I think the why question here opens up a massive field on enquiry that challenges some ingrained 'science thinking'. Kuhn once split science between normal and revolutionary - the first perhaps routinised the latter more creative and questioning. At the more revolutionary end I feel we are not good at incorporating what we know from science into speculation that might help us define-explain concepts like consciousness and the extent to which even scientific paradigms can limit our thinking adversely. Dawkins often wants to ban 'why' questions (he isn't a good philosopher or social scientist) - I can sympathise a bit when it comes to 'god explanations' - yet this seems to shut off much of why we should be interested in any enquiry. In critical thinking generally we often find much we have assumed is not backed by evidence or runs contrary to what we have. If we have assumed some benevolent genie and wait around for it to help we are likely to be disappointed - but often there are clues around which we can base more satisfactory methods. Molly seems to have some of the right questions here - but I suspect there are many more.
On 3 Oct, 14:44, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it boils down to our brains. :-)// Our parents chose to give > us life- sometimes it is better not to explore the motives. They have > no control over the result- be glad if you have a courageous spirit. > > On Oct 3, 8:02 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > As far as the brain goes, does the engine of the car drive the car, or > > do you? I suppose we all have our auto pilot, that allows us to move > > through our experience with minimal consciousness to it. But our > > experience is grounded in the body, and the brain seems to be central > > to that, although I suspect the body in total is more accurate. > > Individual consciousness contains our total potentiality and > > awareness, that includes the body and more. Why? Another question > > would be, did we choose life, or did life choose us? Our desire to > > continue in live seems to be directly related to our vitality. > > > On Oct 3, 8:14 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It's always possible we live in 'Delusionville' rather than as > > > conscious, sentient beings. This would explain a lot of problematic > > > nastiness like Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and the underperformance > > > of Warrington Rugby League Football Club. However, as Roger Penrose > > > points out, there seems no Earthly reason why evolution should have > > > developed consciousness (assuming it has, as there is a potential > > > chicken and egg here) as much complex happens other than in what we > > > have named consciousness as an emergent property of human brains. > > > Neural density is higher in parts of the brain we don't associate with > > > consciousness as such an emergent property. After all, evolution > > > tends to proceed by killing species off, job presumably done. > > > > So 'why' consciousness?- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
