In article <Pine.WNT.3.95.990227122920.-81085F-100000 at cst105.york.ac.uk>, dmb106 <dmb106 at york.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Michael Edelman wrote:
>> > ..."Thinking" occurs in mammals. It is the interpolation of extra synaptic
>> > events between sensory input and motor output. ....) Don't waste time
>> > about our
>> > awareness of the brain's thoughts. That belongs to religion.
>> You're defining the problem down to a much simpler, and much less
>> one. Self-awareness is the heart of conciousness.
>> We all know we're self-aware, and there's no need to invoke metaphysics to
>> realize that humans and many other animals can plan- which is to say they can
>> create internal, counterfactual models in their mind and experiment with
>> You seek to explain the brain as a robot with a strict mechanistic theory.
>> if that's the case, who is writing this note?
>The robot is. You are nothing more that an intentional system. We
>ascribe beleifs and desires to you because that gives us most
>predictive power and understanding. Does that make the beleifs and
>desires we ascribe real?
> I agree that self-awareness is the heart of conciousness, but
>if this is the case ask your self one more question...
>What is the difference between being self aware and behaving as though
>you are self aware?
The difference between day and night.
>We all focus our thoughts and actions on our selves,
> it is the best
>thing to do in evolutionary terms.
When you do it, you have no concern for this obscenity
of yours - evo-sucking-lution,
aka fatalistic materialism.
How do you define the best?
Defining one obscenity via referring to another
is the way to increase validity?
> The big difference
>in humans is that we are aware we are aware.
Then why are you asserting all this horseshit?
Dreaming about pussy in the sky with diamonds,
by any humble chance?
> Why is that such a leap
>of faith? - no irony intended.
Can you see how you leap from one pile of horseshit
to another, forever looking for a way to increase the
validity of your argument,
that is essentially nothing but a pure obscenity.
>A rat is aware that a red light means food,
Ok, enough of this horseshit.
-------------------- end of input ----------------------
> for example, and it
>behaves in such a way so as to eat. We do not, however, ascribe any
>internal life to the rat. - if you do then just think of a lower
>organism which could be similarly conditioned. We humans have the
>added ability of being aware that we are aware that a light means
>food, in some bizare experiment.
>It is my beleif that this infinate regress is what we call awareness.
>The fact that it is an infinate regress is not key, it just makes it
>intractable. Just think about what it is like to be aware of
>somthing? i.e. aware that it is daytime, I dont think you have to be
>concious to do this. Then extend the idea and become aware that you
>are aware- why would you need to be concious at the next step? yet the
>effect of all this unconcious computing is what we call conciousness.