On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 2:30 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 11:39, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:19 AM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 11:13, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:41 AM Stathis Papaioannou < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 08:55, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am reminded of Kafka's novella, 'Metamorphosis': "When Gregor >>>>>> Samsa awoke one morning from troubled dreams, he found himself changed >>>>>> into >>>>>> a monstrous cockroach in his bed."...... >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the person just the brain, or is there more to it? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you radically changed your body, you would also change the inputs >>>>> to your brain. So we can maintain the theory that the sense of self comes >>>>> directly from the brain. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You might wish to maintain this theory, but you, yourself, have >>>> directly contradicted it by saying that our sense of self depends on the >>>> inputs to the brain. The qualification "directly" adds nothing but >>>> obfuscation. >>>> >>> >>> The inputs to the brain affect the brain state, and our experiences >>> depend on the brain state. If a particular brain state could be implemented >>> in the absence of inputs, the experience would be the same as if the inputs >>> were there. Do you disagree with this? >>> >> >> Yes. Experience is not a static unity -- it depends on the inputs. So a >> brain state in the absence of inputs would not experience anything. Sensory >> deprivation experiments show that in the absence of external sensory >> inputs, the brain tends to go into a looping mode. But then, we cannot >> separate the brain from inputs coming from the body -- heartbeat, >> breathing, contact with the floor, and so on. So the brain does not exist >> in the absence of inputs. Experience depends on the passage of time, marked >> by some change or the other. And the change in inputs is the only relevant >> measure of the passage of time. Remove these and you have a non-conscious, >> comatose, state. >> > > The inputs serve to put the brain in a particular state, but the brain > could go into the same state without the inputs. This can be a practical > problem in patients with schizophrenia: the may hear voices and are > convinced that the voices are real, to the point where they might assault > someone because of what they believe he said. > And I believe that if a particular small area of the brain is stimulated, the subject experiences the colour red. Similarly, if the colour red is shown, that same area of the brain shows activity. So quailia are nothing but particular brain activity. There is no additional "magic sauce" in consciousness. These same areas of the brain could be excited at random, as in your schizophrenic example. All that goes to show is that consciousness is nothing more than brain activity. Absent brain activity, there is no consciousness. Bruce -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTMS0oNpr%2BUPY9gUceL66hb66dNU6fXgAk0ZOSEyObgpg%40mail.gmail.com.
