Synaesthesia

Excreationist,
As an aside, creationists often attack the embryological evidence for evolution on the basis of the notion of recapitulation. Ironically, Darwin, yet again far ahead of his time, realized that the evidence was to be found in the developmental isomorphism between species rather than in vague similarity of the fetus to adults of other species.

snatchbalance

Ierrellus,

How are you? Have you read anything by the Churchlands?

<a href="http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/church.neuro.html" target="_blank">P. Churchland</a>

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Ierrellus

Clutch,

Pandemonium is the best word for describing the state of current papers on Theory of Consciousness. I believe this state of affairs may be due to the fact that a paradigmatic or "scientific" definition would require at least one constant, e.g., the speed of light in Einstein's theory. In the absence of such a constant, current theories suffer from equivocations over variables, including variables posed as contestants for a constant. This may be why Quine suggests trashing the whole enterprise.

Yes, by "binary origin" I meant the lowest known set of properties as defined in a system involving subsets, not necessarily a beginning or origin of anything else. Thanks for correcting me on that unfortunate phrase.

Ierrellus

PAX

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

excreationist,

Thanks for the Piaget reference. I will look for more on the net before mulling around in the library.

I tried to use "recapitulation" to describe any process in a single organism which can serve as a "mental" model for explaining a larger process involving all organisms. This may be using a "toe" as a model for describing the entire "body".

I am aware of the misuse of the word among fundies as Synaesthesia notes. They also use the infertility of mules as proof that God rejects cross-breeding among the species, therefore evolution is bunk!

Ierrellus
PAX

Mr. Sammi

Ierrellus, Not being sure of the Paxil effect, I think i will pass on that for the moment. Sorry about the abuse of the English Language, I hope that is all I abuse on this board. In other worlds that is called writing with flair OR giving new meaning to old terms, OR trying to coin a new phrase. I have noticed it does not work all the time OR on every person. Additionally I was unaware of any such philosophical beatings in the fundamentals
thread. Perhaps I need to refine my understanding processes. With what at the moment I am unsure. Perhaps you have possess a few pointers.

* * * now to mind games...

Tough question to ask "who does the corroboration" and "of what is it independent?".

Would you have been asking if there is a particular spot within the brain, which collects beliefs and tries to make truth out of these beliefs? Which would point to an initiator of corroboration. This I cannot say, to me the whole idea is a pointer for humans like Kandel & others to physically explore. Thus it in essence it is of no merit to your definitive process currently under way here on this thread.

Would you have been asking if the phenomena of consciousness after having recieved word of somatic data OR mental data, and wishes to hold a "secure notion" concerning the data itself, initiates through some brainy process, a set of steps to disprove the validity of the notion derived from the data? I would have replied yes. This to me is an implication of consciousness and its desire to validate itself, to prove of itself.

What is the independent in independent corroboration? To me it is not(initial sources or sources of initial results). This I will rest vague at the present moment.

The conclusion I wish to derive from this "independent corroboration" idea, is the notion that "consciousness has a inate desire to validate itself", in other words to show that, consciousness as a thing-in-itself is valid, and as such should be taken seriously. Where such a phenomena should acquire such a directive, shows the immaturity in my thinking and resolution process.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Ierrellus

snatchbalance!

Good to hear from you! Several years ago I tried to read Pat Churchland's NEUROPHILOSOPHY, but didn't have the background to comprehend much of it. About all I know of the Churchland's opinions on consciousness comes from Hilary Putnam's REPRESENTATION AND REALITY. Putnam
attacks everybody's ideas. So as soon as my 'puter will allow, I'll check out your indicated web site. Thanks for including that.

(Edited to correct book title.)

Ierrellus
PAX

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

Mr. Sammi

Ierrellus,

To boost my point concerning "consciousness as a thing-in-itsef trying to validate itself", we only have to look at the "search for the meaning of consciousness", initated by some conscious being AND taken up by the consciously interested.

We are doing it, obeying this definition of consciousness, you and I, and a few of the others, in earnest. The rest seem contented to be told about consciousness so they can follow on and subsume the information concerning consciousness for their own validation.

This facet of consciousness I believe is the totality of all that consciousness encompasses. This it seems is our highest form of consciousness on 21st century Earth, and under this definition, the rest of the world seems un-conscious of our affairs.

* * *

I have other facets of consciousness to address and as a teaser of things to come, I will conclude with a conundrum of my own which follows in the next statement of mine.

Ierrellus, do you think we can forget consciousness?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Genhancer

Greetings all. I am a philosophical novice, which would probably be better demonstrated than stated, so here goes:

Does anybody think that a consciousness without causal influence sounds reasonable? That is, one's consciousness only perceives one's bodily functions (those which have the possibility of entering one's consciousness) but has no effect on the responses put forth by the body. Even in speech, is it possible that we do not create speech our"selves", but are merely aware of the speech being made by the body, or by the 'entire brain' (not just consciousness)? This would accord with determinism.

DRFseven

This is what I think: An environmental stimulus, which stimulates sensory nerves causes a change in body state that reflects the communication of the stimulus. This body state includes the emotional system, which enables "somatic markers" (so called by Antonio Damasio and others - automatic memories of feelings attached to events) which inform the brain/body of the appraisal regarding what to do about the body state. The body then alters the environment, thus changing the stimuli, which changes the body state, and so on.

Ierrellus

Genhancer,

In the genetic structuring of an organism and in the equally dynamic stages of consciousness there are enough possibilities, potentials and variables to discredit any notion of "hard" determinism. Luckily for us, there is enough of that type of determinism to produce a viable organism, one that has the possibility of surviving in changing environments.

Ierrellus
PAX