Just a helpful suggestion: Clearly quoting (and formatting) the
other person's comments will make the thread much easier to follow.
As it is, the message below is kinda tough to read.
Regards,
Chris Russo
At 01:48 +0000 12/11/00, Steve Nichols wrote:
>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
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:38 MDT