In article <4jnlih$beu at newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
zamanlf at aol.com (Zamanlf) writes:
>> My first posting was simply the following abstract, with the
>comment that I would make the paper available over the internet after
>presentation at the upcoming Tucson II conference on consciousness:
>> Consciousness, Causality and the Faraday Law
> The postulate that the MEG field may be associated with
>consciousness follows directly from the idea that the MEG is a macroscopic
>order parameter of nervous system dynamics. The intent is not to talk all
>day about it, but to establish a possible
>neurophysiological-electrophysiological basis for consciousness that can
>be investigated in ways not previously thought about. A hypothesis about
>consciousness that is based on solid research about nervous system
>statistical dynamics, including that provided by Verzeano and others,
>hopefully can stimulate research on consciousness, on what consciousness
>might be when viewed in physical terms. It seems to me that the muddiness
>of this concept will go away only after theories have been devised that
>can be given a solid foundation in nervous system dynamics.
To throw in my two cents, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.
Until you (or someone) can present a coherent and usefull definition of
consciousness there is no point in talking about mechanisms of consciousness.
Without an accepted, objective, rational and reliable means of determining
which things are conscious and which are not conscious then no scientist will
be interested in how to explain consciousness; until consciousness is defined
there is no phenomenon to explain.
John Edstrom | edstrom @ slugo.hmsc.orst.edu
"'Reality is a complex of related hypotheses,' he said pulling up the
horses. 'Take they hypotheses yonder.' He pointed to a flock of sheep
with the wet end of his sucking straw. 'Now theyse all related in a
complex sort of way so theyse got ter be real ain't they.'
Ned looked at him very hard. 'Ev you been drinkin' with parson