Any other thoughts on this, RetiredJim? On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
