From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 09:19:33 MDT
Emlyn O'regan wrote:
> Emlyn O'regan wrote:
> Personally, I've been finding continuing thinking on the nature of
> consciousness quite unsettling. The problem is as follows:
>
> Axiom: I am.
>
>> (What is this "I" the human speaks of? We in the hive find
> >this concept to be very strange.)
>
> I can't speak for the hive, only for myself. It is my sense of self,
> of continuity; something that no mere algorithm should be able to lay
> claim to. It is being. Fuck, that makes no sense at all. Sorry.
>
> I can't fault the materialist viewpoint, because I can't support the
> alternative; the closer I look, the more it appears that there is no
> possible role at all for any proposed non-physical piece of
> consciousness. So intelligent thought is a purely physical
> phenomenon, about information processing. Which means that "I" am
> not; "I" am an illusion (fooling who? what?).
You certainly do exist, just as everyone you interact with does exist. But
I'm guessing you have no evidence or experience that *they* possess a "self"
beyond the processes of their brain interacting with their environment. No
need for a special soul there, right? It's just that hard to explain but
certain feeling inside *you* that you are unique, right?
Have you ever had a dog? I've always lived with dogs and other animals, and
I remember being about seven or eight years old and being told that people
have souls and real feelings, but that animals have only instinctive
behaviors. For me that provided a great focus on the contradictions of the
so-called "problem of consciousness". It is clear from their behavior that
there is a range of consciousness among animals, all of which consist of
nothing but material atoms, but which have varying types of evolved brain
structure.
None of this is proof in the ultimate sense, but perhaps by looking at
things from a wider view (imagine looking at all of this from above, rather
than through your own eyes), and seeing how many pieces of the puzzle fit
together, you will become comfortable with a more cohesive view of reality
that does not postulate the existence of a special component called
consciousness.
Certainly consciousness is a real phenomenon, as a description of a part of
the functioning of our brain. It can also be interesting to philosophize
about the idea that consciousness can be considered to exist within narrower
or wider domains (for example, the idea of "group consciousness" which seems
to me just as real as personal consciousness.)
> I can only find paradox at the base of any search for an explanation
> of the only phenomenon in the universe that I can definitely call
> axiomatic (that I am).
> How about this: "I" is that piece of me, as an entity, that
> experiences. I exclude all information processing components from
> this, although they are undoubtedly required to be present. I feel
> like there is something left over that can be termed "I" (and which
> is somehow pivotal), but I also know that that can't be the case.
>
>> There is no self separate from the rest of the universe. The
>> concept of self is a process that evolved within certain replicating
>> patterns of the universe due to its utility to the survival and further
>> propagation of those patterns. The concept of "self" (everything inside)
>> and "not self" (everything outside) is fundamental to virtually all
complex
>> processes that promote survival and thus propagation of the organism.
>> No wonder its so difficult to see.
>
> Yes, this material explanation of self makes a lot of sense, yet I can
> imagine a system which fully meets the description, and yet doesn't
> have this visceral, fundamental experience of being.
Consider, from a systems programming point of view the following:
(1) An organism that has environmental and internal sensors to produce
signals of *Sensation* which drive automatic responses to low level stimuli
(pain; food).
(2) A higher level structural shell that combines with other running
processes to produce *Emotions* which drive actions in response to current
conditions in the environment (anger; sex, ...)
(3) An even higher evolved layer to monitor and combine with current
knowledge and memories to produce *Feelings* which further serve the
survival and reproductive capability of the organism (extrapolating from the
past to anticipate future threats; language, and more advanced means of
sharing knowledge; ...)
(4) At an even higher level, ...well, let's leave that for later.
Within that more highly evolved layer of Feelings, wouldn't you expect that
the organism would Feel that is is conscious? That would be the most direct
and natural way to arive at its evolutionarily adapted functionality.
>
> To me, it is more clearly evident than the
> existence of anything else. But apparently it cannot be true.
>
> Help.
> Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 09:30:58 MDT