DRFseven

It would correspond with an innatecapacity to formulate ideas through the process of extrapolation from experience.

What are you getting at?

Ierrellus

The Cookie Cutter, Part II.

8. Does an ideal star shape exist independently from the mother's and son's perceptions?
9. Does it matter that the clay stars and the cookie dough stars can both be baked, cooled and painted?


And more!

Ierrellus
PAX

Ierrellus

DRFseven,

Thanks for returning. I like your posts. What I am doing with the cookie cutter questions is an attempt to represent in this analogy the basic criticisms raised against definitions of a theory of consciousness by such as Dennett, Searle, Putnam, Carruthers, etc.

The analogy allows a common sense view of their objections.

Ierrellus
PAX

snatchbalance

Ierrellus,

I think the problem lies in trying to "nail down" a definition.

Most concepts; consiounes, intelligence, language, difference, sameness, "chairness", life, etc., defie precise limits.

I think L. Wittgenstien said something like: "Reality is like a rope, many fibers twisted together; but no one fiber runs the entire length."

I think I could argue that a grasshopper is consciouss, in a certain peculiar way, but not in a way we would recognise.

SB

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Ierrellus

snatchbalance,

Could we approach a theory of consciousness by agreement on what each of us sees as shared experience? Could we all agree, that, unless we are unconscious, we each experience a mental state in which "thoughts appear in the head"? As I think, I get no indication that this internal state of affairs is happening in my arm or in my stomach, Unless the state is a damned good illusion, it seems to be coming from inside my head.

Could we agree that the language of thought is identical to our native, taught language? Could we agree that the sounds and pictures in our "heads" can be attested to by comparison with the sounds and pictures in the "heads" of others?

Can we agree that our states of mood, internal reference, etc., can be altered by chemical or electrical stimuli to the brain? Can we agree that disfunction, from illness or whatever, causes our consciousness to be altered?

There are so many givens that I believe objections such as raised in the cookie cutter anology are the results of asking the wrong questions because of preconceived, static ideas about consciousness.

Ierrellus
PAX

Ierrellus

DRFseven.

I believe in genetic determinism only in so far as it prescibes an organism with the possibility of adaptation to changing environments. Evolution involves trial and error approaches to the survival situation and genetic variations from the situation of two parental contributions to the genes of an offspring. No known definition of determinism seems applicable here, hence "hard" and "soft" determinism come to be used as an explanation of variability within structure.

Ierrellus
PAX

snatchbalance

Irrellus,

Well, all I'd really say is that there is no clear line of distinction between different, and/or altered, states, or types, of consciousness.

For example, if you are fully engrossed in a sport, or in making a piece of art; during such activities, you are clearly not using language, introspection, or "self awareness" in any way. But, are you unconscious?

SB

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Genetic determinism is something of a dirty word these days. It is commonly taken to mean that the genes cause an organism's phenotype rather than the interaction of genes and environment.

Of course in this sense, nobody is a genetic determinist, that doesn't stop the accusation from being thrown around.

Ierrellus

Synaesthesia,
Quote: Genetic determinism is a dirty word these days.

Yes, it is, owing to Deakins', et.al, lack of comprehension of interactionism. All action is interaction! There is no "selfish gene"; there is no sense to the idea that an organism is a gene's method of assuring its own extension into a future. Unless the gene interacts in the context of an organism to assure the organism of survival potential, it might as well not exist. The interaction of gene and organism provides the interaction of organism and environment.

In terms of simple logic, it takes two to tango; otherwise there is no dance! On many threads here I observe "determinism" characterized as the boogyman that prevents free will. Stuff and nonsense! My keyboard is totally predetermined.
My interaction with it is not. Determinism, genetic or of any other ilk provides the structure within which variability is possible.

Ierrellus
PAX

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

snatchbalance,

You have raised pertinent questions about consciousness which, IMO, have not been addressed to anyone's satisfaction on other threads. The "I" or point of view (POV) does not have to be present in all states of consciousness and is therefore used in definitions of only certain types of consciousness. In conscious situations of emotional intensity, the "I" does not exist.

The "I", SELF POV, is an immediate reference to heavily scrutinized phenomena. Because of this, the "I" POV boggles the minds of those who seek an absolute reference for experiments in physics.
What they get by thinking of thinking is a POV that has to fit into the equation. The scientist who dreamed of a snake with its tail in its mouth awoke to discover the benzene ring.

States of consciousness differ in their reference to external objects. In an LSD state, the objects one perceives may not stand still or in any way suggest the mental stabilization mechanics that allow the "I" to suurvive among the
"other".

Ierrellus
PAX