Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 13:23:03 BST

  • Next message: abahn@comcast.net: "Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 2"

    Hi Scott,

    Yes, It think we are back at dueling dogmas again (but, I havn't walked my dog
    yet). For one we each mean something different when we say Darwinism. But that
    is okay. You recognize what I am saying, by catagorizing it as evolution. I
    don't think we would have evolution without Darwin. But, what is the point in
    arguing about this.

    My point about computers, if I understand your position correctly, is that you
    were reducing it to a mechanism of bits (1 and 0's). Then calling this
    mechanism a perfectly spation-temporal mechanism. Neurons work something like
    this, if this is what we want to reduce brain activity to (although, I think
    there is more going on here, not sure...?), but you don't want to reduce brains
    to neurons (if I understand you correctly). You want to reduce it all the way
    down to atoms (or photons). What if there is no all the way down? What if it
    just keeps going? OR what if it is a Perfect continuum? THe point is, I think,
    we know exactly where to stop going down (reducing) when trying to figure out
    the mechanism of a computer--at bits. We don't know the same thing with the
    brain. Although, for all practical purposes, the nueron works just fine.

    My point about self-consciousness was that it depends on language. I am happy
    to throw episodic memory in there also. I conceded consciousness to you a long
    time ago. We will never know. So, if you want to assume it as omnipresent,
    with no need for explanation, that is fine by me. So, yes we don't know what
    makes a nueron (nerve cell) conscious. But, we have some pretty good ideas
    about how we think. Not that there is no mystery there, but you have given a
    pretty good description (for me) of how self-consciousness works. Well, it
    seems pointless to assume self-consiousness after we have already assumed
    consciousness (is that what you are doing?). In other words, after the species
    homo sapiens are extinct, is there still self-consciousness in the
    universe--like consciousness? Is there still intelligence? What we (humans) do
    which makes us different from all other organisms is reflect on the fact that we
    are conscious beings. We share episodic memory with many (perhaps all?)
    organisms (or, using Holland again, complex adaptive systems). But, we are the
    only organism or species to develop a complex language. This tool (internal
    model, evolutionary adaptation) has made possible self-consciousness and thus
    the intellectual level. I don't see the *purpose* in there in that the
    emergence of this tool was a random event, selected for its local advantages.
    The evolutionary jury is still out on whether this will be a globally succesful
    strategy.

    I'll leave it at that for now,
    Andy

    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 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 13:23:52 BST