From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Exercises in egotism
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:01:02 GMT

---------------  FORWARDED FROM ALT.CONSCIOUSNESS  --------------------
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:44:59 -0500

In article <lk4tpvINN39i@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.190433.1993@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>>In article <ljevhgINNp9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> 
>>> Its a matter of perspective, really. I don't mean to say that we
>>> are some form of being that is "above" the rest of the universe at
>>> all; what I meant to say is that perhaps the element of mind may be
>>> an inherent element of the universe itself.
> 
>>	This discussion sounds headed for 'Alt.Metaphysics'. Explain
>>	what you mean by mind being 'an inherent element' of the
>>	universe. Like gravity ? Like spacetime ? 
> 
> I've been reading a number of books on the subject of mind lately,
> and several of them have made some rather interesting arguments that
> mind is capable of having a direct effect on the universe that we
> exist in. What's more, it appears that there is no small body of
> research that supports these claims. If these claims are true, then
> it would imply that mind may have as fundamental a place in the 
> order of things as gravity and spacetime.
> 
> Mind you, I'm not making any statements that such claims constitute
> fact, but it looks as if there is too much supporting evidence to 
> dismiss those claims out of hand. On the other hand, I know that 

	Penrose is a dweeb that tries to use quantum uncertianty
	as a defense for human uniqueness. We are not 'linked' to
	the quantum universe in any noticible way and even if
	we were, so are all the animals from protozoa on up. 
	Penrose, in his subtle way, is straining to preserve
	some special human charistic that makes us somehow
	'devine'. Rule #1 ... when someone tries to make you
	or your motives 'divine' ... question them ten times
	over because you can be assured there are egomaniacal
	motives in there.

	Beware of any references that make us seem more than
	the product of haphazard evolution. They usually rely
	on egomanical assumptions rather than logic.

	Logic is not superior to emotion. It is 'just another
	state of mind'.

	When you look to 'PKE/PSI' ... accept only good proofs.

	If humans have PSI/PKE ... so what ? 

	What I am trying to say is that any definition or
	explaination of consciousness is bound to be 
	contaminated with crass assumptions about our own
	achievements and future. I submit that we are nothing but
	slightly improved monkeys. To draw more complex
	assumptions is purest ego.

-- Jim Mason


From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: We Ain't Special
Date: 3 Jan 93 02:23:20 -0500

Humans use tools ... so do apes ... and for the same purposes.
 
Humans use language ... so do apes ... and for the same purposes.
 
The only differneces between ourselves and the apes is a matter
of degree - not a metaphysical leap worthy of special consideration.
 
In the old days, humans considered themselves the product of
special creation. They considered the earth as the center of
the universe. They considered the gods to be especially and
exclusively interested in the trivial affairs of mankind. 
 
Total crap.
 
Humans are as much hostage to the special conditions of our
evolution as anything else on this dustball we call a planet.
Our 'logic' is colored by those aspects of reality that are
important to us. Our 'feelings' are just an adaptive response
to the conditions of the cold cruel universe we find ourselves
in. We are not the 'advanced' products of evolution, but 
instead just another minor increment in intellectual 
understanding - and then only within our own special sphere
of interest. 
 
Any attempt to make us more than we are is an excersise in
egotism and must be rejected totally.
 
Even the fabled omnipotent gods are hostage to certian
perspectives regarding what is real and what is worthwhile.
Because they are so earth-oriented, they may be rejected
without further adou. 
 
Is there a 'superior' perspective' ? I doubt it. Perhaps
the existentialists have a clue - or perhaps not. 
 
All I can say is that our perception of reality, the very
basis for our logical 'take' on things, is a product of
the special conditions of our evolution on this particular
planet at this particular time. 
 
To claim anything more is purest ego an deserves total
rejection. 
 
-- JM

--------------  END OF FORWARDED POSTINGS  -------------------------



Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan