Doug Klimesh <dougklim at provide.net> wrote in message
news:37F5731A.8F9F2B5D at provide.net...
> 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?
But haven't we already found a number of "mechanisms" of consciousness? It
seems to me that you choose to perceive consciousness as this discrete thing
"out there" somewhere interacting with the world. I'm not even sure that
dichotomy is valid, I don't think you can think about consciousness without
the environment. For myself consciousness is a coalition of processes. That
may or may not be true, it is too early to tell, but the evidence seems to
be pointing that way.
> 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.
Help me with this. I've heard similiar things said many times and still
don't get it because if objectiveness is a myth then everything is a myth
then we are right back to where we started so what's the problem? Like all
ideas "objectiveness" has a specified meaning with a given framework and
when we keep that in mind there is no problem. Of course we cannot perceive
an object in and of itself but that has never stopped good science and
practical outcomes. Don't give a hoot about the real truth, just what works.
We still use Newton to fly to the moon.
--
John
Remove XXXX in reply address
