From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Wed Aug 04 1999 - 10:39:46 MDT
From: Dennis Roberts <droberts@netvectors.com>
>It seems to me that you look at consciousness as a monolithic entity as
opposed
>to a phenomenon
>that is composed of the sum of many parts, such as crowd of people, a flock
of
>birds or the weather.
No, I = consciousness. (Consciousness means the epiphenomenon of
self-awareness which occurs in the CNS.)
Consequently, consciousness looks at itself according to whatever paradigm
it has learned -- ranging from humunculi to Darwin machines. But _pure_
consciousness, i.e., self-awareness uncontaminated by any pre-conceived
ideas, requires that consciousness experience itself directly. Some people
have opined that you (by "you" I mean the consciousness inherent in your
CNS) can directly experience consciousness only metaphorically because, as
they say, "you can't bite your own teeth" and so on.
Calvin, Edelman, Crick, Dennett, Minsky, Hofstadter, and others have offered
theories of how the brain thinks, and by extension, how it produces
consciousness. The brain can produce the cacaphonous chatter of a flock of
birds, a crowd of people (your metaphors), or it can sustain complex harmony
and intricate melody as it engages tranquil creativity and learning. I've
found the metaphor of emptiness most useful in analysing consciousness. Like
an empty cup, consciousness provides a space wherein reality may vibrate
reflectively. A more complicated metaphor has it that consciousness acts
like a holographic mirror that reflects the universe in three dimensions.
But all this merely constitutes models and metaphors. To really know how
brains create consciousness will require science to identify and measure all
its components. It hasn't done so yet. To theorize about consciousness
without linking to direct observation and empirical evidence, corresponds to
mere conjecture.
> My analogy was meant to relate the consequences of loss of an
infinitesimally
>small part of such a phenomenon.
Without knowing the details of the phenomenon (or epiphenomenon, in the case
of consciousness) itself, the consequences of action upon consciousness
remain unknown.
> Of what consequence is the loss of one starling to a flock of millions?
> Of what consequence is the loss of one person in the behavior of the
population
>of Columbus, Ohio ?
> Of what consequence is the loss of one rain drop in a cloudburst ?
More directly related to consciousness, one might ask, Of what consequence
is the loss of one neuron, synapse, lobe, etc.
> Maybe the loss would be noticed, the mayor dies, but the life of the city
goes
>on.
> As someone who daily looks at the effects of brain damage, injury, tumors,
>Alzheimer's, etc. on the level of consciousness of real live people, I am
>continually amazed at the amount of brain loss that it takes to make a
>significant change in perceptible behavior.
Yes, that would tend to argue in favor of the "monolithic" view of (impure)
consciousness, since consciousness apparently remains whole, even though
some part of its biological structure departs.
There are folks walking around,
>functioning normally, who have 1/2 the brain mass of your average Joe.
> They present a great argument in favor of the holographic theory of
>consciousness. Of what consequence is the loss of 1/1000000 of a hologram
to its
>ability to reconstruct the image that produced it ?
Again, I think the way to find out for sure involves empirical study. Using
your own consciousness to learn about consciousness doesn't fit the
scientific method for objective investigations, but then, consciousness
involves the subjective as much as the objective. English has no word for
the science of subjectivity, but in Sanskrit it equates to dhyana, which
some people call meditation. "Inquire within" as they say. Ruthlessly
discarding everything from your attention which does not comply with the
rigor of empirical knowledge, first-hand, direct experience, leaves you with
pure consciousness. An enlightening experience, indeed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:39 MST