Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/8/2015 11:05 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/8/2015 9:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb wrote: On 3/8/2015 3:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: O

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/8/2015 9:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 3/8/2015 3:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 3/8/2015 1:26 AM, Stathis Papaioan

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/8/2015 9:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb > wrote: On 3/8/2015 3:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb wrote: On 3/8/2015 1:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 8 March 2015 at 09:33, mee

Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb > wrote: > On 3/8/2015 3:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 3/8/2015 1:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >>> On 8 March 2015 at 09:33, meekerdb wrote: >>> I like Graziano's theory of consciousnes

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > Mater doesn't have to be fundamental for your lab to work. I never said one word about matter being fundamental, in fact I think if anything is fundamental it's consciousness not matter; however I did say that a non-materialistic theory is not falsifi

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 08:08:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >Information can only change through learning or forgetting. In a > >multiverse (or plenitude), if I learn something, then there must be > >other "mes" that learn the complementary facts. If I forget something, > >then my observer

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/8/2015 3:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/8/2015 1:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 8 March 2015 at 09:33, meekerdb wrote: I like Graziano's theory of consciousness.

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

ISTM that consciousness has an evolutionary benefit - but it could just be that the ability to pay close attention to everything that's happening, and to do so in an integrated manner, is of evolutionary benefit, and consciousness is a necessary by-product of this process once it become sufficientl

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 3/8/2015 2:07 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote: I thought <>P meant P was possible? In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, <> means possible, and [] means necessary. Before

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/8/2015 1:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On 8 March 2015 at 09:33, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> I like Graziano's theory of consciousness. >>> >>> http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/ >>> >>> I have generally been inclined

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/8/2015 12:17 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, do you (or the authors) really think Ccness - as we use the term - a (deeply) HUMAN (or 'thinking' animal?) phenomenon? Are we so special? No. I think we are special only in our development of language that has given us the ability to think mor

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/8/2015 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Mar 2015, at 17:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, John Clark > wrote: On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote: >> I have general

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote: > > I thought <>P meant P was possible? > > In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, <> means possible, and [] > means necessary. > Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions... A

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 5:12 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Well, here's a thought. Intelligence/Consciousness as humans experience > needs lots and lots of spindle cells, or something manufactured that > imitates it. This is neurobiology, and thus,

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Ah! But I never claimed that neurobiology, also know as materialism, is the single, best, explanation for consciousness. It might be the best working theory in our case though. I tend to refer to our passions as from the amygdala, and our reasoning from the neocortex/cerebrum. Am I correct? I th

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Brent, do you (or the authors) really think Ccness - as we use the term - a (deeply) HUMAN (or 'thinking' animal?) phenomenon? Are we so special? I came to believe that 'everything' (list, or not) is a wider connectivity than what we call 'living' (you may include plants as well) and is phenomena

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/8/2015 7:33 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:52 PM, meekerdb > wrote: >> He [Graziano]says consciousness is just another name for attention, but computers have been paying attention to some things and not others form almost as

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/8/2015 1:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 8 March 2015 at 09:33, meekerdb wrote: I like Graziano's theory of consciousness. http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/ I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural selection can't act on consciousness,

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 08 Mar 2015, at 15:42, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural selection can't act on consciousness, only on intelligence; so consciousness is either a necessary byproduct of intelligence

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 08 Mar 2015, at 17:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural selection can't act on consciousness, only on intelligence; so con

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 6:31 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > >> In science if you don't assume materialism then one theory works as >>> well (and as poorly) as any other theory. >>> >> >> > It seems you are confusing materialism with falsifi

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > But then, looking at the detail, (see UDA) mechanism is incompatible with > materialism. And if anybody wants to learn more about "UDA" then they can always look it up on Google, go ahead and click on the link below and see what you get: https://www.

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> In science if you don't assume materialism then one theory works as well >> (and as poorly) as any other theory. >> > > > It seems you are confusing materialism with falsifiability. > You sound like Bruno, for the last 3 years in every oth

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 08 Mar 2015, at 12:12, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Well, here's a thought. Intelligence/Consciousness as humans experience needs lots and lots of spindle cells, or something manufactured that imitates it. This is neurobiology, and thus, materialism. Not at all. This is neuro

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 08 Mar 2015, at 10:26, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 8 March 2015 at 09:33, meekerdb wrote: I like Graziano's theory of consciousness. http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/ I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural selection can't act on consci

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 07 Mar 2015, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: I like Graziano's theory of consciousness. http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/ I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural selection can't act on consciousness, only on intelligence; so consciousness is ei

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote: I thought <>P meant P was possible? In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, <> means possible, and [] means necessary. In the temporal interpretation of modal logic, <> means sometime, and [] means always. In the locus interpretation of modal l

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > >> I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural selection >>> can't act on consciousness, only on intelligence; so consciousness is >>> either a necessary byproduct of

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural selection >> can't act on consciousness, only on intelligence; so consciousness is >> either a necessary byproduct of intelligence or it's a spandrel. >> > > > If you assume mater

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:52 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> He [Graziano]says consciousness is just another name for attention, but >> computers have been paying attention to some things and not others form >> almost as long as they've existed. For example the LHC produces nearly a >> billion particle co

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote: > I like Graziano's theory of consciousness. > > http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/ > > I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural selection > can't act on consciousness, only on intelligence; so conscio

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Well, here's a thought. Intelligence/Consciousness as humans experience needs lots and lots of spindle cells, or something manufactured that imitates it. This is neurobiology, and thus, materialism. Could there be other things that do what spindle cells do? Yes. I mean, there could be gas clouds

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 8 March 2015 at 09:33, meekerdb wrote: > I like Graziano's theory of consciousness. > > http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/ > > I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural selection > can't act on consciousness, only on intelligence; so consciousness is