Hi Bruno Marchal 

I disagree about the self not being a social contruct.

It must at least be partly so, for to my mind, the self
is your memory, and that includes to some extent the world.

And the self includes what your think your role is.
At home a policeman may just be a father, but
when he puts on his uniform and stops a car for
speeding, he's a different person. 


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/15/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-14, 11:03:48
Subject: Re: on tribes




On 14 Aug 2012, at 14:42, Roger wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

I think that your soul is your identity in the form of point of view. 


I agree. I use almost that exact definition.






As we grow up we begin to define or find ourselves not out of any great 
insight but pragmatically, out of choosing what tribe we belong to. 
We define ourselves socially and culturally. We wear their indian 
feathers or display their tattoes and are only friendly to our own tribe
or gang. So a liberal won't listen to a conservative and vice versa.
It greatly simplifies thinking and speaking, and is a dispeller of
doubt and tells us with some apparent certainty on who we are.


OK, but that is not the root of the first person self, which can still exist 
even when completely amnesic.
If not you make the first person "I" a social construct, which it is not.


Bruno







So Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012 
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-12, 10:47:23
Subject: Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain




On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind:

brain   objective and modular
mind   subjective and unitary


OK. You can even say:
brain/body:   objective and doubtable
soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable







The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced.


Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but 
the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like 
mechanism.







I  believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe
is the monad.  It is the eye of the universe, although for us we
can only perceive indirectly.


I am open to this. The monad would be the "center of the wheel", or the fixed 
point of the doubting consciousness. 


The machines already agree with you on this : )
(to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) 
definition of belief, knowledge, etc.)


See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally correct 
machine:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html


Bruno




Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/12/2012 
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-11, 09:52:29
Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated!


On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or
>>> unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the
>>> total.
>>
>> This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point
>> which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including
>> mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts,
>> you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very idea
>> of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be
>> realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have
>> stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I think
>> that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'.
>>
>
> With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not follow,
> I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his
> "pandemonia" theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious
> process, working disparately, solve different aspects of the problems
> at hand, or provide different courses of action. The purpose of
> consciousness is to select from among the course of action
> presented by the pandemonium of subconscious processes - admittedly
> consciousness per se may not be necessary for this role - any unifying
> (aka reductive) process may be sufficient.
>
> The reason I like this, is that it echoes an essentially Darwinian
> process of random variation that is selected upon. Dawinian evolution
> is the key to any form of creative process.


The brain parts I was talking about must be enough big and integrated, 
like an half hemisphere, or the limbic system, etc. What I said should 
not contradict Daniel Dennett "pandemonia" or Fodor modularity theory, 
which are very natural in a computationalist perspective.
Only sufficiently "big" part of the brain can have their own 
consciousness as dissociation suggests, but also other experience, 
like splitting the brain, or the removing of half brain operation(*) 
suggest.
The sleeping or paralysis of the corpus callosum can also leads to a 
splitting consciousness, and people can awake in the middle of doing 
two dreams at once. This consciousness multiplication does echoed 
Darwinian evolution as well, I think.
Yet, I am not sure that Darwin evolution is a key to creativity. It 
might be a key to the apparition of creativity on earth, but 
creativity is a direct consequence of Turing universality. Emil Post 
called creative his set theoretical notion of universal probably for 
that reason: the fact that universal machine can somehow contradict 
any theories done about them, and transform itself transfinitely often.
Or look at the Mandelbrot set. The formal description is very simple 
(less than 1K), yet its deployment is very rich and grandiose. It 
might be creative in Post sense, and most natural form, including 
biological, seem to appear in it. So very simple iteration can lead to 
creative process, and this echoes the fact that consciousness and 
creativity might appear more early than we usually thought.

I was of course *not* saying that all parts of the brain are 
conscious, to be clear, only big one and structurally connected.

Bruno

(*) See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSu9HGnlMV0


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.




-- 
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.



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.



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