Hi Jim, first, as mentioned in the article, there was a delineation made between awake and self aware. In scientific and philosophical terms, we are speaking of self awareness.
The rest of my answers are interspersed below. On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chris - Thanks for such a thorough discussion of consciousness. But I > humbly submit that no one has any idea if or to what extent a rock or > cloud is self-aware. Yet they are both a collection of atoms and > molecules, and when compared to whatever might be next to them, they > are organized and responsive to their environment. The difference between active and inert is a good start. While a rock may be "responsive to its environment" (in the loosest definition possible, in that it will pass through various states of matter in response to environmental changes), it will take no action representative of will. It is inert. It cannot demonstrate choice or preference or memory. It is incapable of sensing or storing data, and additionally incapable of acting on said data. While it may be possible to imaginatively assign such a thing the property of consciousness in some sort of universal fashion, there is no scientific basis for such an assignation, simply because there is no evidence to support such a hypothesis. > (To assert that > conscious is awake is circular, I believe.) So on what basis can you > conclude that they are not conscious? This is the important part here. I do not conclude they are NOT conscious. I do NOT conclude they ARE conscious. Should such evidence present itself, I will add that to my knowledge. Until such time, I have no reason to believe such is true. I would not form an active disbelief which would put me in the position of proving a negative...I'll leave Russell's Teapot to the Fundamentalist Atheists. ;) > You suggest that being conscious is being awake, as opposed to > being asleep, and that being awake is a mental state. No, actually, as stated in the Wiki entry, that's a colloquial usage. > This in turn > suggests to me that you think consciousness is a function of the > brain, and resides there. Yes. Scientifically, consciousness is a function rising from the organization of sensory input, data storage, and complex data analysis, all functions of the brain. > But if you had ever had an out of body > experience, as I have, you would know that what was out of your body > was your consciousness. So to me while our consciousness may reside in > our body for a time, it is not restricted to it. Jim And if you had ever experimented with DiMethylTryptamine, like I have, you would know that out of body experiences are also a function of the brain, and can be created and experienced at will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine > > > On Jul 24, 12:43 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sure. To be clear, however, we'd have to start with a definition of > > consciousness. > > I think the Wiki entry on consciousness does a pretty fair attempt at a > > clear definition of what we are talking about: > > > > *Consciousness* is often used colloquially to describe being > > awake<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awake> > > and aware <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aware>—responsive< > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive> > > to > > the environment <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_(biophysical)>, > in > > contrast to being asleep <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asleep> or in a > > coma<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma>. > > In philosophical and scientific discussion, however, the term is > restricted > > to the specific way in which humans are mentally aware in such a way that > > they distinguish clearly between themselves (the thing being aware) and > all > > other things and events. A characteristic of consciousness is that it is > > reflective, an "awareness of being aware". This > > "self-awareness<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness>" > > may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, and > > dreams.[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0> > > 1 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0>]< > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0> > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness> > > So, I would limit my assignation of things which could possess > consciousness > > by thinking about the function of consciousness, and deciding whether it > is > > reasonable, based on the structure and organization of that object, that > it > > was CAPABLE of such. If awareness is a function of sensory input (which > > seems to be a truism, but perhaps you think differently), then by what > > mechanism does a rock gather sensory data? Parse it? Store it? Analyze > it? > > > > I've found that those who think consciousness exists outside of this > > paradigm often have a different definition of the word itself. Do you? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:26 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Chris - for openers let us agree that humans have the quality we are > > > calling consciousness. Now, what is it about that quality that gives > > > you reason to believe that it is limited in some way or fashion to > > > some collection of species, rather that being present everywhere and > > > in everything? You say your belief that consciousness is limited "has > > > been demonstrated through a reasonable scientific process." Please > > > explain. I hope you don't see this as just being argumentative. I > > > would seriously welcome any light you can shed on this topic. Jim > > > > > On Jul 24, 12:05 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Because as an empiricist, I don't assign properties to something > without > > > > having an active reason to believe such is there, in the form of > > > evidence. I > > > > don't "limit" the possibilities of conscious; I merely limit my own > > > belief > > > > to that which has been demonstrated through a reasonable scientific > > > process. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Chris - I guess limiting consciousness to some arbitrary > organization > > > > > of molecules, or to some set of such organizations, is about as > > > > > arbitrary as not limiting it to anything but contending that it is > > > > > everywhere and in everything (as well as in nothing - i.e; all of > > > > > space). Why do you think it is limited? Jim > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 11:20 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Why would it seem that way to you? What seems conscious about a > rock, > > > or > > > > > > other inert matter? > > > > > > I would extend consciousness to any form of "life" (whatever that > may > > > > > turn > > > > > > out to mean), since as I've described, consciousness rises from > > > > > > organization, a function of life. > > > > > > > > I'm locked behind a somewhat restrictive firewall right now, but > will > > > > > > endeavor to provide you with some quality citation post haste. :) > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM, retiredjim34 < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Chris - it seems to me that consciousness is present everywhere > in > > > the > > > > > > > universe and in all matter, and eneryg too for that matter, not > > > just > > > > > > > is some arbitrary collection of species. I'd like a cite to the > > > vast > > > > > > > majority you reference. Jim > > > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 9:50 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Absolutely! > > > > > > > > Consciousness is most likely (according to the vast majority > of > > > > > serious > > > > > > > > research on the topic) a function of higher organization. You > are > > > > > correct > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > assign consciousness to monkeys, but to delineate levels of > such. > > > > > > > > > > Something to keep in mind here: It's a common misconception > of > > > those > > > > > that > > > > > > > > attack evolution that we're stating "Humans are descended > from > > > > > chimps" > > > > > > > (or > > > > > > > > Orangutans, as the case may be). In actuality, we're noting > > > common > > > > > > > > ancestors. Could Chimpanzees or Orangutans eventually evolve > into > > > > > Homo > > > > > > > > Sapiens? It's highly improbable. > > > > > > > > > > So, back to your question...in our branch of development, > more > > > energy > > > > > was > > > > > > > > expended in prefrontal structure (i.e. the lobes, man.) This > is > > > the > > > > > seat > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > higher intellect, our personality, and likely, what we > consider > > > to be > > > > > our > > > > > > > > consciousness. The lesser apes? Not so much. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, retiredjim34 < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Chris - I understand what you are speaking of when you > > > reference > > > > > > > > > people or persons to be the physical human being. While > this > > > body > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > well be related to some sort of monkey, the person is not > the > > > body > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > the consciousness within that body. There are many examples > of > > > > > this. I > > > > > > > > > doubt if the level of consciousness humans have is much > like > > > > > whatever > > > > > > > > > might be the sort of consciousness monkeys have. Any > thoughts > > > on > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > level? Jim > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 11:21 am, Chris Jenkins < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From another list I'm on...chimps may not be our closest > > > relative > > > > > > > after > > > > > > > > > all? > > > > > > > > > > > > From the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review. Anyone interested in > a > > > pdf > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > original article please let me know. John Grehan > > > > > > > > > > *Pitt anthropologist argues humans more like orangutans > than > > > > > chimps* > > > > > > > > > > A University of Pittsburgh anthropologist argues in a > paper > > > > > published > > > > > > > > > today > > > > > > > > > > that humans most likely share a common ancestor with > > > orangutans, > > > > > and > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > chimpanzees, which is the prevailing belief. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeffrey H. Schwartz hopes the paper will get researchers > to > > > > > practice > > > > > > > > > > fundamental science and question some assumptions. > > > > > > > > > > "What I'll be happy with is if people actually think out > of > > > the > > > > > box > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > consider alternative theories of human relationships with > > > apes," > > > > > > > Schwartz > > > > > > > > > > said Wednesday in a phone interview from Zagreb, Croatia. > > > > > > > > > > > > He concedes it won't happen overnight, but the paper in > the > > > > > Journal > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > Biogeography that he co-authored could help, said > Schwartz, > > > who's > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > president of the World Academy of Art and Science. > > > > > > > > > > > > "We've done the analysis," said John Grehan, who is the > > > paper's > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > co-author, director of science at the Buffalo Museum in > New > > > York > > > > > and > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > research associate at the Carnegie Museum of Natural > History. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeffrey L. Boore, an adjunct biology professor at the > > > University > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > California-Berkeley who specializes in interpretive > genome > > > > > sequences, > > > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > > > > he knows of no strong reason to discount the DNA studies > that > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > demonstrated chimps and gorillas are more closely related > to > > > > > humans > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > orangutans. > > > > > > > > > > > > "The overwhelming majority of those studies have given > very > > > > > strong > > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > to excluding orangutans from the human-chimp-gorilla > group," > > > said > > > > > > > Boore, > > > > > > > > > > who's also CEO of Genome Project Solutions, Inc., in > > > Hercules, > > > > > Calif. > > > > > > > > > > > > "If people disagree with it, they need to put out their > > > evidence > > > > > and > > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > go back and forth," said Grehan, an entomologist who also > > > studies > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > origin > > > > > > > > > > and evolution of animals and plants. "But I think a lot > of > > > people > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > incapable of dealing with it." > > > > > > > > > > > > That's because for years most of the scientific community > > > > > accepted > > > > > > > DNA > > > > > > > > > > analyses that suggest humans are most closely related to > > > chimps, > > > > > > > Schwartz > > > > > > > > > > and Grehan said. > > > > > > > > > > > > But an examination of fossil and other evidence shows > humans > > > and > > > > > > > > > orangutans > > > > > > > > > > share 28 features -- including reproductive systems, > tooth > > > > > structures > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > mouth palates, the scientists say. > > > > > > > > > > > > Schwartz and Grehan write in their paper that humans > share > > > only > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > features > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
