From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:23:04 -0700
Me
For we all are individuals and cannot be lumped together in this particular context because of that.
Actually we can (I think), since I-consciousness is a trait, or at least that's how I see it. And in order for that "I" to be there, I've got to have something to contrast it with -- otherwise "I" has no meaning.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to listen in, it still makes a sound. Similarly, if I were the sole remaining human being on this planet (for whatever reason), I would still be me. And being a sentient life form - the kind that Data just loves scanning for - I would be aware my own existence and surrounding environment in ways that only a sentient being can. Moreover, I think this would apply in the case of not only being the sole *remaining* human, but being the *only* human in existence (again for whatever reason). For humans are sentient. Simple as that.
As for your take on it, I can certainly see where you're coming from, and can even agree on -'the presence of self-awareness, being almost by definition other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being behaves'- as I'm sure that the awareness of others would definitely change how an 'I-conscious' being behaves. A simple example of this would be someone observing proper table manners when dining with other people. Conversely, when eating alone, I doubt that many people give a rodent's posterior as to how much of their food ends up on their shirt as opposed to in their mouth (a little extreme, but you get the point). As far as your overall scheme though, I'm not buying. But that's just me...being an individual.
Basically all I'm suggesting is that while the gene drives evolution in animals lacking self-awareness, as soon as the "I" surfaces, as soon as visible signs of intelligence can be seen (and selected for by potential breeding mates), we're moving into Dawkinsian meme-space. Genes are no longer the sole driving factors in human evolution, in selection, or in determining what traits pass along. (After all we see traits other than the physical, such as tastes in music, etc.)
Yes, yes. I understand all of that. And all I'm suggesting is that the 'I' is limited to the 'I' in a very strict sense. Meaning that a generalization such as yours - while being accurate to some degree - cannot be 100% assured, as we have no idea what breeding choices individual people might make. Which you kinda stated by saying that potential breeding mates are selected for reasons other than tight-fitting jeans.
-Travis "genes" Edmunds
_________________________________________________________________
MSN� Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling get-togethers. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN� Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
