RE: Interesting post on hacking the self

From: pdugan (
Date: Wed Oct 12 2005 - 14:15:39 MDT

Zen's referendum on this is more or less to not worry about the technical
detials of what you are and instead, simply live your life in an uncluttered
fashion, which is all Eby's verbal wisdom really amounts to, "you put in
garbage [into "yourself], you get back garbage." I think a state of mind that
could reasonably be called "enlightened" is one where the search for technical
explanation of the self is irrelevant to the self-evident nature of being as
is presents itself in the moment. Or something.

 Patrick Dugan

>===== Original Message From Gordon Worley <> =====
>On Oct 12, 2005, at 12:10 PM, pdugan wrote:
>> You're complaint hinges on the concept that there is such a thing
>> as an
>> objective or technical standard by which the nature of human
>> consciousness can
>I may have been a bit hard on Eby. After all, I also cannot provide
>a good technical explanation of how the brain works. But he doesn't
>even make an attempt: he acknowledges that nontechnical explanations
>of his idea don't work and then proceeds to offer an alternative
>nontechnical explanation. Maybe his metaphor was the key that
>finally turned someone on to his idea. Wonderful! But just because
>you provide a verbal explanation doesn't mean you are allowed to not
>attempt a technical explanation or semi-technical explanation if you
>know that a verbal explanation will be insufficient.
>> be conveyed. The difference between writing about consciousness and
>> writing
>> about, say Linux, is that "you" are trying to document the
>> mechanics of a
>> system which is producing that very documentation. A completely
>> thorough
>> technical documentation of human consciousness could be produced is
>> by an
>> entity of transhuman or greater intelligence.
>There exists at least one system that can document itself accurately
>and precisely. For example, a CAD machine could produce schematics
>for building itself or a printer could print its own detailed
>technical manual. Of course, some other particular system may or may
>not be able to do it. But how can you decide that only transhumans
>or smarter can produce "completely thorough technical documentation
>of human consciousness" when you don't have a technical explanation
>of either human or transhuman mental function? Without a technical
>explanation, I fail to see how you can decide whether humans fall
>into the category of self documentable or not (or whether transhumans
>fall into the category of can document humans or not).
>-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> Gordon Worley
> Phone: 352-875-5808
>e-mail: PGP: 0xBBD3B003
> Web:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT