Stephen, you seem to have a clear idea about  YOUR meaning of  "consciousness". The discussion skewed pretty much into "human consciousness", which restricts a general idea of it. I wonder if your "Any model that we propose" refers to models of Ccness, or the 'bearer' of such?  I couldn't agree more with your 'model' view, no matter in which sense, - we can speak only in terms of ('our', cut, limited) models. I.e. our 1st person interpretation of whatever we 'get' from 3rd person (or mind-interpreted observation) at all. (What is this 'mind'?)
I volunteered on a 'psych-related' list in 1992 to identify that "thing" (or not 'thing') Ccness generalized from 'human' down (or up") to the inanimate (stupid word) and ideational items, as:
"acknowledgement of and response to information"
(where of course information was not 'the bit', rather some (mentally OR physically) recognized difference). E.g. the attraction of an anion to a positive charge. Or: a perplexing maxim by G. B. Shaw .
You ARE asking for too much, the thousands of psych etc. scientists at the yearly Tucson conferences since the eary 90s could not agree in an acceptable identification of ccness, because they needed different meanings to fit their own work. Most of them thinking about human ccness only.
I like Stathis's doubts about "who is sane and who not"
> > ...human minds have a correct model of reality, as opposed to the "broken" minds of the mentally ill. This is really very far from the truth. <  <
because our image of mentally illness is just 'unfitting' our 'sanity'-image. ("Our" reality? as seen from this universe?)
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

> Dear Stathis,
>     I would like to thank you for pointing this out, even thought it should
> be obvious to anyone that has any thoughts about consciousness. Any model
> that we propose must consider a very wide range of consciousness, including
> the insanities, and maybe, just maybe, it might make some predictions about
> what the upper and lower bounds on consciousness. Additionally, maybe we
> could require, of a theory of consciousness, some explanation of qualia...
>     Maybe I am asking for too much. ;-)
> Stephen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <
> To: <
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 9:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality
> > Dear aet.radal ssg,
> >
> > I think you missed my point about the amnesic and psychotic patients,
> > which
> > is not that they are clear thinkers, but that they are conscious despite a
> > disability which impairs their perception of time. Your post raises an
> > interesting question in that you seem to assume that normally functioning
> > human minds have a correct model of reality, as opposed to the "broken"
> > minds of the mentally ill. This is really very far from the truth. Human
> > brains evolved in a specific environment, often identified as the African
> > savannah, so the model of the world constructed by the human mind need
> > only
> > match "reality" to the extent that this promoted survival in that
> > environment. As a result, we humans are only able to directly perceive and
> > grasp a tiny, tiny slice of physical reality. Furthermore, although we are
> > proud of our thinking abilities, the theories about physical reality that
> > humans have come up with over the centuries have in general been
> > ridiculously bad. I have spent the last ten years treating patients with
> > schizophrenia, and I can assure you that however bizarre the delusional
> > beliefs these people come up with, there are multiple historical examples
> > of
> > apparently "sane" people holding even more bizarre beliefs, and often
> > insisting on pain of death or torture that everyone else agree with them.
> >
> > You might point out that despite the above, science has made great
> > progress.
> > This is true, but it has taken the cumulative efforts of millions of
> > people
> > over thousands of years to get to our current level of knowledge, which in
> > any case is still very far from complete in any field. Scientific progress
> > of our species as a whole is mirrored in the efforts of a psychotic
> > patient
> > who gradually develops insight into his illness, recognising that there is
> > a
> > difference between real voices and auditory hallucinations, and learning
> > to
> > reason through delusional beliefs despite the visceral conviction that
> > "they
> > really are out to get me".
> >
> > --Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> >>From: "aet.radal ssg" <
> >>To:
> >>Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality
> >>Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 10:44:25 -0500
> >>

Reply via email to