Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ierrellus · 08-08-2002, 09:09 AM

sweet as a nut,

Most objections to a paradigmatic theory of consciousness are based on the belief that physical states cannot be translated into mental states and vice versa. The cognitive revolution is less than a half-century old and is putting dicussions of consciousness back into mainstream philosophy as a dynamic, unresolved question that deserves consideration.

When philosophers discuss consciousness, they tend to vacillate between Cartesian dualism of mind/body or concepts of existential qualia that
defy empirical proofs.

As an evolutionist, I cannot accept the idea of the POV "I" as a ghost. It is a point of reference in the same manner as a point is the juxtaposition of two lines or the defined beginning and end of a line; otherwise points do not exist. It is essential for any organism to have a self-reference, regardless of whether the reference amounts to a simple survival mechanism such as distinction between "this" and "that" or a "mental" pause for consideration of the situation in terms of options for action. This is essential for eating or for procreation.

IMO, the distinction between what is food and what is not is the prerequisite for consciousness.

Ierrellus
PAX

Ierrellus · 08-08-2002, 09:26 AM

snatchbalance,

I agree that the social experience helps to define consciousness. For example, if Romulus and Remus were actually suckled by wolves, they would have had to have left the wolf pack before the age of four in order to build the city of Rome. Even then, it would have been difficult for them not to resond to environments as wolves.

Even in our world now there are societies of nomads, of cave dwellers, of hut in the jungle tribes, all of which impose upon individuals within the group different rites of passage into life changes, different totems and taboos and different rituals for social solidarity.

The basic question you raise is a very important one. Does reinforcement of experience communicated by another organism like yourself enhance survival possibility of both? Does a synchronicity of experienced events help to define those events in human consciousness?

Ierrellus
PAX

sweep · 08-08-2002, 12:12 PM

Ierrellus,

i cannot see the same distinction between mental and physical (*dualistic) conditions as my organisation, in terms of the way *I* sees *things* is different. In that, i don't have the same ghost as they. i say 'give up the ghost' which includes all that stuffy old pretentious crap - therefore i agree that the dead have risen again to haunt peoples expanding vision. Yet i am not one of those you speak of, so let people dig up old bones and further the legacy of our crusty ancestors.

i don't see why labelling yourself as an evolutionist prevents you from considering the ghost as a notion, although it is unfair of me to force the notion down your throat.

to elaborate on the ghost- i don't mean that it isn't real (i think that is what you were getting at)- only that it isn't too malleable without attention, novelty and time, which is what makes our mind unique, as it is timeless, and thereby a ghost. Same thing when we take a photo, it is real but it isn't real. It depends on whether a persons brain has those physical structures to conceptualise in a way, that suits both the positive and the negative. So self-reference isn't only a survival mechanism, it is a barrier that separates the subject from the moment- sorry i'm going out on a limb here, but the ramifications in my brain might not be the same as anyone else, which ultimatly means you won't understand *me*

fortunately, this isn't entirely true, but the point is, that we aren't able to notice some things, in text, or otherwise, but since i don't personally understand everything that every poster sends, doesn't make it rubbish. Therein lies my quandary. I can't differentiate between the idiots and the genius, because *I* stops me every time. Perhaps if i follow my own advice and act more *I* 'will' 'be' much freer. Consciousness depends on being able to act and also to be able to ignore the voice that told me not to do such and such.

"no, don't do that, this is what is going to happen" - empiricism disproves the *I* every time.

I'm sure, just like our parents, when we are old we won't be able to keep up with the changing world. Lets face it, if we don't change we are dead already, and that means we need to continually renew, revise, review the world.

as for existentialism, i think that we are all in the process of becoming, an intermediate (pretentious) stage between the beginning and the being- that covers your two point, point, hopefully.

i liked what you said about the structures so necessary to any kind of free will, as i have also come across, and acknowledged this notion.

Ierrellus · 08-09-2002, 08:14 AM

sweet as a nut,

The problem I have with the word "ghost" is that it reminds me of Sir John Eccles' dualistic approach to mind/body, which has been called the theory of the "ghost in the machine", a definite Cartesian assumption. In describing myself as an evolutionist, I supposed you would see that I am coming from a non-dualistic set of assumptions about consciousness.

My ideas on consciousness are not necessarily the truths of the matter, or the heart of the matter. I just read all I can about the subject and offer interpretations and opinions, some researched and some not. And I generally learn a lot from others.

Ierrellus
PAX

Mr. Sammi · 08-09-2002, 09:04 AM

Ierrellus,

In the same vein of your own questioning, how do you propose to rationalise the pre-requisite of consciousness having the ability to discern between food and not(food)? Seeing this is a rational proposition proposed by yourself, how do you propose to argue the position as a necessary condition for consciousness?

A further question would be, if one is not selective about food can one eventually portray consciousness?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

snatchbalance · 08-09-2002, 12:26 PM

Ierrellus,

I don't know, but if say a lone wolf comes upon a prey animal, it will signal the pack. The pack acts as one to subdue the prey. Can the pack be considered to be a single "organism"? The pack acts as one to survive.

There are many other group survival and sybiosis anecdotes that can be cited.

sb

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

sweep · 08-09-2002, 03:48 PM

I take note of your academic skills, Ierrellus - not that i esteem myself as a judge, only that i believe what you say you do.

After being initially baffled by some of the banter, including yours, i feel that i am in good company. I was particularly interested, as you have mentioned twice, to my knowledge, of 'an area of wild speculation'> that of homology? It would be nice if you could iterate some of the ideas behind this word.

As for the question of wolves, i'm not sure if i would dare to call them a single organism but i will suggest that their 'organisation' is singular. Rather like a cell assembly, the cells have a degree of reactivity to their neighbour, which aids the community in a cohesive manner (in other words, the wolves stick together and react according to signals)

Sadly this analogy ends here, and the microcosm will have to wait, as the wolves are the product of those assemblies, yet they are reactive to both recognisable patterns, and they are spontaneous.

snatchbalance · 08-09-2002, 04:31 PM

Sweet as a nut,

I agree, there is a temptation to extend the analogy. In the recent past, the "Gia" hypothesys was advanced, with many takers. I was not, and am not, among them.

However, the idea of an isolated, one of a kind consciouness, does not appeal to me either.

SB

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

crocodile deathroll · 08-09-2002, 07:39 PM

I feel consciusness is a sensation to the passage of time. If you were frozen and placed into storage for 10^10^10^10^100000 years and then revived, then would of at any stage been aware that you were at all unconscious for that unimaginable length of time?

sweep · 08-10-2002, 07:36 AM

well croc, that would depend on the conditions present, not that i am qualified to demonstrate the existence of any such conditions, only that time might not be necessary under those hypothetical circumstance.

If you have already noted the topic "does time really exist" then you might have a good grasp of what i am writing of/about.

Perception of time does depend on change, and, those changes must be perceptible. Let me demonstrate:

'i live in a cube, the walls are white and i have a functional watch. The only way i can notice time is by having the watch, which is, in itself, meaningless. the timepiece may as well have one hand and a thousand numbers, and it is not in sychrony with a world location indicating the passage of night and day. Time can be reinvented easily.'

it could be a case of 'you say tomaytow and i say tomartow', but then again i am not sure whether the words CHANGE and TIME are interchangeable.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-08-2002, 09:09 AM	#61
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	sweet as a nut, Most objections to a paradigmatic theory of consciousness are based on the belief that physical states cannot be translated into mental states and vice versa. The cognitive revolution is less than a half-century old and is putting dicussions of consciousness back into mainstream philosophy as a dynamic, unresolved question that deserves consideration. When philosophers discuss consciousness, they tend to vacillate between Cartesian dualism of mind/body or concepts of existential qualia that defy empirical proofs. As an evolutionist, I cannot accept the idea of the POV "I" as a ghost. It is a point of reference in the same manner as a point is the juxtaposition of two lines or the defined beginning and end of a line; otherwise points do not exist. It is essential for any organism to have a self-reference, regardless of whether the reference amounts to a simple survival mechanism such as distinction between "this" and "that" or a "mental" pause for consideration of the situation in terms of options for action. This is essential for eating or for procreation. IMO, the distinction between what is food and what is not is the prerequisite for consciousness. Ierrellus PAX

08-08-2002, 09:26 AM	#62
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	snatchbalance, I agree that the social experience helps to define consciousness. For example, if Romulus and Remus were actually suckled by wolves, they would have had to have left the wolf pack before the age of four in order to build the city of Rome. Even then, it would have been difficult for them not to resond to environments as wolves. Even in our world now there are societies of nomads, of cave dwellers, of hut in the jungle tribes, all of which impose upon individuals within the group different rites of passage into life changes, different totems and taboos and different rituals for social solidarity. The basic question you raise is a very important one. Does reinforcement of experience communicated by another organism like yourself enhance survival possibility of both? Does a synchronicity of experienced events help to define those events in human consciousness? Ierrellus PAX

08-08-2002, 12:12 PM	#63
sweep Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: sugar factory Posts: 873	Ierrellus, i cannot see the same distinction between mental and physical (dualistic) conditions as my organisation, in terms of the way I* sees things is different. In that, i don't have the same ghost as they. i say 'give up the ghost' which includes all that stuffy old pretentious crap - therefore i agree that the dead have risen again to haunt peoples expanding vision. Yet i am not one of those you speak of, so let people dig up old bones and further the legacy of our crusty ancestors. i don't see why labelling yourself as an evolutionist prevents you from considering the ghost as a notion, although it is unfair of me to force the notion down your throat. to elaborate on the ghost- i don't mean that it isn't real (i think that is what you were getting at)- only that it isn't too malleable without attention, novelty and time, which is what makes our mind unique, as it is timeless, and thereby a ghost. Same thing when we take a photo, it is real but it isn't real. It depends on whether a persons brain has those physical structures to conceptualise in a way, that suits both the positive and the negative. So self-reference isn't only a survival mechanism, it is a barrier that separates the subject from the moment- sorry i'm going out on a limb here, but the ramifications in my brain might not be the same as anyone else, which ultimatly means you won't understand me fortunately, this isn't entirely true, but the point is, that we aren't able to notice some things, in text, or otherwise, but since i don't personally understand everything that every poster sends, doesn't make it rubbish. Therein lies my quandary. I can't differentiate between the idiots and the genius, because I stops me every time. Perhaps if i follow my own advice and act more I 'will' 'be' much freer. Consciousness depends on being able to act and also to be able to ignore the voice that told me not to do such and such. "no, don't do that, this is what is going to happen" - empiricism disproves the I every time. I'm sure, just like our parents, when we are old we won't be able to keep up with the changing world. Lets face it, if we don't change we are dead already, and that means we need to continually renew, revise, review the world. as for existentialism, i think that we are all in the process of becoming, an intermediate (pretentious) stage between the beginning and the being- that covers your two point, point, hopefully. i liked what you said about the structures so necessary to any kind of free will, as i have also come across, and acknowledged this notion.

08-09-2002, 08:14 AM	#64
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	sweet as a nut, The problem I have with the word "ghost" is that it reminds me of Sir John Eccles' dualistic approach to mind/body, which has been called the theory of the "ghost in the machine", a definite Cartesian assumption. In describing myself as an evolutionist, I supposed you would see that I am coming from a non-dualistic set of assumptions about consciousness. My ideas on consciousness are not necessarily the truths of the matter, or the heart of the matter. I just read all I can about the subject and offer interpretations and opinions, some researched and some not. And I generally learn a lot from others. Ierrellus PAX

08-09-2002, 09:04 AM	#65
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Ierrellus, In the same vein of your own questioning, how do you propose to rationalise the pre-requisite of consciousness having the ability to discern between food and not(food)? Seeing this is a rational proposition proposed by yourself, how do you propose to argue the position as a necessary condition for consciousness? A further question would be, if one is not selective about food can one eventually portray consciousness? Sammi Na Boodie ()

08-09-2002, 12:26 PM	#66
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	Ierrellus, I don't know, but if say a lone wolf comes upon a prey animal, it will signal the pack. The pack acts as one to subdue the prey. Can the pack be considered to be a single "organism"? The pack acts as one to survive. There are many other group survival and sybiosis anecdotes that can be cited. sb [ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

08-09-2002, 03:48 PM	#67
sweep Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: sugar factory Posts: 873	I take note of your academic skills, Ierrellus - not that i esteem myself as a judge, only that i believe what you say you do. After being initially baffled by some of the banter, including yours, i feel that i am in good company. I was particularly interested, as you have mentioned twice, to my knowledge, of 'an area of wild speculation'> that of homology? It would be nice if you could iterate some of the ideas behind this word. As for the question of wolves, i'm not sure if i would dare to call them a single organism but i will suggest that their 'organisation' is singular. Rather like a cell assembly, the cells have a degree of reactivity to their neighbour, which aids the community in a cohesive manner (in other words, the wolves stick together and react according to signals) Sadly this analogy ends here, and the microcosm will have to wait, as the wolves are the product of those assemblies, yet they are reactive to both recognisable patterns, and they are spontaneous.

08-09-2002, 04:31 PM	#68
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	Sweet as a nut, I agree, there is a temptation to extend the analogy. In the recent past, the "Gia" hypothesys was advanced, with many takers. I was not, and am not, among them. However, the idea of an isolated, one of a kind consciouness, does not appeal to me either. SB [ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

08-09-2002, 07:39 PM	#69
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	I feel consciusness is a sensation to the passage of time. If you were frozen and placed into storage for 10^10^10^10^100000 years and then revived, then would of at any stage been aware that you were at all unconscious for that unimaginable length of time?

08-10-2002, 07:36 AM	#70
sweep Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: sugar factory Posts: 873	well croc, that would depend on the conditions present, not that i am qualified to demonstrate the existence of any such conditions, only that time might not be necessary under those hypothetical circumstance. If you have already noted the topic "does time really exist" then you might have a good grasp of what i am writing of/about. Perception of time does depend on change, and, those changes must be perceptible. Let me demonstrate: 'i live in a cube, the walls are white and i have a functional watch. The only way i can notice time is by having the watch, which is, in itself, meaningless. the timepiece may as well have one hand and a thousand numbers, and it is not in sychrony with a world location indicating the passage of night and day. Time can be reinvented easily.' it could be a case of 'you say tomaytow and i say tomartow', but then again i am not sure whether the words CHANGE and TIME are interchangeable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.