From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Tue Mar 07 2000 - 15:12:09 MST
>How about just plain old satisfaction of curiousity.
How does the introduction of the idea of curiosity help us to build an
explanation of mind?
>It's fairly well
>settled that we have evolved to be curious, as curiosity and the pursuit of
>its satisfaction have served us well in our quest for survival and
>domination of the planet. We are then naturally curious about all manner of
>questions, including the nature of mind. Curiosity by its very nature longs
>for satisfaction. That, if for no other reason, is why I want to understand
>mind.
Okay, so mind has evolved. Homo sapiens has evolved. We got here by Darwinian
(or neo-Darwinian, or post-Darwinian) evolution. From what I've read of Deep
Evolution, complexity enters into it as well. And auto-catalytic adaptive
systems. But we still need an explanation of mind so that we can build one.
Unless we just throw a bunch of digital DNA together and watch what emerges.
>*Nothing* requires explanation. That does not mean we should not attempt
>explanation. You are right that truth is of primary importance. So what of
>the truth about mind?
Nothing requires no explanation, because no explanation explains it perfectly. I
think we may as well try to explain it anyway, because the exercise may lead to
a more comprehensive understanding of importance. What is of most importance for
Homo sapiens I think we should try to determine. In truth, I suspect that mind
does not exist, because what people mean by "mind" exists only in their brains'
imagination.
Grok it and rocket,
--J. R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:14 MST