On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Coronawrote:
>
> > Jost to introduce another point of view about consciousnees. The one
> > that I think its right:
>
> > According with evolutionary Psychology,  Consciousness evolved as an
> > adaptation to social life.
>
> Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think  
> that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss  
> (although not necessarily self-conscious).
>
Depending on the pain and depending on the animal and the context.
Following the theory exposed, self consciousness of pain, exist when
the animal know that other individuals can take actions to alleviate
it. Social Animals grown t in isolation don´t cry (including humans).

Of course either conscious or not, the animal must avoid the pain, but
a non self aware animal may experiment pain just as you and me may
experiment pain when we are deeply concentrated in an intellectual
activity. the reactions to pain in this case are automatic.

> > Broadly specaking, non social animals are
> > unconscious and selfless.
>
> I tend to believe the contrary. The more an animal is social, the more  
> it could be self-less. Even humans can destroy the individual self by  
> using strong group identity.
>
That can happen sometimes. If you feel very good inside a group, why
bother to control yourself?. Self awareness is not for social life as
such, it is for avoiding conflicts  and making profit of social
interactions. If you are immersed in an activity where you feel free
of conflicts, you dont need self awarenees. For example in a concert,
or in a meeting with people who think like you, with your friends etc.

Other situations where you feel selfless is when you travel to a
foreign pacific place. where you are surronded by peaceful foreigners
and  your acts will not influence your future reputation at home. To
feel selfless is probably one reason why people travel.

> > interaction with them if I am aware of what the others expect from me.
> > For this purpose, I must be aware and I must register, whathever I do
> > that may affect to others.  So I may  unconsciously pick up a donut
> > from the refrigerator and not even notice it, but I´m well aware of it
> > when  I´m fatty and my wife is looking.
>
> > Self conscious supervision of our acts is not for free. it adds an
> > extra overload in the brain and in the way we do things that is
> > visible to others. If the other that is looking is very important for
> > us, we can experiment seizures. Conversely, the absence of self
> > awareness is experimented as flowing.
>
> > To complete the picture, I must say that the awareness of spiritual
> > beings that continuously supervise us is a further social instinct
> > that make use of the self supervision machinery. This avoid
> > machiavelic behaviours that may be deleterious for the group
>
> > Of course a machine can be designed to have such computational self
> > awareness, but the question of  if real self awareness is still open.
>
> In which theory?
>
This is more or less the theory of the evolutionary origin of self
consciousness according with Evolutionary Psychology. This is more or
less the consensus.  Daniel Dennet wrote something about it.  Pinker
too.   Evolution is parsimonious. It proceed step by step by
accumulation functionalities in respionse to evolutionary pressures,
in this case, mental modules that correspond to computational hardware
in the brain. This is the most logical path that  evolution may have
follow.

There are psico-phisical experiments that is according with this
theory. There are experiments where the activity of both the motor
signal of a hand and the cortex tissue that "control" the hand  are
measured. The  "control" signal in the cortex appears  one second
after the motor signal when the test individual received the order to
move the hand. this means that some other unconscious part does the
real control, and the cortex just take note of the movement and assign
the action to the self, when in reality, the action has been done
already unconsciously. This is described by Pinker in some of its
books. Presumably in "how the mind works".


So, by definition, consciousness is causally efective. it is a mind
module. Mind modules are not located in specifin spatially conected
parts of the brain, they are distributed, in the same way that the
file search in Microsoft windows is not located in a concrete zone of
the PC hardware. In this case self consciousness is distributed in the
human cortex.

> Bruno
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 1:23 pm, selva kumar <selvakr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Is consciousness causally effective ?
>
> >> I found this question in previous threads,but I didn't find a answer.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
> > Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group 
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> > .
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to