I suppose most of our experience of the why continuum has been disappointment - largely because it's been about manufacturing consent along Orn's lines - the human sciences have certainly played their part in this. There has been some focus on what gets 'hard-wired' in the brain, leading to the notion that religion is and that this togetherness is an evolutionary advantage. I tend to like notions of extra-human consciousness because I would prefer something better to tune into. I much prefer a world in which, told at the door of a New York restaurant in the 1960s that there was no admittance to women wearing trousers, Gillian Anscombe (a catholic philosopher with a clutch of kids) promptly removed hers, to a world of worthies who prosecute women for wearing them. 'Hard-wiring' is clearly something for biology to be looking at, but how has it come to Dawkin's black box to be ignored as irrational - itself an irrational, unexplored base for 'rational science'? Introspection has led me to know there is lots of hard-wiring in me I would rather do without, except in time-constrained moments of fight- flight and maybe some forms of enjoyment. I am still hard-wired against being attracted to black women (no doubt a great relief to them) and inclined to be attracted to white and Asian women and not men of any shade. I seem, these days, to have become hard-wired against advertising, cosmetics and commodity-fetishism - which are linked to disgust in me (such a link is proposed as a learning mechanism for hard-wiring). There is much 'false-consciousness' I would like to sweep away in order to have better environmental effects on what I can be (though we don't want a bunch of PC Nazis in charge of this). We could have a more virtuous circle of 'consciousness'. I was brought up in a false consciousness of hating Germans and Japanese and considerable other racism. I suspect it's Muslims these days. If we end up not being able to define consciousness I guess we get this about right - there are possibilities and probabilities. So how can I be so sure about false consciousness?
On 7 Sep, 15:51, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7 Sep, 15:12, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Tubulins are targets for anticancer drugs like Taxol and the "Vinca > > alkaloid" drugs such as vinblastine and vincristine. The anti-gout > > agent colchicine binds to tubulin and inhibits microtubule formation, > > arresting neutrophil motility and decreasing inflammation. The anti- > > fungal drug Griseofulvin targets mictotubule formation and has > > applications in cancer treatment. Visions of myself and Pat in > > bathchairs at the convalescent home for mad techno-speculants needing > > to finalise string theory to cure our gout! I should think I would > > concede my Kaliber Yawn theory that string theories are an illusion > > created by a lack of alcohol in such circumstances. > > LOL!! Could well be. The last time I had a pint of ale, I was > sick as a dog. I just can't seem to tolerate alcohol anymore. I > suppose God is preparing me for a long dry spell. ;-) > > > Arguments on life and consciousness seem to imply 'why' questions to > > me - perhaps necessitate them. Memory sort of links to a world of > > logical necessity (a view from Leibniz). I don't think this big - I'm > > more concerned we get on with better decision-making that is a > > contribution to an open society - without this we are cast into some > > kind of 'killing competition' even if we just leave it to evolution to > > wipe us out. > > As I said, the fact that we exist in a continuum implies that the > system is teleological. Thus the need for our 'whys' to be answered. > I fear, though, that most of the answers will elude us while we're > incarnate. > > > > > On 7 Sep, 11:01, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 4 Sep, 22:02, sjewins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Also, as current as views like Simon’s are, “The product of the bio- > > > > > electric, electro-chemical energy in the brain. Like a burning candle > > > > > produces heat, the brain produces consciousness.” - Simon > > > > > > …saying that consciousness is bio-electrical and electro-chemical > > > > > energy, using an analogy as he did about a candle, is like saying that > > > > > consciousness is the product of those trillions of cells that Dennett > > > > > suggests is a ‘bag of tricks’! > > > > > Well, it is by those methods that the brain functions. How else could > > > > consciousness arise if not from the functioning of the brain in the > > > > way that it functions? > > > > > Do you think that consciousness arises from something disconnected > > > > from the brain? How would that work? > > > > The nervous system contains a substance, tubulin, which creates a > > > quantum-scale interface to consciousness, which is actually contained > > > in the Calabi-Yau space. The brain forms the interface between that > > > consciousness-space and our space-time through our bodies. This, of > > > course, is given a string-theory paradigm, which is not proven > > > experimentally but is the only theory on paper that fills in (or has > > > the capability of filling in) all the blank areas in quantum mechanics > > > and the Standard theory.- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
