Do you accept, given all of that, below, that without a brain there is no self? Or do you think that self is somehow external to the brain?
On Sep 5, 11:57 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll just wander on a bit. Those who reject a physicalist ontology of > consciousness must find ways of modeling it as a nonphysical aspect of > reality. Thus those who adopt a dualist or anti-physicalist > metaphysical view must in the end provide specific models of > consciousness different from the emergent models. Both substance > dualists and property dualists must develop the details of their > theories in ways that articulate the specific natures of the relevant > non-physicals features of reality with which they equate consciousness > or to which they appeal in order to explain it. There are many such > models - no doubt Orn and Vam could explain some of the traditional > ones. > > I have lost interest, but was once concerned that an informational > world might help in concepts in biology. Amongst philosophers, David > Chalmers (1996) has offered an admittedly speculative version of > panpsychism which appeals to the notion of information not only to > explain psycho-physical invariances between phenomenal and physically > realized information spaces but also to possibly explain the ontology > of the physical as itself derived from the informational (a version of > “it from bit” theory). Gregg Rosenberg has recently (2004) proposed an > account of consciousness that simultaneously addresses the ultimate > categorical basis of causal relations. In both the causal case and the > conscious case, Rosenberg argues the relational-functional facts must > ultimately depend upon a categorical non-relational base, and he > offers a model according to which causal relations and qualitative > phenomenal facts both depend upon the same base (this, as you can > probably judge from the awkwardness of the language, is difficult > stuff) . Some quantum theories treat consciousness as a fundamental > feature of reality (Stapp 1993), and insofar as they do so, they might > be plausibly classified as non-physical theories. The general > response to Dennett has been to ask what he has developed a theory of > (Block 1994). > > I take a fairly stolid view that evidence is what counts, but say this > knowing a good theory will change what evidence is for real rather > than through lies. > > Block, N. 1994. “What is Dennett's theory a theory of?” Philosophical > Topics, 22/1-2: 23-40. > Chalmers, D. 1996. The Conscious Mind. Oxford: Oxford University > Press. > Stapp, H. 1993. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics. Berlin: Springer > Verlag. > Rosenberg, G. 2004. A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep > Structure of the Natural World. New York: Oxford University Press. > > On 5 Sep, 16:29, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That most of our knowledge is in memory at any particular time is a > > given. What is perhaps surprising, however, is the degree to which > > even our current conscious knowledge typically depends on memory. > > Look at the sky and come to believe that the sunset is beautiful. This > > is a newly formed belief about an event currently taking place (not I > > can assure you round here - we haven't seen the sky for some time). > > The justification of a current event is no doubt dependent on other > > beliefs that you hold. For example, if you didn't at least tacitly > > believe that you were looking west or that it is evening and not > > morning, the belief wouldn't be justified (I assume that the > > phenomenology of sunsets and sunrises is indistinguishable). Now I am > > not, however, supposing that all knowledge of the external world is > > inferential. Your belief that the sky is red might well be > > epistemically basic. Nor am I insisting that your sunset belief is > > psychologically inferential. My only claim here is that many > > relatively simple beliefs we form about the external world typically > > depend for their justification on background beliefs; and background > > beliefs are memory beliefs. Virtually all of what we know (or are > > justified in believing) at any given time resides in memory. > > > Theories of consciousness are generally: > > Metaphysical theories of consciousness - either - > > Dualist theories or > > Physicalist theories. > > There are many variants of these. > > > There are a number of specific theories of consciousness I am aware > > of, generally - > > Higher-order theories > > Representational theories > > Cognitive theories > > Neural theories > > Quantum theories > > Nonphysical theories. > > > I am yet to spot any practical work in this field that might help us > > move on as a society. Davies, M. and Humphreys, G. 1993. > > Consciousness: Psychological and Philosophical Essays. Oxford: > > Blackwell might help if you want the punishment! > > > What currently interests me is memory and why we have so little > > justified knowing consciously involved in the current consciousness of > > a decision (or at least its rationalisation). You could get the drift > > from this: > > > Me: Why are we at war in Afghanistan Prime Minister? > > PM: To keep the streets of London safe my boy. > > Me: I'm older than you, you patronising dirt bag, but leaving that > > aside, it makes no sense to me to go an kill Afghans to keep the > > streets of London safe. > > PM: This is my profound judgement on the matter. > > Me: When I am profound I can usually demonstrate my evidence to > > others, why can't you? > > PM: You have to trust me. Matters of national security are involved. > > Me: As when we and the French got the Israelis to invade Egypt so we > > could take over the whole middle east in a policing action in 1956 you > > mean? Or as in the secret war we fought in Indonesia for 20 years? > > Or as in pretending Iraq was full of WMDs? Or as in bumping off one > > of our own scientists? Or as in the way you have set up all kinds of > > bodies to find the positive and shut out real criticism across the > > board? If we are winning this war why are we now blowing up our > > precious helicopters so regularly? > > PM: You should be proud to be British. Afghanistan was responsible > > for 9/11. > > Me: They were mostly Saudi. > > > It would go on and on. What is this consciousness they can control? > > > On 5 Sep, 15:50, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
