From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 20:23:16 BST
Andy,
> 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.
No, I define Darwinism as evolution by means of random gentic mutation and
natural selection. I realize this is technically Neo-Darwinism, but it is
the meaning used by those who are determined to disallow anything
non-material to be used in explanations of evolution.
> don't think we would have evolution without Darwin. But, what is the
point in
> arguing about this.
So what do you mean by "evolution"? For me, it just means gradual change. In
biology in particular it means that species come into and go out of physical
existence. Do you mean more than that?
>
> 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.
Well, I don't think I was reducing the computer to a mechanism. It is a
mechanism. If you like, instead of a gizmo made of silicon and wires, think
of a computer as an abstract mathematical model (like a Turing machine).
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).
I think you are completely missing my point. It doesn't matter what a brain
is made of. What I am saying is that no spatio-temporal mechanism can be
conscious. All neurologists, cognitive scientists, etc, who think that the
brain is the source of consciousness treat it as a spatio-temporal
mechanism. My point is that they are going in a completely wrong direction,
that they are trying to find something non-spatio-temporal within space and
time.
> You want to reduce it all the way
> down to atoms (or photons). What if there is no all the way down?
I don't want to reduce the brain to anything. What I am saying is that it is
a mistake to look for an explanation of consciousness in space-time
mechanistic terms.
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.
Yes. We don't know everything about how the brain works. That is why I have
not declared that I have shown that the brain is not the source of
consciousness. What I have shown though (assuming one accepts my original
argument) is that if the brain is the source of consciousness it is so in
some non-spatio-temporal way.
>
> My point about self-consciousness was that it depends on language. I am
happy
> to throw episodic memory in there also.
While I state that language also depends on self-consciousness.
> I conceded consciousness to you a long
> time ago. We will never know.
Mystics say they know. And they say we can all know. This is anecdotal data,
to be sure, but do you have reason for dismissing it?
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?
I believe there is. That is, since consciousness appears to transcend
space-time, to avoid dualism, I switch priorities, and say that space-time
is produced by consciousness. But this is my conjecture, not something I can
demonstrate easily.
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).
I don't think we do share episodic memory with other organisms. Does a cat
remember what it ate for breakfast?
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 think it more likely that self-consciousness and language exist from the
"beginning" and create universes, physical and otherwise to play in. But as
mentioned, I'm not about to try to prove it at this point.
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.
How do you know that it was a random event?
- 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 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 20:34:41 BST