserl indicated that consciousness is consciousness of
something, and that something has the capacity to emit energy. Unless it is
a black hole.

Consciousness is consciousness of something. A subject with consciousness
must have an object, and to perceive an object, that consciousness must
operate, or act. An act of consciousness assumes an object in space time. So
consciousness is concomittant. Concomittant consciousness (cetasika in Pali)
'is a collective term for feeling, perception, and formations, variously
subdivided; in other words, aspects of mentality that arise together with
consciousness.' [Path of Purification, Vol. 1, Buddhaghosa].

The relationship of conscience to consciousness is that conscience is a form
of knowledge. In fact conscience means 'sensibility' or 'ethical judgement'
[New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Funk and Wagnalls, vol. 2,
1943].

One modern definition of conscience describes it as a 'power'. Perhaps that
power is 'moral action' or a 'beautiful act' if it really is sensibility.
The two essential meanings - sensibility and ethical judgement - have power
connected to them. So power is the capacity to do work, nonetheless it could
be cultural work pursuing a hypothesis.

"A conscience is needed for the age, as for the individual - a power that
shall reveal itself, and arouse and convict it." [John Young, Christ of
History, Bk ii, p.73]

The archaic meaning of conscience is 'consciousness' or 'inner thoughts or
sentiments' even 'pity'. The latin root of conscience is conscientia meaning
'with science', or knowledge. Therefore nice does not mean with conscience
since the latin root of nice is nescius, ignorant <from ne, not,  + scio,
know.

"An uncultivated savage is never a nice inquirer into the refinements of
law." [Irving, Sketch Book, Phillip of Pokanoket, p. 361]

So today a nice person is still ignorant and with out a conscience. That is
some funny stuff.

at swim two birds,

John Foster



to have no knowledge.





>>I think it was a fun thought. But on the more serious side what if we
>>could prove conscienceness by some mathematical theory like their
>>theory on fractal claims  "cycles in nature have pattern. " Well if you
could
>>consider energy as a cycle. Conscience maybe considered energy which
>>in turn could be in turn considered a cycle which theoritically, could be
>>proven
>>by fractals... For example what if brain waves could prove to have
"fractal
>>pattern"
>>what does this say for conscience...  :)
>>
>>Have a good one....
>>Li-
>
>
>I don't know, Lisa. There are hudreds of theories about consciousness.
>I quite like Roger Penrose's idea that microtubules in the neurons act
>as quantum devices, so the brain is a quantum 'machine', which kinda
>means that every time we become aware, we  are actually collapsing the
>quantum wave function and thus we create our reality.
>I find it interesting that the enigmas of quantum physics, -Schroedinger's
>Cat, etc,- which mean that all Classical Newtonian physics is fundamentally
>'wrong', have been dealt with over the previous century by saying, 'yeah,
well
>quantum stuff only applies to the very small subatomic stuff, classical
>physics is still fine for all the rest'. That attitude seems to lose
>credibility
>now, because apparently buckyballs, very large carbon molecules, can
>exhibit quantum effects, non-locality, i.e. they can be in several
>places at the
>same time, kinda thing - and they are the same size as DNA molecules, so
>maybe quantum effects operate much higher up the macroscopic scale than
>previously thought. I suspect quantum effects operate throughout . Once you
>begin to think in those terms, then the old fashioned mechanistic physical
>view of reality evaporates, and the universe is a whole lot weirder
>than anybody
>had ever imagined.
>If you wanted me to lay down my money on whose getting closest to the
'truth'
>(what a nice warm old fashioned word that is ;->) I'd bet on Jack
>Sarfatti. He's
>very cool, IMO :-)
>Here's some URLs for anyone interested
>
>http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/index.html
>http://www.stardrive.org/fred.shtml
>http://www.uppersonoran.com/MIND.HTM
>http://www.renresearch.com/consciousness.html
>http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/
>http://earthport2.simplenet.com/COSM.HTM
>
>C.L.
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%