Ierrellus

Oops.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

Mr. Sammi,

Why are humans apparently the only organisms with a need to validate a sense of consciousness? Could it be that we have evoluted past immediate perception/action to peception/consideration/action? And is the time delay for consideration problematic?

Ierrellus

PAX

Genhancer

DRFseven,

You sound like a hard determinist. I have read a couple of Damasio's books. He seemed to avoid going into theories of the self. Your views do not conflict with my questions, but you did not answer whether you "think that a consciousness without causal influence sounds reasonable?" The "appraisal" you speak of suggests a hierarchy of needs. However, does your model include a leader to this hierarchy - an agent which chooses? Where do you see this common perception, which seems as apriori as the existence of the external world, fitting in (if at all)?

Ierrellus,

You suggest determinism to the extent that we are what we are because of these causal factors. On the side of freewill you seem to suggest that anything is possible, but seem to point to adaptability as being a determined feature of our organisms (or something we have accumulated along the way), when you say:

To me this is kind of like saying we were determined to have free-will. However, it avoids any explanation of how or where this agent-which-chooses arises. I understand why, and I don't claim to have any answers to the question myself. My original post was put forth as what I saw as the "result" of hard determinism being true. I would assume that by having any sort of self-awareness would, in itself, have some effect upon the system.

Mr. Sammi

Ierrellus, the answer as to why are humans the only organisms with a need to validate themselves is beyond my current scope of understanding. I believe this element of validating ourselves is also enmeshed in our procreation cycle, if this helps in any way. The answer to why we have this need could be hidden in what we accumulated and retained over our period of history.

The idea of memory and some sort of modelling process of perceptions, ultimately leading to a model of thought, enhances the possibility of an obligation to verify what is retainable, after its initial accumulation.

It would seem unlikely with the advent of memory that one would retain dangerous ideas, or dangerous practices, if some model of the environment is accumulated in memory.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

snatchbalance

Genhanser,

It seems that with the evolution of an "oversized" neocortex, along with the proper vocal and manipulative eqipment, humans have become able to sybolise thier emotions and internal bodily "feelings". Once a phenomenon is recognised, symbolised, it's manipulation can be contemplated.

Of course, the "self",is simply a construct of the neocortex. It is needed to keep track of the other internal phenomena.

SB

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Ierrellus

Genhancer,

IMO, a world without cause and effect cannot be known by humans, except as imaginary. Cause and effect is the basis of our grammatical structures, hence of our sense of what is logical. As Snatchbalance rightly states, such phenomena are products of an enlarging cortex which attend to the somatic drives DRFseven mentions.

A human trait, "all too human", may be our need to
explain phenomena by use of a mythology. I call these explanatory responses "myth from the cortex". I do not doubt that cortexial mythology has physical antecedents; yet, it is part and parcel of a dynamic process. "A rose is a rose is a rose"-Stein. And "a rose by any name would smell as sweet".-Shakespeare.

Myth from the cortex is not half-truth or falsification. It is a tool for human understanding.

Ierrellus
PAX

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

snatchbalance,

A few days ago a t.v. news station came out with a very brief coverage about scientists who discovered a gene that enlarges rat brains. The enlarged brains had to fold to fit into the rats' cranial cavities. The scientists have not determined if this enlargement indicates increased intelligence in the rats.

I would have asked these scientists if their results were whole-brain or neocortical enlargements. "Nutty Putty" will assume the entire shape of the inside of a thimble, when pressed into the thimble. A "gummy worm", in the thimble experiment, will start to fold inside the thimble until sufficient pressure is applied.

Ierrellus
PAX

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

MR. Sammi,

Excellent response! Please tell me why you believe procreation has something to do with the perennial, human identity crisis, which I think compelled our ancestors to create gods.

Ierrellus
PAX

DRFseven

Just don't call me a genetic determinist. Damasio does have a theory of self; briefly, our sense of self consists of proto, core, and autobiographical self, and he elucidates with examples of patients suffering from various "disturbances of self" stemming from specific functional brain anomalies.

The appraisal I referred to concerns the idea that brain cells represent, not only what is going on in the body, but what goes on outside the body, because they change to reflect environmentally transmitted information. I think in this way, the individual maintains a homeostatic state. There is much more transduction going on that just that of which we are conscious, and I think we gather much of our "meaning" from those sources.

No, it does not sound reasonable to me. In my experience, I have perceived that things have causes, and I cannot fail to notice that disruption of certain physiology causes the disruption of consciousness.

I don't have any great theory about how the *I* is perceived. Certainly, I am aware of a sense of my own self, and I think it is strung together from a series of instantaneous selves that incorporate that "core" self from memories of "how I am" along with immediate emotional feedback from environmental or internal stimuli. I make choices by the interpretation of changes in body-state, which comprises both memory and motivation, conscious and nonconscious, the conscious aspect of emotions being feelings. As to why qualia seems the way it does, I don't know!

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>

Ierrellus

The Cookie Cutter:

A woman is in the process of making cookies. She selects a star-shaped cookie cutter. Her young son watches as she cuts the shape into the dough. The woman gets a phone call. When she returns from the call, she notices that her cookie cutter is gone. She discovers that her son is using the cutter to make star shapes in modeling clay.

1. Should the woman tell her son that the cookie cutter is only to be used in making cookies?
2. Would a scientist say that because of the shape and hardness of the cookie cutter it could be used to make star shapes on any substance that has some degree of hardness less than the cutter?
3. Would the son know what the scientist is saying?
4. Would it matter if the cookie cutter has a patent and directions for use?
5. Would it matter if the mother and son were Chinese?
6. Would saying that the son's ability to cut the shape into something other than cookie dough correspond with an innate idea?
7. Would a comparison of the scientist's thought with the child's thought amount to trying to tranlate Piaget's ideas into ancient Egyptian heiroglyphs?

Ierrellus
PAX

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]

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