mturner

**
Hi I.,

Speaking strictly for myself, I find 'consciousness' to be a highly equivocal term. Its meaning varies widely, from a broad generalization like Cosmic Consciousness, through Human Consciousness, all the way to Quantum Consciousness. So I really don't trust the word, and would rather use "awareness". At the basic level you speak of, an organism with no brain, (an amoeba, for instance), I would refer to consciousness as 'a state of awareness of self and environment'. That is, the basic ability to distinguish between 'self' and 'other', and act accordingly.

**
Exactly, which is why, IMHO, we must clarify and agree upon the semantics of the issue. But it is extremely difficult to separate the meaning of its terminology from the meaning of the hypothesis
itself. Hence a lot of semantic wrangling.

**
I'm not sure what you mean by "evolutionary" data. Do you mean "genetic" data? Perhaps you could clarify your meaning re somatic data, as well. Are you referring to epigenetic inheritance? That which is genetic and epigenetic, I would assert, has been codified into knowledge, that is, meaningful information, and is a quantun leap above the raw data supplied by the five senses.

pax,

mturner

Ierrellus

Dear mturner,

I generally do not post twice in one day, but I felt the necessity to thank you for your honest responses. I do not understand why some here do not realize this about you.

By somatic data, I mean signal/reponse from body needs (fuel, repair} to brain evaluation and response. By evolutionary data, I mean a history of genetic traits as modified by variables of contributions from mating and environmental, adaptational successes and failures.

Again, thank you for your help here.
Ierrellus

Theophage

Quoted material by Ierrellus will appear in bold:
Dear Theophage,

Would you and our friend mturner conclude that an animal with no brain has no consciousness?


As you later mention, words like "consciousness" are fairly nebulous. But even so, I would say that consciousness is not a binary have/have not property, but a property represented by a spectrum. Humans are more conscious than dogs, dogs are more conscious than crickets, crickets are more conscious than amoebae. (and amoebae are probably more conscious than rocks...)

But if we are speaking about a threshhold level of consciousness that most people would consider reasonable ("smart" animals, etc.) then I would say no; a sufficiently complex brain is required for that.

Or would you both agree that an animal with a rudimentary nervous system would have rudimentary consciousness?

Yes, I would agree with this statement more.

Given three types of information provided to the brain, sensory data, somatic data and evolutionary data, am I overstuffing the word "data"?

I'm not sure what "evolutionary data" is, so I cannot comment on that. I would like to say that sensory data is simply a specialized form of somatic data, since senses work by the external environment causing somatic changes to the sense organs.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Ierrellus

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your insights about somatic data. Now we have two aspects of data. I suggest a third, but do not seem able to express it. It seems to me to be the genetic/epigentic contribution.

Here's how and why I began my study. In the mid- 1980s, I found the book, THE THREE POUND UNIVERSE by Judith Harper and Dick Teresi. Afterwards I found THE DRAGONS of EDEN by Carl Sagan and Christian deDuve's VITAL DUST. These books got me started on a theory of mind/matter.

In the late 1980s i wrote to Dr. Carl Pribram. I had the utmost respect for him because he had worked to get lobotomies stopped. To my surprise he answered my letter and offered help on my work. He said my work was "interesting and fun", suggested that I read his work, LANGUAGES OF THE BRAIN, and said I should probably be corresponding with a Paul Maclean who had written on "the mathematical underpinnings of the Greek Pantheon."

Dr. Pribram sent his letter, but forgot to include the address of that Paul Maclean. Doing research, I found the Paul MacLean who has done such fine work on the limbic system and has posited his theory of the triune brain. I did not write back to Dr. Pribram because of severe personal problems at the time and my own sense of inadequacy. I have never corresponded with Paul MacLean.

At this point, I have come to these fora for help.
I see that other threads have gone to Dr. Pribram's work and have debated, using his ideas about the mind as holographic and the clear terms "implicate and explicit orders". But the other threads do not start from here to get there, i.e., they offer no insights into genetic
data as a substratum of mental possibility.

Perhaps my assumtions could be better expressed with mathematical symbols.

Thanks,
Ierrellus

Ierrellus

"It's me again, Margaret."

Do NDE's mimic expulsion from the womb? Does the foetal position of an extremely disturbed human being beg the comfort of no contest with others in the womb? Does a warm bath's stress relief provide a reminder of life in a liquid? Did Nietzche's "God is dead" notion come from a corkscrew -shaped worm burrowing into his master-control system, his brain?

Ierrellus

Ierrellus

My special thanks to mturner and Theophage for your help with my project. From our conversations I have been able to get a working model of three phases of data--electro-chemical. genetic-evolutionary and sensory/somatic. These need to be more concise.

Since this is my third post with no response, I feel that no one is interested in furthering this research. I do wish to thank Amos for your considerate response with your own ideas. Could any of you tell me where to go on the net to find helpful information on the evolution of physical data to economy and ecology of thought?

Thank You so much,
Ierrellus

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>