> > Norman K. McPhail wrote:
>
> What I have in mind is perhaps a
> > > > > combination of Don's ideas, yours and mine.
> > > > >
> > > >> Don Mikulecky replies:
>
> > > > wow.....let's go!!!!!!
> > >
> > > JCS may not want to print what we can say because I think it will blow
> > > the lid off the whole consciousness black box. Regardless, with your
> > > brains and Mario's good looks, how can we lose? I think that the main
> > > problem we face is writing this out in such a way that it is both easily
> > > understood by everyone and at the same time has enough starch in it to
> > > get past the peer reviewers.
> > >
> > > This will not be easy to accomplish. Still, I am convinced that we have
> > > the models, the approach and enough facts to wake up a lot of sleepy
> > > philisophers and scientists. At the very least it will be a lot of fun
> > > trying.
> > >
> > > I may be wrong, but I think that a lot of people have their eye on this
> > > consciousness mess because they intuitively sense that unraveling it
> > > will help take us beyond a lot of the fruitless wrangling now going on.
> > > What's more, I am convinced that this is the way to bridge the gaps
> > > between the humanities and the sciences. But it is not some PR or
> > > political campaign designed to change peoples minds. The bridging
> > > effect is a natural product of the larger understandings and insights
> > > that come from a flexible mapping and modeling approach.
> > >
> > > This approach uses the thought modes that are appropriate to dealing
> > > with and understanding the nature of the arenas under consideration. It
> > > is a radical shift away from the assumption that one thought mode,
> > > methodology and logic system must fit all subjects. See if you don't
> > > think there is a way to combine how each of us look at this elephant
> > > into a better understanding and explanation. It embodies the very
> > > concept of using models that won't commute that we are talking about.
> >
> > Norm,I am already experiencing a level of communication not seen for years!
> > With a
> > little hard work we can do even better.
>
> > Don
>
> Recall that at one point late last week we were working with several
> very brief summaries or wild guesses about the zone where the physical
> and non physical realms overlap. At last count, I think there were
> eight of them.
>
> Most of us were concerned with why non physical experience is so
> illusive. This is the last complete list I have, but as I recall,
> several participants wanted to amend or add their thoughts:
>
> 1. Walter Fritz thinks that we can get a computer to produce these so
> called "non physical" effects (thought and meaning) and that it can all
> be reduced to physical, chemical and biological objects and processes.
>
> 2. Don Mikulecky suggests we use Rosen's catagory theory that deals with
> objects and their models as relational.
>
> 3. John Kineman proposes that existence and experience are one and that
> the becoming experience may be quantum related.
>
> 4. Norm McPhail submits that the qualities of non physical data somehow
> transpose into effecting physical differences.
>
> 5. Alexei Sharov considers it possible that physical existance is a
> condition or expression of meaning.
>
> 6. Sascha Ignjatovic postulates a meta mathematical system of the
> absolute wich represents the concept of the sum and origin of all
> energy/world. To understand this system, we have to start theoretical
> research into the concept and structure of the highest possible system,
> the absolute.
>
> 7. Mario Vaneechoutte writes that the key to grasping the non physical
> may be to understand the nature of experience, but he feels that our
> brains may not be capable of doing this.
>
> 8. Michael Rogers claims that there may not be a provable distinction
> between the physical and non physical, hence, even though it may be of
> critical importance, it may not be possible to bridge between our inside
> non physical realms of awareness and mind and the outside physical
> universe.
>
> At the time, I suggested that we might try to combine these statements
> into a few short paragraphs. But then there were too many postings and
> threads for me to keep track of, so I just let it go. In fact, I was
> hoping you, Don, would give us some direction and I think you have done
> just that.
>
> The point I'm trying to make now is that there are several other very
> good notions floating around on these confused seas. And there's no
> doubt in my mind that we ought to take an inclusive approach to learning
> more about these things. But we've got a Loch Ness Monster by the tail
> and most of us are hanging on for dear life.
>
> In fact, I think it will take all of our collective resources and then
> some to tame our dear sweet and wild Nessie. Then, perhaps, we can
> figure out a way let the world see what she looks like.
>
> But I've never done anything even remotely like this before. So I'm not
> at all sure how we ought to go about doing it.
>
> My usual way of attacking these kinds of unknowns is just to go full
> steam ahead without a clue about what I'm doing. I call it my all guts
> and no brains system.
>
> The trouble with this is that Nessie is so big and the waters are so
> deep and murkey that it may take some kind of a coordinated joint effort
> to land her. Does anyone have even a faint glimmer of an idea as to
> what, if anything, we ought to do next?
First, try to get agreement on what simple words like experience, awareness, ...
mean, or at least in what sense we will use them.As long as the same word is
used
with very different meanings or very different things are addressed by a single
word, there will be a lot of endless, useless discussions.
When you can do that, you're already half the way.
Mario