getting past emergentism

Charles R Martin crmartin at indra.com
Mon Apr 9 21:09:58 EST 2001


The incredible Sulk <Pouting at Sulk.nospam> writes:

> Richard Norman wrote:
> > 
> > "Xander Marion" <xandermarion at home.com> wrote on Sat, 07 Apr 2001:
> > 
> > > I'm banging my head against the wall trying to figure out
> > > how to get past the theory that conciousness is an emergent
> > > property of the brain. Anyone have any thoughts on how this
> > > might be better understood while still focusing on a
> > > neuroscience perspective?
> > 
> 
> Flip the problem. First undertsand how 'the brain' is an emergent
> property of consciousness...
> 
> > What is the problem with emergent properties?   All complex
> > systems made of a hierarchy of levels of organization show
> > emergent properties.  No individual component of a negative
> > feedback circuit "knows" how to regulate, yet a negative
> > feedback system can result in regulation.
> > 
> > The brain is made of cells which are made of molecules which
> > are made of ....  But certainly consciousness is not a property
> > of cells or molecules.
> 
> 'The brain' is made up of letters.'the brain' is an idea about something
> someone sawwhen a head gpot split open, with an idea that inside heads
> is where words are heard, where images are formed, both from the eyes,
> and from things the eyes have seen.. the brain only exists as another
> abstraction in consciousness.
> 
> Does anything exist if we are not ever aware of it? Not directly or
> indirectly? Its a meaningless question.


I'm sorry, alt.solipcism and rec.arts.berkeleyan-idealism are down the
hall, on the left.  There's a nice lad.

-- 
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel
insecure around you. -- Marianne Williamson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
				 Charlie Martin, Broomfield, CO USA 40 N 105 W




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list