Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
in search of the soul, aka amateur neuroscience
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Dale
May 21, 2012, 1:54:03 AM5/21/12
to
let's see, when we are awake
1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
be considered ESP
2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
require it
when we are asleep and dreaming our consciousness is dominated by and
responds to a subconscious will
when we are awake and daydreaming, our mind senses subconscious wills
and reports it to our consciousness
the things the mind does, at least some, are stored in memory
seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
are we defined by our identity (consciousness) or our memories, or both
all animals, which include humans, have consciousness, so there is
nothing special nor no divine spark in humans, except perhaps the
knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
can a consciousness exist without the body? is there dualism or is there
just separative qualities that happen at some point?
when you are dreaming where does your consciousness go?
your consciousness doesn't need all of your body, it exists without
arms, legs, eyesight, hearing or speech at times.
as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the energy
it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the energy that
feeds the soul?
BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
--
Dale
1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
be considered ESP
2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
require it
when we are asleep and dreaming our consciousness is dominated by and
responds to a subconscious will
when we are awake and daydreaming, our mind senses subconscious wills
and reports it to our consciousness
the things the mind does, at least some, are stored in memory
seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
are we defined by our identity (consciousness) or our memories, or both
all animals, which include humans, have consciousness, so there is
nothing special nor no divine spark in humans, except perhaps the
knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
can a consciousness exist without the body? is there dualism or is there
just separative qualities that happen at some point?
when you are dreaming where does your consciousness go?
your consciousness doesn't need all of your body, it exists without
arms, legs, eyesight, hearing or speech at times.
as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the energy
it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the energy that
feeds the soul?
BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
--
Dale
deadrat
May 21, 2012, 2:26:17 AM5/21/12
to
On 5/21/12 12:54 AM, Dale wrote:
> let's see, when we are awake
>
> 1) we have senses,
When we're asleep too.
> let's see, when we are awake
>
> 1) we have senses,
> various forms of life have various senses,
> some might be considered ESP
ignoramuses.
> 2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
like digital computer processing. This is just a misleading metaphor.
Read some Oliver Sachs and get back to us.
> 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
> 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
> life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
> subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
> require it
> when we are asleep and dreaming our consciousness is dominated by and
> responds to a subconscious will
> when we are awake and daydreaming, our mind senses subconscious wills
> and reports it to our consciousness
>
> the things the mind does, at least some, are stored in memory
> seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
> rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
In fact, the autonomic nervous system is more "like" a "kernel." If you
> the things the mind does, at least some, are stored in memory
> seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
> rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
just relied on consciousness, you'd have to actively remember to breathe.
> are we defined by our identity (consciousness) or our memories, or both
> all animals, which include humans, have consciousness,
> so there is nothing special nor no divine spark in humans,
> except perhaps the knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
consciousness, so how do you know that consciousness doesn't inlcude the
knowledge of the benefits of collaboration?
> can a consciousness exist without the body? is there dualism or is there
> just separative qualities that happen at some point?
> when you are dreaming where does your consciousness go?
>
> your consciousness doesn't need all of your body, it exists without
> arms, legs, eyesight, hearing or speech at times.
>
> as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the energy
> it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the energy that
> feeds the soul?
>
> BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
> suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
I'm suffering you. Don't you find that beneficial?
> BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
> suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
I think you'll find you can't rigorously define any of the terms you
throw around.
Dale
May 21, 2012, 2:40:13 AM5/21/12
to
--
Dale
deadrat
May 21, 2012, 3:14:02 AM5/21/12
to
with hash. Or whatever you're smoking.
Arkalen
May 21, 2012, 4:17:28 AM5/21/12
to
(2012/05/21 14:54), Dale wrote:
> let's see, when we are awake
>
> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
> be considered ESP
> 2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
> 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
> 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
> life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
> subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
> require it
Plants' behavior is much more simple than ours. How do you know
> let's see, when we are awake
>
> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
> be considered ESP
> 2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
> 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
> 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
> life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
> subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
> require it
consciousness is not required for human behavior ?
>
> when we are asleep and dreaming our consciousness is dominated by and
> responds to a subconscious will
>
> when we are awake and daydreaming, our mind senses subconscious wills
> and reports it to our consciousness
>
> the things the mind does, at least some, are stored in memory
>
> seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
> rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
How would you argue against that ? Consciousness can exist without
individual senses, but we've never heard of a consciousness that had no
senses whatsoever or the memory of having had them.
And we know complete sensory deprivation tends not to be conducive to
people's mental health.
>
> are we defined by our identity (consciousness) or our memories, or both
>
> all animals, which include humans, have consciousness, so there is
> nothing special nor no divine spark in humans, except perhaps the
> knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
think so, but if sponges and jellyfish have consciousness then plants
might as well have consciousness. I mean, their behavior isn't as
complex as humans', but they still have behaviors for all that they
don't move around.
>
> can a consciousness exist without the body? is there dualism or is there
> just separative qualities that happen at some point?
>
> when you are dreaming where does your consciousness go?
a spaceship, where did the house go ?
>
> your consciousness doesn't need all of your body, it exists without
> arms, legs, eyesight, hearing or speech at times.
>
> as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the energy
> it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the energy that
> feeds the soul?
Dale
May 21, 2012, 5:28:00 AM5/21/12
to
On 05/21/2012 04:17 AM, Arkalen wrote:
> (2012/05/21 14:54), Dale wrote:
>> let's see, when we are awake
>>
>> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
>> be considered ESP
>> 2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
>> 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
>> 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
>> life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
>> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
>> subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
>> require it
>
> Plants' behavior is much more simple than ours. How do you know
> consciousness is not required for human behavior ?
>
if you don't have consciousness are a plant, even if you are sleeping
> (2012/05/21 14:54), Dale wrote:
>> let's see, when we are awake
>>
>> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
>> be considered ESP
>> 2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
>> 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
>> 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
>> life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
>> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
>> subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
>> require it
>
> Plants' behavior is much more simple than ours. How do you know
> consciousness is not required for human behavior ?
>
and doing all things subconsciouly
>>
>> when we are asleep and dreaming our consciousness is dominated by and
>> responds to a subconscious will
>>
>> when we are awake and daydreaming, our mind senses subconscious wills
>> and reports it to our consciousness
>>
>> the things the mind does, at least some, are stored in memory
>>
>> seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
>> rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
>
> Seems to me like consciousness requires the rest to exist.
> How would you argue against that ? Consciousness can exist without
> individual senses, but we've never heard of a consciousness that had no
> senses whatsoever or the memory of having had them.
>
> And we know complete sensory deprivation tends not to be conducive to
> people's mental health.
position or isolation, your sense would be there
you would have to be put in a vacuum, or matter complete nothingness
like sapcetime, to really have no environment to sense
>
>>
>> are we defined by our identity (consciousness) or our memories, or both
>>
>> all animals, which include humans, have consciousness, so there is
>> nothing special nor no divine spark in humans, except perhaps the
>> knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
>
> Now that is something we absolutely do not now. It would be nice to
> think so, but if sponges and jellyfish have consciousness then plants
> might as well have consciousness. I mean, their behavior isn't as
> complex as humans', but they still have behaviors for all that they
> don't move around.
of consciousness
>
>>
>> can a consciousness exist without the body? is there dualism or is there
>> just separative qualities that happen at some point?
>>
>> when you are dreaming where does your consciousness go?
>
> When you make a house out of lego blocks, and then dismantle it to make
> a spaceship, where did the house go ?
>
>>
>> your consciousness doesn't need all of your body, it exists without
>> arms, legs, eyesight, hearing or speech at times.
>
> It doesn't exist without a brain, which is part of the body.
old brain
>
>>
>> as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the energy
>> it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the energy that
>> feeds the soul?
>
> How would you measure that ? How do you define "doesn't exert will" ?
>
>>
>> BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
>> suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Dale
Syamsu
May 21, 2012, 5:42:34 AM5/21/12
to
On 21 mei, 07:54, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the energy
> it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the energy that
> feeds the soul?
>
> BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
> suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
As before, you are setting this up as a matter of fact issue, which
> as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the energy
> it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the energy that
> feeds the soul?
>
> BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
> suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
proposition is inconsistent with freedom being real. You are not
supposed to be looking for facts other than decisions made, and then
decide about the agency of those decisions. What decides, agency, can
only be identified through a way of choosing, not through measuring.
Dale
May 21, 2012, 6:11:21 AM5/21/12
to
if so, forget it, been there, done that
anyways, what's your religion/status
what sorts of things do you believe?
--
Dale
Arkalen
May 21, 2012, 6:22:00 AM5/21/12
to
On 21/05/12 10:28, Dale wrote:
> On 05/21/2012 04:17 AM, Arkalen wrote:
>> (2012/05/21 14:54), Dale wrote:
>>> let's see, when we are awake
>>>
>>> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
>>> be considered ESP
>>> 2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
>>> 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
>>> 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
>>> life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
>>> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
>>> subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
>>> require it
>>
>> Plants' behavior is much more simple than ours. How do you know
>> consciousness is not required for human behavior ?
>>
>
> if you don't have consciousness are a plant, even if you are sleeping
> and doing all things subconsciouly
I have no idea what you're saying here. Saying unconscious people are
> On 05/21/2012 04:17 AM, Arkalen wrote:
>> (2012/05/21 14:54), Dale wrote:
>>> let's see, when we are awake
>>>
>>> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
>>> be considered ESP
>>> 2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
>>> 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
>>> 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
>>> life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
>>> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
>>> subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
>>> require it
>>
>> Plants' behavior is much more simple than ours. How do you know
>> consciousness is not required for human behavior ?
>>
>
> if you don't have consciousness are a plant, even if you are sleeping
> and doing all things subconsciouly
"plants" is a figure of speech, not a truth claim.
You say consciousness is not required, because plants don't have it. But
people aren't plants. And there is in fact a huge difference between
conscious humans and unconscious humans. You can tell immediately, even
if they're doing some action that makes it look as if they're awake,
like sleepwalking, a short conversation is enough to tell whether
they're conscious or not.
So given there's such a radical difference in behavior between conscious
and unconscious humans, how do you know consciousness isn't required for
human behavior ?
And if it's required for human behavior, then how is it relevant that it
isn't required for plants ?
>
>>>
>>> when we are asleep and dreaming our consciousness is dominated by and
>>> responds to a subconscious will
>>>
>>> when we are awake and daydreaming, our mind senses subconscious wills
>>> and reports it to our consciousness
>>>
>>> the things the mind does, at least some, are stored in memory
>>>
>>> seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
>>> rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
>>
>> Seems to me like consciousness requires the rest to exist.
>> How would you argue against that ? Consciousness can exist without
>> individual senses, but we've never heard of a consciousness that had no
>> senses whatsoever or the memory of having had them.
>
> that's why they are called spirits or ghosts
the mythology we're considering) DO have perception and even memory.
>> And we know complete sensory deprivation tends not to be conducive to
>> people's mental health.
>
> I can of said that above, but, most sensory deprivation is under
> position or isolation, your sense would be there
>
> you would have to be put in a vacuum, or matter complete nothingness
> like sapcetime, to really have no environment to sense
people go insane when subjected to surprisingly short periods of even
the limited levels of sensory deprivation we can achieve. What makes you
think that consciousness could exist in the total absence of senses, or
the memory of having had them ?
I'm not saying it couldn't, mind. I'm saying it isn't obvious, and
asking for your reasons for your own position.
>
>>
>>>
>>> are we defined by our identity (consciousness) or our memories, or both
>>>
>>> all animals, which include humans, have consciousness, so there is
>>> nothing special nor no divine spark in humans, except perhaps the
>>> knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
>>
>> Now that is something we absolutely do not now. It would be nice to
>> think so, but if sponges and jellyfish have consciousness then plants
>> might as well have consciousness. I mean, their behavior isn't as
>> complex as humans', but they still have behaviors for all that they
>> don't move around.
>
> they might have a mind that exists in it's roots and bark, but no sign
> of consciousness
Ants ? Tunicates ? Hagfish ? Do computers, for that matter ?
What are the "signs" of consciousness ? Because science certainly
doesn't know.
Also, a plant's mind existing it its roots and bark ? Why those ? How
about its leaves, its sapwood, its meristem ?
>
>>
>>>
>>> can a consciousness exist without the body? is there dualism or is there
>>> just separative qualities that happen at some point?
>>>
>>> when you are dreaming where does your consciousness go?
>>
>> When you make a house out of lego blocks, and then dismantle it to make
>> a spaceship, where did the house go ?
>
> in past spacetime
>
>>
>>>
>>> your consciousness doesn't need all of your body, it exists without
>>> arms, legs, eyesight, hearing or speech at times.
>>
>> It doesn't exist without a brain, which is part of the body.
>
> will we one day do a brain transplant, saving all relevant parts of the
> old brain
someone's brain and insert other pieces from somewhere else, and keep
the consciousness and identity of the person completely intact ?
Okay. But you mention relevant parts of the old brain : what are those ?
Do you think there are parts of the brain it would be impossible to
replace without affecting consciousness ?
Syamsu
May 21, 2012, 6:22:20 AM5/21/12
to
> anyways, what's your religion/status
>
> what sorts of things do you believe?
Roger Shrubber
May 21, 2012, 7:43:00 AM5/21/12
to
connotations and presumptions. Most of your screed seems to
involve invoking and then dancing with your ill-defined
meanings.
Beyond that ESP has a meaning that's rather direct as it is an
acronym. Your first sentence is gibberish if you expand ESP.
2 invokes "mind" which is a notoriously ill-defined concept.
In very few of its typical meanings is it anything like a
software loop around senses.
3 You're changed the definition of mind to now be a gatekeeper that
that filters what sensations reach prominence in your awareness and
have operationally defined consciousness in the process.
4 You toss it all through a word-salad shooter. That's some serious
gibberish. Who can say how the key terms are shifting in meaning.
And this introduction of "will" is so very special. Does it have
any useful definition? Do these things, "consciousness", "mind",
and "will" have any actual existence or are they abstractions of
convenience being regurgitated in a feeble attempt to model your
experience of awareness?
raven1
May 21, 2012, 10:41:39 AM5/21/12
to
raven1
May 21, 2012, 10:42:38 AM5/21/12
to
deadrat
May 21, 2012, 11:58:16 AM5/21/12
to
On 5/21/12 6:43 AM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>> let's see, when we are awake
<snipped: nonsense/>
> Dale wrote:
>> let's see, when we are awake
> These words you're using, they are deeply laden with lost of
> connotations and presumptions.
<snipped: leading a horse to water/>
Burkhard
May 21, 2012, 12:04:22 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 4:58 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/12 6:43 AM, Roger Shrubber wrote:> Dale wrote:
> >> let's see, when we are awake
>
> <snipped: nonsense/>
>
> > These words you're using, they are deeply laden with lost of
> > connotations and presumptions.
>
> I know it's a typo for "lots," but it's still on point.
>
Hah, information increasing random mutation, drown it in holy water!
> On 5/21/12 6:43 AM, Roger Shrubber wrote:> Dale wrote:
> >> let's see, when we are awake
>
> <snipped: nonsense/>
>
> > These words you're using, they are deeply laden with lost of
> > connotations and presumptions.
>
> I know it's a typo for "lots," but it's still on point.
>
Syamsu
May 21, 2012, 3:29:37 PM5/21/12
to
Slow Vehicle
May 21, 2012, 4:12:26 PM5/21/12
to
raven1
May 21, 2012, 4:19:33 PM5/21/12
to
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2012, 7:17:03 PM5/21/12
to
Dale wrote:
> let's see, when we are awake
>
> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
> be considered ESP
> 2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
> 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
> 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
> life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
> subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
> require it
>
> when we are asleep and dreaming our consciousness is dominated by and
> responds to a subconscious will
>
> when we are awake and daydreaming, our mind senses subconscious wills
> and reports it to our consciousness
>
> the things the mind does, at least some, are stored in memory
>
> seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
> rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
Consciousness is far removed from the kernel.
> let's see, when we are awake
>
> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
> be considered ESP
> 2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the senses
> 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our consciousness
> 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary according to what
> life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it, our
> subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers don't
> require it
>
> when we are asleep and dreaming our consciousness is dominated by and
> responds to a subconscious will
>
> when we are awake and daydreaming, our mind senses subconscious wills
> and reports it to our consciousness
>
> the things the mind does, at least some, are stored in memory
>
> seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
> rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
> are we defined by our identity (consciousness) or our memories, or both
identifies us to other stems from the so-called blindspots we can't see
but others do. And part of our identity stems from implicit or
non-declarative memory also outside awareness.
> all animals, which include humans, have consciousness, so there is
> nothing special nor no divine spark in humans, except perhaps the
> knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
limited in humans, but we suffer from the so-called streetlight effect,
where we see what is visible to us (ie- what is presently in conscious
awareness or present working memory).
> can a consciousness exist without the body? is there dualism or is there
> just separative qualities that happen at some point?
> when you are dreaming where does your consciousness go?
dreams occur, you might have a limited level of consciousness.
> your consciousness doesn't need all of your body, it exists without
> arms, legs, eyesight, hearing or speech at times.
> as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the energy
> it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the energy that
> feeds the soul?
various kinds. You need to differentiate between explicit declarative
memories, procedural memories, and emotional memories for starters.
This article gets into the differences between memories of episodes that
happen to you and can be verbalized and memories that are more emotiona
laden and take a different path through the brain:
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/mar/cover
Edouard Claparede found that a patient who could not form new memories
thus remember him could still act cautiously if she was pricked by a pin
by him on a prior encounter.
> BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
> suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2012, 9:15:58 PM5/21/12
to
abusive. Cut him some slack.
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2012, 9:33:30 PM5/21/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:17:28 +0900, Arkalen wrote:
> (2012/05/21 14:54), Dale wrote:
>> let's see, when we are awake
>>
>> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some
>> might be considered ESP 2) we have a mind that acts like a software
>> event loop around the senses 3) some or all senses are reported by the
>> mind to our consciousness 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may
>> vary according to what life, and responds to the sense reported by the
>> mind 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without
>> it, our subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers
>> don't require it
>
> Plants' behavior is much more simple than ours. How do you know
> consciousness is not required for human behavior ?
>
The plants I find interesting are the sensitive briars, which have
> (2012/05/21 14:54), Dale wrote:
>> let's see, when we are awake
>>
>> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some
>> might be considered ESP 2) we have a mind that acts like a software
>> event loop around the senses 3) some or all senses are reported by the
>> mind to our consciousness 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may
>> vary according to what life, and responds to the sense reported by the
>> mind 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without
>> it, our subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers
>> don't require it
>
> Plants' behavior is much more simple than ours. How do you know
> consciousness is not required for human behavior ?
>
something like an action potential:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thigmonasty
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2012, 9:42:00 PM5/21/12
to
Syamsu wrote:
> On 21 mei, 12:11, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/21/2012 05:42 AM, Syamsu wrote:
>>
>> > On 21 mei, 07:54, Dale<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the energy
>> >> it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the energy that
>> >> feeds the soul?
>>
>> >> BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
>> >> suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
>>
>> > As before, you are setting this up as a matter of fact issue, which
>> > proposition is inconsistent with freedom being real. You are not
>> > supposed to be looking for facts other than decisions made, and then
>> > decide about the agency of those decisions. What decides, agency, can
>> > only be identified through a way of choosing, not through measuring.
>>
>> are you suggesting blind-faith?
>>
>> if so, forget it, been there, done that
>
> You are abdicating your free will.
I have come to destroy free will. I don't see any, so I must have been
> On 21 mei, 12:11, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/21/2012 05:42 AM, Syamsu wrote:
>>
>> > On 21 mei, 07:54, Dale<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the energy
>> >> it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the energy that
>> >> feeds the soul?
>>
>> >> BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
>> >> suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
>>
>> > As before, you are setting this up as a matter of fact issue, which
>> > proposition is inconsistent with freedom being real. You are not
>> > supposed to be looking for facts other than decisions made, and then
>> > decide about the agency of those decisions. What decides, agency, can
>> > only be identified through a way of choosing, not through measuring.
>>
>> are you suggesting blind-faith?
>>
>> if so, forget it, been there, done that
>
> You are abdicating your free will.
successful.
Richard Norman
May 21, 2012, 10:00:20 PM5/21/12
to
sensitive mimosa (Mimosa pudica) and the Venus fly trap (Dionaea
muscipula) are probably the best known. The green algae Chara and
Nitella also make very nice action potentials.
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2012, 10:16:13 PM5/21/12
to
Richard Norman
May 21, 2012, 10:33:53 PM5/21/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 21:16:13 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
You've been watching "The Secret Life of Plants" too many times!
Slow Vehicle
May 21, 2012, 10:34:19 PM5/21/12
to
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2012, 11:15:35 PM5/21/12
to
some pseudo-documentary srtuff about plants having feelings and whatnot.
May have been Nimoy's "In Search Of".
pnyikos
May 22, 2012, 9:57:32 PM5/22/12
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
I've added sci.philosophy.tech, a newsgroup with a distinguished past.
This is an old philosophical conundrum. On the one hand, we seem to
be able to account for everything that happens in terms of events on a
sub-microscopic level (such as ions moving in and out of the membranes
of neurons) and yet, on the other hand, there is this pesky difference
between even conscious and sleepwalking people, and my own perception
that I, the conscious self, am in control of much of what I do.
[...]
> >>> are we defined by our identity (consciousness) or our memories, or both
There is a very real sense that it is my identity, inextricably
connected with MY consciousness, that "defines" me. I could have all
my memories wiped out, like in some dreams, yet it is *I* who is
having those dreams.
> >>> all animals, which include humans, have consciousness,
Descartes disagreed with this claim; he said only us humans are
conscious and that the "brute beasts" [as one translation has it] are
not.
If he was wrong, the cost of his belief in animal suffering is
incalculable. Yet, who can prove him wrong?
> >>> so there is
> >>> nothing special nor no divine spark in humans, except perhaps the
> >>> knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
>
> >> Now that is something we absolutely do not now. It would be nice to
> >> think so, but if sponges and jellyfish have consciousness then plants
> >> might as well have consciousness.
Sponges are poor candidates for consciousness: no central nervous
system. IIRC the same holds for jellyfish.
> >>I mean, their behavior isn't as
> >> complex as humans',
Quite an understatement, that.
> >> but they still have behaviors for all that they
> >> don't move around.
>
> > they might have a mind that exists in it's roots and bark, but no sign
> > of consciousness
>
> And sponges have a sign of consciousness ? Do jellyfish ? Earthworms ?
> Ants ? Tunicates ? Hagfish ? Do computers, for that matter ?
>
> What are the "signs" of consciousness ? Because science certainly
> doesn't know.
Very well put.
> Also, a plant's mind existing it its roots and bark ? Why those ? How
> about its leaves, its sapwood, its meristem ?
Most plants are too loosely organized for them to have a central
consciousness. A remotely possible exception is the Venus Fly-trap.
I've known about it since childhood, but I always assumed it was a
fairly widespread plant. Imagine my surprise on learning that it is
practically confined to South Carolina in the wild!
[snip]
> So you're suggested we could in the future take out some pieces of
> someone's brain and insert other pieces from somewhere else, and keep
> the consciousness and identity of the person completely intact ?
That would depend on the size and nature of the transplant. The
consciousness might be in the transplant, or it might be in the brain
that receives it.
> Okay. But you mention relevant parts of the old brain : what are those ?
> Do you think there are parts of the brain it would be impossible to
> replace without affecting consciousness ?
My guess, and also that of some distinguished neuroscientists, is that
personal identity rests in the thalamus. Unlike the cerebrum, which
has both a right and left half that split brain experiments suggest to
be somewhat independent of each other, the thalamus is one unit, which
probably cannot be split without destroying it.
That last sentence is the fruit of some correspondence between me and
a budding neurobiologist, back in 1994, named Stephen Matheson. We
still correspond occasionally.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
be able to account for everything that happens in terms of events on a
sub-microscopic level (such as ions moving in and out of the membranes
of neurons) and yet, on the other hand, there is this pesky difference
between even conscious and sleepwalking people, and my own perception
that I, the conscious self, am in control of much of what I do.
[...]
> >>> are we defined by our identity (consciousness) or our memories, or both
connected with MY consciousness, that "defines" me. I could have all
my memories wiped out, like in some dreams, yet it is *I* who is
having those dreams.
> >>> all animals, which include humans, have consciousness,
conscious and that the "brute beasts" [as one translation has it] are
not.
If he was wrong, the cost of his belief in animal suffering is
incalculable. Yet, who can prove him wrong?
> >>> so there is
> >>> nothing special nor no divine spark in humans, except perhaps the
> >>> knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
>
> >> Now that is something we absolutely do not now. It would be nice to
> >> think so, but if sponges and jellyfish have consciousness then plants
> >> might as well have consciousness.
system. IIRC the same holds for jellyfish.
> >>I mean, their behavior isn't as
> >> complex as humans',
> >> but they still have behaviors for all that they
> >> don't move around.
>
> > they might have a mind that exists in it's roots and bark, but no sign
> > of consciousness
>
> And sponges have a sign of consciousness ? Do jellyfish ? Earthworms ?
> Ants ? Tunicates ? Hagfish ? Do computers, for that matter ?
>
> What are the "signs" of consciousness ? Because science certainly
> doesn't know.
> Also, a plant's mind existing it its roots and bark ? Why those ? How
> about its leaves, its sapwood, its meristem ?
consciousness. A remotely possible exception is the Venus Fly-trap.
I've known about it since childhood, but I always assumed it was a
fairly widespread plant. Imagine my surprise on learning that it is
practically confined to South Carolina in the wild!
[snip]
> So you're suggested we could in the future take out some pieces of
> someone's brain and insert other pieces from somewhere else, and keep
> the consciousness and identity of the person completely intact ?
consciousness might be in the transplant, or it might be in the brain
that receives it.
> Okay. But you mention relevant parts of the old brain : what are those ?
> Do you think there are parts of the brain it would be impossible to
> replace without affecting consciousness ?
personal identity rests in the thalamus. Unlike the cerebrum, which
has both a right and left half that split brain experiments suggest to
be somewhat independent of each other, the thalamus is one unit, which
probably cannot be split without destroying it.
That last sentence is the fruit of some correspondence between me and
a budding neurobiologist, back in 1994, named Stephen Matheson. We
still correspond occasionally.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Richard Norman
May 22, 2012, 10:23:42 PM5/22/12
to
Sponges are, indeed, poor candidates for consciousness not because
they have no central nervous system but because they have no nervous
system whatsoever. Cnidaria, like your jellyfish example, do have a
nervous system but no central nervous system.
The Venus fly trap is no more tightly organized than any other plant.
It does have a specialized structure that conducts action potentials
but then pretty much all flowering plants have specialized structures
of one form or another. Plants also use hormones to integrate and
control processes happening at different locations in the plant. That
being said, they are still enormously far from the kind of information
processing system that we think of as essential for the notion of
consciousness (whatever that might be).
If the thalamus is, indeed, an important part of a "site of personal
identity", it is certainly not because it is one unit. The thalamus
indeed is bilaterally symettrical with left and right halves joined by
a very tiny central structure. No doubt you misunderstood your
correspondent (or he was sadly misinformed). It is the pineal that is
a single central structure leading Descartes to propose it as the seat
of the soul.
On another topic, you raise the distinction between ions moving across
the cell membrane (the subcellular level of activity in the brain) and
notions of consciousness and free will (the highest level of
activity). That is rather similar to the notion of individual flip
flops in a computer switching between 0 and 1 or logic gates computing
away on AND, OR (or, more likely, NAND and NOR) on the one hand and
trying to determine whether those microcircuits happen to be computing
some esoteric computation in theoretical physics or generating
pornographic images. I don't mean to push the "brain is a computer"
metaphor but use the example to say that the mechanisms on which all
activities at the highest level of organization occur may well be
totally determined by those at the lowest level. On the other hand,
analyzing the lowest level will not tell us what the highest level is
doing. It is in this sense that I have frequently argued here that
physics in no way "explains" consciousness even though every
mechanisms which underlies consciousness works through the laws of
physics,.
pnyikos
May 22, 2012, 10:29:52 PM5/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 21, 7:17 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> > let's see, when we are awake
>
> > 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
> > be considered ESP
Pseudoscience. There may be senses unlike ours: the heat sense of pit
> Dale wrote:
> > let's see, when we are awake
>
> > 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
> > be considered ESP
vipers, the sonar of bats and cetaceans, the lateral line of fish --
all these may be associated with sensations that we cannot even begin
to imagine. But they are all sensory, not extra-sensory.
> Not sure I'd extend consciousness to all animals.
letters to Mersenne, he wrote:
We are so accustomed to persuade ourselves that the brute
beasts
feel as we do [a habit of thought engendered by "the
resemblance
between most of the actions of the beasts and our own"] that
it
is difficult for us to rid ourselves of this opinion. But if
we
were as accustomed to seeing automata which imitate perfectly
all
those of our actions which they can imitate, and to taking
them
for automata only, we should have no doubt at all that the
irrational animals are automata too.
-- Letter of July 13, 1640
I do not explain the feeling of pain without recourse to the
soul...but I do so explain all the external motions which in
us
accompany that feeling: these alone are found in the beasts,
and
not pain properly speaking.
--Letter of June 11, 1640
Hume seemed just as sure of the opposite:
Animals undoubtedly feel, think, love, hate, will, and even
reason, though in a more imperfect manner than men: are their
souls also immaterial and immortal?
--Of the Immortality of the Soul
> It is probably fairly
> limited in humans, but we suffer from the so-called streetlight effect,
> where we see what is visible to us (ie- what is presently in conscious
> awareness or present working memory).
on in my body.
> > can a consciousness exist without the body? is there dualism or is there
> > just separative qualities that happen at some point?
>
> No. Consciousness is a result of neural processes.
have no doubt whatsoever that materialism is correct.
Arrayed against you are Homer, the unknown author of the Chandogya
Upanishad, at least one author of the book of Daniel, Plato, Jesus,
St. Paul, and Mohammed--- and Descartes. Even William James was open
to the possibility of an immortal soul.
Sure, you can marshal some people on your side, and not just Marx,
Engels, and Freud. But they don't impess me as much as some of the
people I've named, and I could name a lot more who were at least open
to the possibility of souls.
> > when you are dreaming where does your consciousness go?
>
> There may be a limit amount of self-awareness when dreaming. If lucid
> dreams occur,
"cognition," in response to Arkalen:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e2609e4679075c3c
No reply from her so far.
> you might have a limited level of consciousness.
corridor with cinder block walls, and suddenly I became aware that I
was dreaming. I thought, "I wonder what would happen if I banged my
hand against this wall." I promptly did so in my dream, and it felt
just like banging against a solid wall, minus any pain.
Did that shake my conviction that I was dreaming? Not at all. I
merely said to myself, "My, this IS a vivid dream!"
[...]
> This article gets into the differences between memories of episodes that
> happen to you and can be verbalized and memories that are more emotiona
> laden and take a different path through the brain:
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2003/mar/cover
> Edouard Claparede found that a patient who could not form new memories
> thus remember him could still act cautiously if she was pricked by a pin
> by him on a prior encounter.
*Hemidactylus*
May 22, 2012, 11:46:10 PM5/22/12
to
pnyikos wrote:
> On May 21, 7:17 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Dale wrote:
>> > let's see, when we are awake
>>
>> > 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
>> > be considered ESP
>
> Pseudoscience. There may be senses unlike ours: the heat sense of pit
> vipers, the sonar of bats and cetaceans, the lateral line of fish --
> all these may be associated with sensations that we cannot even begin
> to imagine. But they are all sensory, not extra-sensory.
Or something really cool:
> On May 21, 7:17 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Dale wrote:
>> > let's see, when we are awake
>>
>> > 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some might
>> > be considered ESP
>
> Pseudoscience. There may be senses unlike ours: the heat sense of pit
> vipers, the sonar of bats and cetaceans, the lateral line of fish --
> all these may be associated with sensations that we cannot even begin
> to imagine. But they are all sensory, not extra-sensory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampullae_of_Lorenzini
http://www.sharktrust.org/content.asp?did=35387
I remember getting the impression that hammerheads are really good at
sensing with these things.
But this just goes to show how much we take for granted given our sense
impressions of the world, and how limited these have been until science
and technology allowed us to augment our senses with things like night
vision goggles, radar, and electron microscopes.
In the documentary "The Whale the Ate Jaws" I recall them saying that
when a great white gets slaughtered by an orca, the rest sense this
(maybe squaline in liver?) and haul butt.
non-human apes are pretty capable of higher cognition.
more likely I am to wake up.
>> This article gets into the differences between memories of episodes that
>> happen to you and can be verbalized and memories that are more emotiona
>> laden and take a different path through the brain:
>>
>> http://discovermagazine.com/2003/mar/cover
>
> Into which category does the above dream episode fall?
types to Dale.
>> Edouard Claparede found that a patient who could not form new memories
>> thus remember him could still act cautiously if she was pricked by a pin
>> by him on a prior encounter.
>
> There was an expert chess player named Claparede. Same person?
Not sure. I've heard his name come up in a book I'm reading called _The
New Unconscious_ and the pin prick experiment he performed on the woman
with anterograde amnesia jarred my memory for the movie "Memento" where
the main character Leonard Shelby was an insurance investigator who had
a guy (Sammy Jankis) with memory deficits (possible anterograde
amnesia) tested to see if he could be conditioned by having him try to
pick up electrified objects. Shelby thought Jankis should have avoided
the electrified objects in later instances, even if his lack of new
memories would make it so he could not consciously recall the shocking
objects. Since he failed to avoid the shocking objects Shelby thought
Jankis was not eligible for benefits.
Yet according to imdb trivia :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/trivia
[quote] The test given to Sammy Jenkis involving the electrified
objects is based on a real life case study of a patient commonly
referred to as HM, who suffered from the same form of amnesia following
surgery to treat severe epilepsy. A doctor repeatedly shook HM's hand
with a joy buzzer, shocking him every time. After a few trials, HM
refused to shake hands. The test shown in the movie is an illustration
that Sammy's condition was not identical to a real life case study, but
would not have excluded him from insurance coverage. [/quote]
I went through the tedium of writing the time sequences for this movie
down so I can watch it in its proper scene order. Awesome movie, but it
will drive one batty.
Rolf
May 23, 2012, 11:57:20 AM5/23/12
to
Dale wrote:
> let's see, when we are awake
>
> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some
> might be considered ESP
> let's see, when we are awake
>
> 1) we have senses, various forms of life have various senses, some
> might be considered ESP
> 2) we have a mind that acts like a software event loop around the
> senses 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our
> consciousness 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary
> according to what life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it,
> our subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers
> don't require it
>
> senses 3) some or all senses are reported by the mind to our
> consciousness 4) our consciousness uses our will, which may vary
> according to what life, and responds to the sense reported by the mind
> 5) consciousness is not required, plants get along fine without it,
> our subconscious wills, like heartbeat, don't require it, computers
> don't require it
>
> when we are asleep and dreaming our consciousness is dominated by and
> responds to a subconscious will
>
> responds to a subconscious will
>
> when we are awake and daydreaming, our mind senses subconscious wills
> and reports it to our consciousness
>
> and reports it to our consciousness
>
> the things the mind does, at least some, are stored in memory
>
> seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
> rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
>
>
> seems to me like consciousness is the kernel, we can do without the
> rest, although it would get quite boring perhaps
>
> are we defined by our identity (consciousness) or our memories, or
> both
>
> all animals, which include humans, have consciousness, so there is
> both
>
> nothing special nor no divine spark in humans, except perhaps the
> knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
>
> knowledge of the benefit of collaboration
>
> can a consciousness exist without the body? is there dualism or is
> there just separative qualities that happen at some point?
>
> there just separative qualities that happen at some point?
>
> when you are dreaming where does your consciousness go?
>
>
> your consciousness doesn't need all of your body, it exists without
> arms, legs, eyesight, hearing or speech at times.
>
> arms, legs, eyesight, hearing or speech at times.
>
> as long as consciousness doesn't exert will, it consumes only the
> energy it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the
> energy that feeds the soul?
>
> BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
> suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
Really? You'd rather forgo the ability to feel pain? Don't you think
> energy it is fed by other functions defined above? are memories the
> energy that feeds the soul?
>
> BTW I am an atheist, there is no All-Powerful benefactor, because
> suffering exists and suffering is not beneficial
emotions, both 'good' and 'bad' are useful in the struggle for survival?
Arkalen
May 25, 2012, 2:57:22 PM5/25/12
to
statements about dreams, not universal ones, so while your
counter-examples were interesting they didn't affect anything I was
saying. Dreams are very different from one another, and very different
from one person to another (or even one person at different times in
their lives), of course some will make more sense than others.
And that's not even considering the effects of memory. We start
forgetting dreams the second we wake up (again, a general statement not
a universal one), and given how our memories of real events can change
over time this is probably ten times as true for memories of dreams.
I'll note by the way that lucid dreams don't necessarily make much more
sense than non-lucid ones. I had a lucid dream where my brother and I
were driving away from some kind of danger, and I realized I was
dreaming when I went "wait, how can he be driving ? He doesn't have his
permit !".
You know, forget that he was 14 and didn't know how to drive. When I
thought back on it after I'd woken up I could clearly see that while I'd
been lucid dreaming, as in aware of and controlling the dream, my
dream-self was still distinctly "off" compared to my waking self.
0 new messages