The ultimate sum of the universe is often held to be zero. One also has the statistical zero of the vacuum hinting at massive energies 'elsewhere'. I share Justin's reservations about Dennet. In the detail of phenomenology (something most of us could get into) there is attention to 'the things themselves' (and in marxism too - methodologically). Science is phenomenological in my view, yet very few scientists are aware of the detailed explanations of what they do. One can do a lot of poking about as a technician without ever understanding what any of it means beyond the monthly pay cheque continuing to arrive. The old arguments are whether what we call consciousness is an emergent property of enough complexity in the organisation we call life, or sneaks in from another world (however we want to put this). Physics has lots of stuff being borrowed and lent to 'other worlds' these days.
On 5 Sep, 14:48, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to > > > consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical. > > Actually they do not. > > They just lend a lot of experimental support to consciousness being > manipulate-able through chemical and electrical manipulation of ones > brain. > > But we already knew that. All it takes is to ingest a beer (or two), > or -and I am not an advocate- ingest some LSD, and you will know. But > even without the mind altering chemicals you need only understand the > laws of perspective and observe the fact that the point of view of > your consciousness is from your body. A little anatomy and you have > the role of the brain. This was known for a long time. Look at the > anatomy of the senses all of them tied by little wire-like structures > called nerves with signals on them the interruption of which > terminates the conscious experience of the connected transducing > sensor. Otherwise why wouldn't we believe that destroying ones eye > would cause deafness instead of blindness. > > None of that is even one shred of evidence for your mind being your > body... or, if you prefer to use that language... and say that your > mind is your body ... then you must be willing to reform the current > meaning of the phrase "your body" and therefore the meaning in physics > of matter ultimately needs to be reformed to include consciousness > unless you agree that "your body" is not material. Something has to > give somewhere. Either your mind is not your body, or your mind is > your body. If your mind is your body then either your body is physical > (made of matter) or it is not. If it is made of matter and your mind > is your body then matter is conscious and the laws of physics need to > incorporate that into their descriptions. Otherwise, if your body is > not solely material but your mind is still your body then there is > something non-material in your body that is your mind. Or else you can > say your mind is not your body and your body is material which is the > current method I think. > > Consciousness cannot properly be described as a "property" of matter > as it is not something essential but has an existential role for the > one who is conscious. It appears to be associated with specific > structural arrangements of matter and not the individual components > and dependent on the movement of the mechanism as well as its shape. > However, neurology has not yet nailed down the specifics completely > but is making fast progress. It will be very interesting when > neurology leads to technology and will be a major ethical challenge. > > What we know is that the arrangement of matter in the form of a > neurology results in reports of consciousness from others and an > experience of our own consciousness. This can be deduced from very > simple evidence independent of modern neurology which is currently > engaged in flushing out the details of the relationship. > > No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and > what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious meaning > what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed > phenomenological descriptions of experience. This was what Husserl > wanted to do about hundred years ago. It will take a little more time > for the likes of Dennet to catch up. > > Perhaps then, we can even get a read on some of the problems like > Synchronicity and get a serious look at it scientifically. Perhaps > not. I suspect that our current world view will be very nearly > completely eliminated by the progress and the surety with which the > simple assumptions of our current thought are held will one day be > seen as, if not an unexplainable superstition or ignorance, like we > consider those who killed in Greece over arguments about whether the > number 0 existed, or else as a kind of arrogance that was prevalent in > history. > > Hell, the truth is Dennet is a provacateur not a philosopher. When you > look in detail at his position it evaporates and he is not at all > saying what he causes his audiences to believe that he is saying. > Check out Searle. Again, like Dennet he is not a heavy hitter > historically but he has Dennet in checkmate. > > On Sep 5, 8:01 am, sjewins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Are you aware of Dr. Michael Persinger's experiments wherein he > > subjects the brain to focused electro-magnetic force and creates > > "spiritual" sensations in the subject? > > > He also has done experiments with focused applications of psychotropic > > drugs and generated "neuro-realities" in the consciousness of the > > subject. These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to > > consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
