From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 19:06:09 BST
Dav, Ian, Jos,
You all have been discussing how one might find out the workings of
consciousness under the assumption (Ian partially excepted) that it is an
outgrowth of biology when biological systems reach a certain level of
complexity. Here is why I think this pursuit is foolishness.
First, assume that all relevant factors are strictly spatio-temporal. (If
one denies this assumption, for example, by bringing in quantum
non-locality, then all bets are off, since the question is whether or not
consciousness arose in time.)
The contents of perception are macroscopic, yet the spatio-temporal
processes consist of an immense activity of microscopic events. Each such
event is separated from all others by space and/or time. All communication
from one event to another is just another microscopic event. Given the
assumption, there can be awareness of nothing bigger than these microscopic
events (and actually not even that, since awareness requires a background
against which the foreground -- the event -- is set off, hence it contains
more information than can be found in an event). Hence, the assumption of
strict spatio-temporality must be wrong. Appeals to complexity theory,
recursive loops, etc. make no difference, as long as the strict
spatio-temporality assumption is made. Science can only study the biological
activity that accompany perception, somewhat like studying what a television
does. It cannot explain perception itself, what actually gets shown on
television.
Another argument: we know that the contents of our sense perceptions (trees
and such) are built out of raw (or at least rawer) sensations (color
swatches, tones, etc.), which in turn are assumed to be built out zillions
of quantum level events (e.g., electrons absorbing photons). In other words,
what we see, hear, etc., are products of perception -- they don't exist as
macroscopic objects except in the act of perception. Yet in trying to
explain the processes of perception biologically, we are using those
products (e.g., glial cells) as existing prior to perception to explain
perception.
Combining the two arguments, there is an alternate hypothesis, that space
and time are created in the acts of perception. This does not entail that
"to be is to be perceived", just that non-perceived reality is not
spatio-temporal, that perception converts it into spatio-temporal form.
Science (with the partial exception of quantum mechanics) is the study of
that consciousness-produced spatio-temporal form, the products of
perception, and not of a reality in which or by which perception can be
explained. (For more on this, I recommend Samuel Avery's "The Dimensional
Structure of Consciousness" and of course Owen Barfield's "Saving the
Appearances")
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 20:10:40 BST