From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 11:06:38 BST
Hi Platt,
(I'm picking on you I know, but with a purpose, I promise)
You said here
"it's hard for me to imagine how a bunch of insensate
neurons buzzing around inside my head manage to create consciousness"
I say (flippantly, because you are deliberately naive) So what ? Why
does that mean it can't be a quality explanation ?
Then you say
"And I'll put my bit of faith on Darling and Schroedinger. Of course,
my faith could be misplaced."
I say no, don't put faith in them. What they deserve, more than any
general well intentioned human, is a suspension of disbelief (a
suspension of scepticism, the benefit of doubt) based on the simple
generalised experience that most of what science claims, holds up to
efforts to disprove, even though the specific case may not yet. A kind
of temporary, constructive, statistical, induction.
You concluded with
"you raise the issue of "proof" which I guess we
both want to pass on for now. :-)"
I say, actually this is the key point about argumentation,
particularly with people like you :-), which is why I keep doing it.
What standard of "proof" is expected.
Actually what is required is the right "quality of explanation".
Proof, as in the absence of disproof, applies only in very limited
circumstances - where disprovable hypothesis and a method of test have
been proposed. Its the stuff of objective science only - remember all
Pirsigs word in Lila about anthroplogy. If you limit yourself to those
considerations only, you miss 99% of the quality.
Ian
On 9/10/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> Hi Dav,
>
> > Sorry for the bad choice of words, I meant to say consciousness. But
> > whatever it is we take in, consciousness and/or thoughts are not "floating
> > around" somewhere and our brain just takes them in. Consciousness is
> > created "inside your head" following physical/ biological chain reactions,
> > which are, as you said correctly, started by external stimuli. At least
> > that's how I see it. Maybe just because I simply can't imagine something
> > as immaterial as consciousness floating around somewhere, whereas I can
> > perfectly grasp the other theory.
>
> By the same token, it's hard for me to imagine how a bunch of insensate
> neurons buzzing around inside my head manage to create consciousness.
> That's a theory I can't grasp, whereas the brain as regulator of exterior
> consciousness I can grasp even if a bit strange. But, quantum physics is
> strange, and it was the quantum physicist Erwin Schroedinger who said
> after years of dealing with the problem, "The external world and
> consciousness are one and the same thing."
>
> > > Will science ever find the answer when, as you say, consciousness
> > > other
> > > than your own is inaccessible?
> >
> > I hate to do this, but in this case I will quote myself (not sure if the
> > original post ever made the list):
> >
> > "...all we can do is try to determine the factors that lead to the
> > creation of consciousness. And I guess however close we get to a
> > complete Big Picture, there will always be a last missing piece in
> > the puzzle, a small "gap" between the last evidence we can gather
> > about the creation of consciousness and the subjective feeling of
> > consciousness itself. This gap is the switch between the "outside"
> > perspective and the "inside" perspective. So, we kinda need to have a bit
> > of faith that we are actually looking in the right direction and that
> > consciousness actually fits in were we want it to fit in."
>
> Yes. And I'll put my bit of faith on Darling and Schroedinger. Of course,
> my faith could be misplaced.
>
> > > Anyway, I've always been intrigued by the fact that consciousness is
> > > rarely, if ever, made plural. Seems there's only one consciousness to go
> > > around. Or, as you say, maybe just another play on words.
> >
> > Maybe it's because your consciousness is the only one you'll ever
> > experience, and you've got no proof whatsoever that there are others
> > consciousnesses out there. Or maybe it's just because consciousnesses is
> > such a horrible tongue twister. ;o)
>
> Both good answers although you raise the issue of "proof" which I guess we
> both want to pass on for now. :-)
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 05:17:07 BST