Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:29:35 -0500
From: "John Clark" <jonkc@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Immortality
Steve Nichols <steve@multisell.com> Wrote:
> Everyone involved in this discussion is flailing about hopelessly
>because M.V.T. is the correct (thus only) solution to the mind-body
problem.
Even overlooking the fact that there is little evidence supporting the idea
this
pineal gland business is a bit old fashioned isn't it. I don't see how it
could
answer any of the questions we've been asking even if it were true.
* Your first mistake, Median Vision Theory (MVT) is concerned
with the pineal EYE rather than the gland.
* The evidence is quite substantial, including studies on the functions of
pineal eyes of living vertebrates by Dendy, Roth & Roth and many others.
* The pineal eye was on the front cover of Nature magazine (1994 I think)
because of unique depolarizing properties and other recent studies. My
own formulation of MVT dates back to 1979/80, agreed, but has been
updated in response to new evidence (PhD & MA, 1993-5 &c.), so I don't
think it is "old fashioned." Are you discarding knowledge because it
predates year 2000?
> It is very obviously and indisputably true that any circuit (brains
>included) *must* include at least some infinite-state capacity in
order to
>self-organise.
It most certainly is not obvious and I do dispute it.
OK, but you are arguing against fairly elementary solid-state physics.
Name me any finite-state components that can readjust their logic in
response to the environment ..... I say you can't because finite-state
means
pre-set switching. Consciousness requires a degree of self-organisation.
I await your counter arguments. If you want, I can reference you papers.
> "consciousness" [...] happened in evolution only since the pineal eye
disappeared.
>ou seem very sure of that but, forgive me for asking, how do you know when
animals
>first became conscious? For that matter, how do you know I'm conscious?
I don't want to get bogged down in semantics here .... so I claim that REM
(rapid eye
movement) indicates dream mentation. REM occurs only in warm-blooded
animals.
Warm bloodedness only occurs in E-1 (lost pineal eye) animals ... this is
fact.
If behaviour is governed by hard-wired response to sunlight (E-2) and no REM
occurs, I claim the animal is not *fully* conscious in the way we (mammals &
birds)
are conscious. Sure, you can make a case for teleology in insects, even
robots, but
this is just lingoistic whinging ... I am interested in *our* type of
consciousness and
how it came about.
> End of discussion
Well it's really nice that now we know all there is to know about
consciousness.
Only trouble is you've put a lot of philosophers out of work and they can be
a mean
bunch when they get liquored up late on Saturday night, so be careful.
Hardly a problem ... sure, there is a whole (old fashioned!) mystery
industry ...
priests and mumblers of all types, not just philosophers. But we are post
(or at least trans- ) humans, and should welcome reduction of the failed
human-era traditions? The Mystery Industry is mere vested interest that
profits by keeping humans in a state of unknowing.
And they should be more worried about meeting me on a Saturday night ....
www.steve-nichols.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:35 MDT