Matt Jones wrote:
>Y-chat at webtv.net writes:
> >After reading Matt Jones comment in response
> >to my post, in which he indicated that I had not made myself clear in my
> >remark about the search for the SEAT of consciousness,( I assume
> >misunderstanding,since his other posts are non judgemental) I will try
> >to enlarge my views.
> >
> >I certainly believe in scientific inquiry into all forms of cognitive
> >and sensory activities.
[snip]
> To elaborate, it is my opinion that searching for the -mechanisms-
> underlying consciousness (I have no idea what is meant by "seat of
> consciousness") is not futile, that these mechanisms do exist, and that
> there is no confusion at all between searching in the chemical and
> physical realms and searching in other realms, because consciousness is
> literally nothing more nor less than the physical and chemical events
> occuring in our brains (in fact, it's only a very small subset of those
> events).
[snip]
"Is Consciousness Discrete?" is a very good question. Consciousness
seems to have the property of discreteness because, for example, I don't
seem to be able to directly know what you are thinking. However I
believe that a fundamental property of consciousness is that it is NOT
discrete. When searching the brain for the mechanism (or the "seat") of
consciousness, you may instead be searching for the TRAP of
consciousness that keeps consciousness separated. This would explain
things like the collective unconscious and psychic powers, since finding
a mechanism for such things seems remote.
You may argue against proof of psychic powers and the consciousness of
plants or rocks, but remember that CONSCIOUSNESS CAN NOT BE PROVEN. You
will not be able to prove that consciousness is due to certain physical
and chemical (what about QUANTUM??) events in the brain anymore than I
can prove my belief that consciousness creates the physical world.
Consciousness is 100% subjective. You can not prove that something is
not conscious. Just because you can not communicate with it, does not
mean that it is not conscious. Likewise you can not prove that
something is conscious. The Turing test is not a proof; it is only a
test. This is the problem with searching for the mechanism(s) of
consciousness. How will you know when you have found it? And if you
find it, what good will it do?
I would apologize for posting my mystical viewpoint on a scientific news
group, but I feel it is very important for science to understand that
consciousness research is on and/or past the edge of science. And that
to truly understand consciousness, you must go beyond the bounds of
purely objective science. Remember that quantum physics shows that
objectiveness is a myth.
It is very frustrating not being able to prove certain things about
consciousness no matter what your theory is.
-Doug Klimesh http://www.provide.net/~dougklim/
