From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@erols.com)
Date: Mon Mar 02 1998 - 08:51:07 MST
Reilly Jones (Reilly@compuserve.com) wrote:
>Ian Goddard wrote 3/1/98: <The most persuasive argument about the nature of
>the individual "soul" that I've heard is that it is more than the atoms of
>which the brain is composed, but this "more" is not a supernatural spirit,
>it's simply the ordering of those atoms.>
>
>I don't know if "ordering" is the best term here, but definitely some
>concept that centers around what gives the collection of atoms, or quarks,
>or bits of substance (being), coherency. IOW, why does this particular
>quark or bit of substance contribute to the subjective "I" and not the
>quark immediately next to it.
IAN: I think the answer points to individual consciousness
being a product not so much of one subatomic particle more
than others, but of a holistic concert of multiple entities,
such that the individual self is not in any one of the many
entities of which it is composed, but is only in them all.
Being a radical holist, I see this holistic principle extend-
ing even beyond the confines of the finite self to encompass
and contain the entire universe in the definition of "self,"
and I believe that I prove this is a valid definition due to
the fact that all attributes of your identity and of my iden-
tity are derived from a holistic relation that contains the
whole. This is shown and proven within the identity matrix:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/0-id.htm
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/matrix.htm
>Ian: <It would therefore truly follow in the most intimate way that
>understanding what is art is integral to understanding what it is to be a
>human and thus what it will take to become a transhuman, since the
>mechanical replication of consciousness/art is the cornerstone of the quest
>for the transhumanist liberation.>
>
>I don't think that art = consciousness holds up very well because art is
>only one category out of many that has consciousness as a prerequisite.
IAN: In other words we could have Consciousness & art,
or just C and no art, ergo C transcends "art." Well, I
think yes and no. It's very elusive, just as anything
to do with C is. I think, yes, C is a "prerequisite"
of art, but deeper still, art is an expression of C
so much so that it is a part of C, it is not apart
from C. Art is also not only the physical medium
upon which it is built, but is a larger holistic
function of creating it, seeing and feeling it.
I agree that the art = C idea is a little shaky,
but at the some time I think the parallel I drew
is highlighting an important definitional harmony
that signals a need for further and deeper inquiry.
****************************************************************
VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________
GODDARD'S METAPHYSICS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm
________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:40 MST