Jochen, What follows is a behaviorist snit, and I apologize in advance for it.
Why does the defence of consciousness always come in this form: "Yet although we agree there is no mysterious downward causation, we can without doubt consciously influence the activities and movements of our body" It is NOT without doubt. I doubt it. So there is at LEAST ONE doubt. I doubt that I am conscious and that my consciousness affects my acts. Surely after 5 hundred years there is SOMETHING to be said beyond Decartes meditations. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 6/12/2009 6:25:26 PM > Subject: [FRIAM] The ghost in the machine (was 'quick question') > > Exactly, I think it is a useless and void concept if one defines it in > this way. It makes sense the other way round: the stronger the > emergence, the weaker the causal dependence. > > Yet although we agree there is no mysterious downward causation, > we can without doubt consciously influence the activities and movements > of our body. If there is no downward causation, who is causing these > activities? What do you think? > > * Wrong question, the actor is not a single entity ? > * Self-consciousness does not trigger actions, it impedes actions > (Hamlet's to be or not to be comes to mind) ? > * We are not the actor of our own story, just the witness of it? > > -J. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "russell standish" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 3:17 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:01:38PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > >> Steve, > >> > >> My understanding of the meaning of "strong" emergence is "inexplicable > >> emergence". > >> > >> Is there another meaning? > >> > >> N > > > > Bedau defines it as emergence with downward causation. For example, we > > would say > > that consciousness is strongly emergent if we felt that we could > > consciously influence the activities of our neurons, rather than > > simply our consciousness simply being the result of neuronal activity. > > > > I'm not sure this notion has any use in discussions other than > > consciousness, and even there the notion of epiphenomenalism would say > > that it is void concept. > > > > Cheers > > > > -- > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > Mathematics > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
