The fact that the part of the imagination that combines with reality and transcends the spatial and temporal is the very nature and essence of consciousness will eventually, I think, lead us to your travel and peace in ways that leave Dawkins and others like him in the dust.
On Oct 5, 7:37 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
