Oui!
On Jul 28, 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. (To assert that
> conscious is awake is circular, I believe.) So on what basis can you
> conclude that they are not conscious?
> You suggest that being conscious is being awake, as opposed to
> being asleep, and that being awake is a mental state. This in turn
> suggests to me that you think consciousness is a function of the
> brain, and resides there. 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
>
> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
