"Jo!hn" wrote:
> But haven't we already found a number of "mechanisms" of consciousness?
What mechanisms of consciousness have been found? Sure we have more
than a basic understanding of how the brain and neurons work, but can we
point to a mechanism and say, "consciousness is due to this"?
> 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,
Just the opposite. I say that consciousness is not discrete and there
is no dichotomy.
> I don't think you can think about consciousness without
> the environment.
What about a pure consciousness without any environment? For example
when a person is dreaming they are (some type of) conscious but are not
interacting with the world. Or a brain without any sensory input. A
computer will still compute whether there are any input devices attached
to it or not.
> 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.
What kind of processes? What evidence?
> > 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.
Yes, I have spent much of my life trying to find out the ultimate truth,
and now I realize it doesn't matter. What matters is what you can do
with the knowledge. I don't care about proving a mechanism of
consciousness (nor proving that consciousness can not be proven) and,
yes, science can study the issue. I am much more interested in what we
can build (AI!) with the knowledge of the mechanisms of consciousness.
I have been searching for a mechanism of consciousness, but have reached
a point of philosophical breakdown: How will we be able to know when we
have found a mechanism of consciousness?
-Doug Klimesh http://www.provide.net/~dougklim/
