(no subject)

[Stephen Jarosek] wrote:

I suspect that DNA might be absolutely fundamental to consciousness,

[S.P.] It is an organism as a whole complex system that possesses consciousness. So, the above conclusion, in general, is correct. However, what about the partial problem of the mechanisms of consciousness, namely, the problem of how the physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. How DNA's role may be here? Do you have any model explaining this?

[Stephen Jarosek] wrote:

Can it be said that two identical atoms are independent "selves",

[S.P.] First, these two atoms are NOT identical, if only because of the fact that they occupy different portions of space. Second, the "self" pertains only to consciousness-possessing organisms. Atoms do not possess consciousness. However, you may disagree (in case your "axiomatic framework" is based on panpsychism).

Best,
Serge Patlavskiy

[S.P.]... However, what about the partial problem of the mechanisms of consciousness, namely, the problem of how the physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. How DNA's role may be here? Do you have any model explaining this?

A sensible question, Serge... but one thing at a time. We know that the existing mainstream interpretation of how DNA works is incomplete, if not fundamentally broken. We need to establish the right paradigm first, and then we might be better placed to enjoy the insights that unfold from there.

[S.P.) First, these two atoms are NOT identical, if only because of the fact that they occupy different portions of space.

As I've suggested before in these forums, space is one of the illusions established by virtue of our experiences wiring our neuroplastic brains. Obviously, meteorites and Mac trucks colliding with you are the objective evidence of real consequences thanks to their motion through the reaches of space, with the suggestion that this thing that we call space is indeed "real". But whatever space "really" is, whether or not its reality can be mathematically (or otherwise) understood in any kind of objective sense, ultimately your experience of it can only ever be a subjective illusion, and there is no way around that. So don't get too hung up on atoms occupying different portions of space. "In here" versus "over there" is just a part of the space illusion that has conned you into believing the assumptions that you are making... the assumptions based on the experiences that have wired your bucket of bugs. We must regard our illusions, and therefore our assumptions, with the deepest suspicion. Questions of self and identicality therefore become relevant, because the notion of self is itself an illusion.

Cheers, sj

[Stephen Jarosek] wrote: >We need to establish the right paradigm first

[S.P.] So, what's your "paradigm" -- your set of axiomatic assertions? Where is your "sufficiently complete" model of how the DNA works? How do you know that the existing mainstream interpretation is "incomplete, if not fundamentally broken"? You can know this ONLY by comparing it with your own "more complete" model. Otherwise there is no sense in your words.

[Stephen Jarosek] wrote:

We must regard our illusions, and therefore our assumptions, with the deepest suspicion

[S.P.] Our consciousness always constructs a "model of Noumenal Reality" for us. This model is just a model -- it may be as enough close to real state of affairs, but it may also be just an illusion (be too far from real state of affairs). To see whether our model is good or not, we conduct additional experiments, or, even simply, we ask the others: "Do you see what I see?", "Do you hear what I hear?", "Do you have the same research data as I have?", and so on.

Best,
Serge Patlavskiy

All I know with certainty is that current interpretations fail to take seriously the implications of entropy and the persistence of complexity across time.

[S.P.] I agree. Therefore I have constructed my own explanatory framework, and I started from scratch for not to repeat the mistakes of others. My integrated information system (a model I use to formalize the object of study) does take into consideration "the implications of entropy", and it helps to cope with complexity of the modeled object. So, I take a professional interest in other persons' "axiomatic assertions" to compare with my own, and I would be much obliged if you send me in private a page or two of the fundamentals of your approach.

Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy

All experience and knowing of experience is in consciousness. Consciousness has no form and hence has to be non-local. Matter as such does not exist. It is an interpretation of a combination of sensations, images, feelings, and thoughts in consciousness.

Mind / Body / Universe are human concepts - of experience and the knowing of experience.

In other words, there is only consciousness. This is the monistic Advaita understanding based on exploring consciousness as self-awareness.

Deepak Chopra
2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad CA 92009

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

As per my immature understanding of the subject, One group of thinkers seem to believe that consciousness exists in both living and non-living material.

While the other group thinks that consciousness is the property of living only.

KSR