Hmm, I haven't given much though to adaptive non-concious modes of existence, I'll have to ponder that.
If I had to pick a theory, I'd go with the 'Lord of Cosmic Jest' one, and it's evolutionarily compatible (tm). Consciousness as an uneeded vestigal apendage, which more oft gets in the way than not, like a ruptured appendix, or a pinky toe. Though the physical, Dawkins answer to 'Why Conciousness?' may be entirely correct, I don't think it will ever satisfy our conciousness's need to know. Reminds me of all those origination mythologies upon which a god gives birth to itself, and then makes creation to give itself context. This is a backwards interpretation of how these myths are generally taught, the myth writer creates the god to give himself context, but it seems equally valid. On Oct 5, 10:52 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I like your general theme Lon - but the 'non-conscious' is also > adaptive. I probably explained Penrose a bit wrong - he has a habit > of getting me to buy books on catchy titles full of boring stuff. I > rather prefer the Penrose in Dangermouse who has a PhD in fear and > knee-trembling. My guess is he's looking for answers like yours - at > least trying to get us into the questioning spirit. I can't see why > evolution would make us aware of it unless there's some point at which > we need to change its flow, something perhaps that can only be done > within it rather than from outside design. Other theories have been > offered such as 'The Lords of Comsic Jest' in which we are only > conscious so god's jesters can take the piss out of us to help with > his boredom. I have a feeling we are not just supposed to hang around > waiting for the next unexpected asteroid, but perhaps I've played too > many video games or wondered too often whether the class in front of > me is really awake! > > On 5 Oct, 16:24, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > archytas > > > I can't pretend to be more learned than Rodger Penrose, but I can't > > see why conciousness can't be a very likely byproduct of evolution. > > Obviously our species was well rewarded for devolping the trait. It > > seems that a favorite survival development for species is > > specialization, which only gets you comfortable niche, until your > > environment changes. > > > Conciousness seems to be the answer to this, it gives us a theater to > > act appropriately in situations that have not happened to us as > > individuals, or even as a species. It's an amazing advange that gives > > us more longevity than being hardwired to respond to a specific > > evironment in a more effcient way. > > > It sounds like you feel that conciousness is wasted on many > > individuals, or more succinctly, most people waste their > > conciousness. I can't disagree with that. The human species has a > > very interesting balance between contributing as an individual, and > > going along with the herd. Ever since I read 'Germs, Guns, and > > Steel', I can't stop thinking of the collective minds of the human > > race as several different colonies of bacteria giong through their own > > evolutionary process.- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
