@@> On Mar-26-98 Relatif Tuinn wrote to David Martorana
 @@> on "Consciousness & Hell"
 
 RT> Can you show that consciousness is anything more than the
 RT> "software running on the hardware"?
 
    No. NOT yet! .....Presently a reasonable-ish, even likely model!
 
 RT>> Plato may have suggested this but he has no basis of truth
 
 DM>> There is NO "basis of truth" beyond some relative convenience of
 DM>> agreement (gravity temporarily excepted).
 
 RT> Is that statement true or false?
 
     Neither! .....just likely (but true *ENOUGH* for me, now)!
                                          ^^^^^^
 DM>> .....Philosophy seems not always comfortable with evidence,
 DM>> being more the art of exploring for it!  Once the evidence
 DM>> gets TOO THICK, it moves over to science, where engineers,
 DM>> bean counters and file clerks take over.
 
 RT>  you're agreeing then? Plato had no evidence. As you say, once
 RT> philosophy is bogged down with evidence it finds it hard to move.
 RT> Does this tell you anything about philosophy?
 
     Other than seeing it as a search probe, I'm not sure what
     you mean.
 
 RT> It seems like you're approaching philosophy as if it is the sounding
 RT> ground for speculative ideas with the intention of speculating even
 RT> more. Surely, for philosophy to be of any use it is to study the logic
 RT> behind truths?
 
     I think your "to be of any use" is not so simple .........to me!
     The overlap between philosophy and the other arts and sciences
     is fuzzy. In today's team oriented world the scientist or engineer
     might be called upon to work the truth/logic a philosopher
     once did on his own. In this now collective atmosphere of search,
     the "who-does-whats" become less clear. Philosophy HAS a use in
     searching out an idea whose "logic or truth behind the idea" might
     require another's talents (theory from one mind; proof/exploitation
     from others).
 
 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.
 RT>> These are the facts David. Physically speaking, nothing escapes decay.
 
     I would (for convenience) acknowledge the "fact" of decay but my
     imagination tells me (from a life input of data) that the factual
     convenience is *LIKELY* wrong and only appears right because of
     my (so far) limited data or correlations of that data. My *better
     mind* whispers that the "fact of decay" should be no more than a
     resting point (one likely option presently in a narrow view).
     Though I do believe (for now) that our species is just the tool of
     some unknowable agenda (not for our benefit), I let loose the pleasure
     of TRYING to understand some bit beyond conventional limits (no
     claims of success).
 
 DM>> We may well find all memory is stored "in a somewhere" or
 
 RT> As every physical thing decays, then this "somewhere" you mention
 RT> must be non-physical.
 
     Perhaps!    *If* I can imagine (still working on it) a state of
     non or extra physicalness, then it can be; and if it can be, then
     I can work with it, which would open another door of "look see".
     I know religions ever play a similar song, but I hope my search is
     *mostly* outside its hold.
 
 DM>> Part of mind is that objective imagination which has not really
 DM>> yet worked out all the directions time can be approached from
 DM>> (we barely pulled our pants on in the 20th century).
 
 RT> I don't know what this means. Sorry.
        ... means just scratching the surface of what might/will/can
        be known ...a step and a half ahead of the naked ape! (pants!)
 
 DM>> If we, as Day suggests, can discover means of recording, it is
 DM>> NOT such a stretch of imagination to believe that such (and more)
 DM>> is not a new idea item.  We might believe that, INFERENCE, from
 DM>> what already IS (or can be imagined), supplies a rich cookie jar of
 DM>> likelihoods, however lean on specific clarity.
 
 RT> I don't know what this means either. Sorry.
      ... means the existence of something man-made or natural is a
      reasonable platform to infer *a next* from (a phase of philosophy).
 
 DM>> ............., our cells and genes take on an ever increasing
 DM>> collection of talents. Might be soon that we can project such
 DM>> tiny wonders onto a wall and see more in an instant both forward
 DM>> and backwards (and to sides) than ever seen before.
 
 RT> Probably because I don't understand what you've written above,
 RT> I don't understand this either. Again, sorry.
     ...means the genetic model layout of a planned something would
     **INFER** (I think reasonably) that many more such pattern wonders
     are yet to be found. [readable records of past, futures and other]
 
 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 have
 RT>> died is wholly unsupported.
 
 DM>> Being some atheist with a warm spot for "first principal engineering",
 DM>> my take on DB's use of the "God" symbology is still exploratory within
 DM>> a range of options.  *IF* he COULD "support" his use of a concrete
 DM>> GOD definition, THEN I would tend no longer to take him serious.
 DM>> But! as his-to-Her exploratory reaching, he is as dead on course
 DM>> as I've seen among us mortals......!
 
 RT> I don't understand this. Sorry.
     ... Means I see him exploring, with his puzzle partly in place
     (as he sees it). I read his postings and share the exploration
     (as best I can) and adopt what I find agreeable to my own.
     "Dead on course" = Most of his take on navigating reality either
     favors my own or acts as an additional source of light.
 
 NOTE: I believe we say things of meaning within our styles of posting
       that are a mite to side of forced bottom line clarity ....but this
       might well be an illusion I find more pleasing than is logical.
       In writing my ideas and responses down I take great care in
       getting each sentence and meaning just right as it flows from
       my thoughts. That so much of what I say is incomprehensible, would
       now (hopefully) become a concern of improvement ...as many others
       likely are too kind to bring to my attention. Being long retired,
       I indulge myself the pleasures of poking around in the dust bins
       of the awkward, overlooked, bizarre and "*IFFY* possibles". Should
       I find my accumulated styles of knowing and expression, trying for
       some, .....I quickly back away....
                                        |                ^_
                                        :.............._/@o"\_ ... Dave
                                                        <<
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------