On Friday, February 8, 2013 1:49:54 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
> >> You believe that other people have minds when they are sleeping or 
>>> under anesthesia or dead!??
>>>
>>
>> > Do you believe that you have a house when you aren't standing in it?
>>
>
> Yes. Do you believe that other people have minds when they are sleeping or 
> under anesthesia or dead?
>

I don't believe people have minds so much as people are personal 
experiences of a human lifetime at any given moment. The mind is the 
cognitive translation of that experience. 

When we are not personally conscious, others who see our body will not be 
able to communicate with us. From our perspective, our personal experience 
jumps from one conscious episode to another under anesthetic, while it is a 
bit less dramatic when we are sleeping. When we are dead, our personal 
experience has come to an end so we no longer need a human mind. 


>  >> If they have minds under those circumstances then rocks must have them 
>>> too and whatever you mean by "mind" can't be anything very interesting and 
>>> I don't care if something has a "mind" or not.
>>>
>>
>> > What you think is a rock is actually an event shaped by experiences on 
>> the molecular and geological scale, but not on a biological or zoological 
>> or anthropological scale. This means that this event doesn't correspond to 
>> a human mind, but a human mind does have access to some of the same kinds 
>> of geological and molecular experiences, which are presented to humans as 
>> tactile, acoustic, kinetic, visual experiences (and olfactory in the case 
>> of sulfurous minerals).
>>
>
> I assume the above mishmash of a word salad is what you mean by "mind", if 
> so then I was right and it's not anything very interesting and I don't care 
> if something has a "mind" or not.
>

No, it means that what you think is a rock is not the only thing that a 
rock is.
 

>  
>
>> >> In short if consciousness improves survival 
>>>
>>
>> > It doesn't. 
>>
>
> Then consciousness MUST be the byproduct of something else that does 
> improve survival. 
>

No. The existence of consciousness has nothing to do with survival at all. 
Given sense as a universal primitive, certainly the development of sense 
can improve survival, but (as is seen by the relatively few species which 
we would consider conscious) it doesn't have to, and is not meaningful in 
natural selection. To understand that though, you would have to be able to 
consider the possibility that you are wrong.

 
>
>> > Consciousness would be the stupidest byproduct of intelligence 
>> imaginable. 
>
>
> I don't know what you mean by that, what I mean is that consciousness is a 
> spandrel, it is the unavoidable result of intelligence.
>
>  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29>
>

Why would consciousness be unavoidable? Was the color blue unavoidable? Are 
there new colors which might appear in our consciousness?

Your view is that the whole of experienced realism is nothing more than a 
meaningless side effect of compression algorithms. Except for any kind of 
experience which supports this idea, apparently.

Craig


>    John K Clark 
>
>
>
>

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


Reply via email to