++> Inspired by an intercept between Relatif Tuinn & Day Brown
 ++> on "Consciousness and Hell"
 
 RT>> Define consciousness.
 
 DB> A system which experiences reality, stores that experience for
 DB> retreival later [includes memmory], makes guesses about the likely
 DB> effect of newer experiences [learns], and is aware of all of these
 DB> processes as it tries to understand itself.
 
 RT> So consciousness is an emergent quality of a complex self-interacting
 RT> system. What is it though? You haven't defined consciousness itself,
 RT> only the mechanisms that possess it.
 
     ...Another shot!
     ...That quality of being that IS .....AND KNOWS IT THRICE+? !!!
     ...now we must define "knows" 
 
     I would have to think some on defining "hell" (if asked)!
 
 DB> Plato went on so far as to suggest that the memmory of experiences
 DB> continues to exist after death; given the example of mass computer
 DB> storage and the shrinkage of I/O devices like video cameras, there
 DB> is a lotta logic behind the idea that God could, and did, make
 DB> you  a backup tape of your life; everything you ever did, said,
 DB> thought  about, is recorded.  After you die, you, or anyone who cared
 DB> about  who you were, and what you did, could take your tape and put
 DB> it in  a cosmic VCR deck to watch every noble and/or despicable
 DB> thing you  ever did.
 
 RT> Plato may have suggested this but he has no basis of truth
 
     There is NO "basis of truth" beyond some relative convenience of
     agreement (gravity temporarily excepted).
     But!  there is a "collective likelihood" (especially if the
     arithmetic LOOKS good); and "surgical imagination" where we can
     share among candle options that "feel us right" intellectually,
     scientifically or even irrationally. Such insights, substituting
     for tRUTH, carry little "absolute" baggage but often makes for
     the beginnings of mutual understanding. Philosophy seems not always
     comfortable with evidence, being more the art of exploring for it!
     Once the evidence gets TOO THICK, it moves over to science, where
     engineers, bean counters and file clerks take over. Personally, I
     see a call for evidence "suborning poetry", .....poetry, a strong,
     though often occult component of initial explorations into what
     little tRUTH can be known .....(if any)!
 
 RT> from which to make the assertion. Yes, the brain is a physical thing
 RT> and memory may be stored in your brain, but when we die the brain
 RT> reformats itself chemically and thus would destroy the data.
 
     Because we are ignorant of something makes it neither SO, nor
     not so. We may well find all memory is stored "in a somewhere" or
     might even go FAR beyond that. Part of mind is that objective
     imagination which has not really yet worked out all the directions
     time can be approached from (we barely pulled our pants on in the
     20th century). If we, as Day suggests, can discover means of
     recording, it is NOT such a stretch of imagination to believe
     that such (and more) is not a new idea item. We might believe
     that, INFERENCE, from what already IS (or can be imagined), supplies
     a rich cookie jar of likelihoods, however lean on specific clarity.
 
     i.e Fair to new, our cells and genes take on an ever increasing
     collection of talents. Might be soon that we can project such
     tiny wonders onto a wall and see more in an instant both forward
     and backwards (and to sides) than ever seen before. We may have
     found (one pair of) God's eyeglasses, and "She" might even enjoy
     our discovery celebration......
 
     ......................There is more to knowing than knowing! 
     ...than knowing ...than knowing ...than knowing-
 
 RT> As to introducing the concept of a god that can somehow access this
 RT> information and make it available to you and your friends when you
 RT> have died is wholly unsupported.
 
              Being some atheist with a warm spot for "first principal
     engineering", my take on DB's use of the "God" symbology is still
     exploratory within a range of options. *IF* he COULD "support" his
     use of a concrete GOD definition, THEN I would tend no longer to
     take him serious. But! as his-to-Her exploratory reaching, he is
     as dead on course as I've seen among us mortals......!
 
 DB> As again, we see in  postings where the greatest ignorance
 DB> is abundantly accompanied by  the evidence of illogic
 DB> and dementia.  A fool isn't only untaught;  he is unteachable.
 
            Most almost great minds are intolerant?
 
 RT> Indeed. I have met many people like this here in Fidoland.
 
     .....yes! as WE "many people" have also met YOU & Mr Brown!!!
 
                              ... likewise! ... @@ ... Dave
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------