Consciousness in that sense seems to require bigger brains Lee - almost a reason it shouldn't have happened. Alan is right that the very words we are using are loaded by modern experience, mine is perhaps that the loading is from the wrong stuff. Dawkins has yet another series on Channel 4 at the moment defending "his" 'selfish gene' theory - it ain't "his" he just wrote the book with the title. He slags off (in his Oxford way) the dorks who produced Social Darwinism and so on (he really is a dire sociologist) and makes sure we all know he is a liberal who thinks we should look after the poor (how quaint). The fact that we know nature is red in tooth and claw means we can escape it - though nature is actually full of 'compassion' (he lets this in in a chat with some guy who looks at monkeys) - but he misses the point. I like the guy - he is a great biology teacher (pity he doesn't stick to that). He tells us the genes are immortal not us mere vehicles (OK up to a point) - but the genes ain't immortal either - they are stuck on Earth with the heat death of the Sun when all will be reduced to whatever panspermia that formed life here, now travelling an even thinner universe due to the expansion. There is no focus on what the science findings tell us we ought to try to do. My own barm-pot scheme is we should live in peace and engage in relativity-travel and risk screwing the rest of the universe up through humanity. If the universe is dumb enough to have made us as its best it deserves that! I suspect we might eventually meet some genuinely sentient life considerate enough to share a beer and a chicken Madras with us on Paradise 3. Even if my rubber-band powered relativity drive don't work (no doubt 'tensor problems'), this might be a better way of spending time waiting for the Sun to give out than playing chess with nukes.
On 5 Oct, 09:53, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps as you suggest it is no more than a by product of evolving > bigger brains. > > On 3 Oct, 13:14, 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? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
