DM Bolser wrote in message ...
>
>In what way do you define consciousness? As a side effect from so much
>mechanistic processing in the brain, or as an illusion of the zombie?
>Is consciousness evolutionarily beneficial? Acting with regard to the self
>certainly is, doesn't this lead to a self awareness we call consciousness?
Consciousness has two aspects: One, alertness, is objective, the
other,awareness, is subjective.
All animal life that possesses a neural net is alert. It reacts to its
environment in a manner that differs from life without a neural net.
Awareness is not part of the material world, awareness belongs, ultimately,
to religion. It is the soul that is aware.
We like to think that some who are alert, are also aware. Just which ones is
a matter of disagreement. Some would limit awareness to adult, male members
of the C of E. I would like to extend awareness to all who possess a neural
net.
Evolution is a concept of the physical world. Awareness is not part of that
physical world. Awareness can not be beneficial or non-beneficial to
survival of the individual. It is totally irrelevant.
>What about enlightenment? That is the final jump out of the loop. I think
>it is an important concept, and one that should not be sniffed at as
>religious nonsense. Godel proved that no system can describe reality
>completely accurately, so transcending the system is the only way to see
> the truth.
The synoptic vision is available. I argue that in the first half or three
quarters of the next century neuroscientists will work out how the brain
thinks. It will then be evident that there is no awareness (consciousness,
soul) in the physical universe. Man will turn to religion.
Ray
Those interested in how the brain works might look at
www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html
