----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Free Will
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Darryl Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 4:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Free Will
>
>
> > Dan, I don't understand the argument that consciousness is useless
> > without free will. What is consciousness? An awareness of one's
> > internal state.
>
> In what sense internal? Can I see your consciousness? I can see things I
> associate with it, but I cannot see the consciousness.
>
> >I would hold that "zombies"...that is, people who act just like us,
> >but aren't conscious...are impossible. In order to act
> > like a human one MUST be conscious. There is no difference between a
> > simulation of consciousness and consciousness, they are the same thing.
>
> But, since consciousness is not an observable, how could you tell? With
> regard to your own consciousness, you have a biased sample of 1.
>
>
> > Yes, it is possible to have unconscious organisms...look around and we
> > find that very few organisms on earth are even close to being
> > conscious.
>
> All right, can you tell by empirical observations what the dividing line
is?
> Is it possible, in principal even, to falsify the conclusion "x is
> conscious" or "x is unconscious" for any animal?
>
>
> > But a being that acts "as if" it were conscious IS conscious.
>
> That held water when consciousness was thought to be required to explain
> human behavior. But, if human can be explained in terms of biochemistry
> alone, which can in principal be explained by QED, then there is no need
to
> include consciousness into a model of human behavior as anything more than
a
> convenient behavior. It doesn't matter if being X is self-aware, the
> existence or non-existence of that self awareness has nothing to do with
> their behavior.
>
> Let me put it to you this way. Let me argue that not all humans are self
> aware, only the most intelligent half of the human race is really self
> aware. Could you show an empirical test to disprove that?
>
> >
> > How could a creature act like a human being but not be conscious?
> > Explain this to me...
> >
> Because, if human behavior is totally based on the biochemistry of the
> brain/body, then the existence/non-existence of self-awareness is
> meaningless in terms of explaining behavior.
>
> Dan M.
Let me share a few observations made *in the wild* along with a few things I
have always accepted as factual.
The number of neurons along with the number of dendriites in the human brain
allows a number of possible states that exceeds the number of elementary
particles in the universe. While not all of these states are useful or
viable, the realistic ones are still vast in number.
This implies a great potential for what we call conciousness. (I got this
from The Dragons of Eden or maybe Brocas Brain.) Add in the biochemistry
factor and you have even greater potential for conciousness. (I'm kinda
seperating hormonal from nervous system events for the sake of argument.)
What an awesome field for synergistic effects!
Conciousness is not a digital question. It is not either on or off. It is a
range. And humans range from only nominally concious (at best in some cases)
to exceptionally concious (in rare cases).
There is overlap between the low end of human conciousness and the higher
ends of primate and cetacean conciousness. Babies are not born knowing right
from wrong (simple ethics), nor are dogs and cats.
But we train our children to know right from wrong, we train our pets in the
desired behavior (often much the same thing), and when they comply with the
training, what you have done is taught awareness.
Awareness of potential outcomes and awareness that certain will based
actions prevent certain outcomes. Without the awareness that actions can
change outcomes you do not have concious behavior.
(I am a volunteer in an anger management program lately, and this is a
pivotal part of the program. Increasing awareness leads to a growth in
conciousness.)
Conciousness is not a static quality on the individual level. You are born
with a potential for conciousness. But an individual may not grow into their
potential. (Indeed, I suspect most of us never do for a variety of reasons.)
Disease, dysfunction (of any on the hormonal or nervous organs),
enviromental poisoning (both physical (chemical) and psychic(this would
include varous forms of abuse)), and cultural influences (similar to psychic
poisoning) can stunt the growth of conciousness.
Here, we often repeat the mantra, IAAMOAC.
I think I'd like to postulate an addendum or corrollary, IAAMOAACWSTIC or I
am a member of an aware civilisation who strives to increase conciousness.
Or.
IAAMOACWIAASTIC, I am a member of a civilisation who is aware and strives to
increase conciousness.
Perhaps someone could boil it down better than I. Think the Brinster would
be interested?
xponent
rob<G>
