Consciousness, New Thinking About

JGC9 jgcasey at hotkey.net.au
Mon Jun 17 15:49:10 EST 2002


"John H." <John at overhere> wrote in message
news:wXhP8.1134$ea5.38699 at ozemail.com.au...
> In my model at least the information processing device is not the owner,
the
> owner is only one aspect of the information processing device. What the
> conscious I experiences is not what my brain experiences. These really are
> two different worlds of experience. Cojoined yes, but distinct.

You write of owner + information processing device. Do you mean dualism?

There is no evidence that we can experience (be conscious) without a brain.

> There doesn't have to a reason for the deception, it may simply be an
> inevitable byproduct of evolutionary processes giving rise to things that
> enhance survival. Whether or not these things are desirable by  our
> understanding is of no consequence to evolution. Brain structure seems
like
> that at times also, as if it is a somewhat cobbled together assemblage of
> modules that somehow gets the job done. It doesn't have to be the best
way,
> it simply has to better than anything else around. Eg. Cross over effect
in
> the CNS, may have facilitated the earlier wiggilng movement of worms etc.
> The only reason it may exist is that is because where all vertebrate
nervous
> systems began ...
>
>
> I was stupid for thinking for that evolution went to any trouble at all
...
> .
>
>
>
> John.
> "JGC9" <jgcasey at hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3d0be33b_1 at news.iprimus.com.au...
> > extract from John H comments below:
> > > > ... why evolution went to so much trouble to create an
> > > > 'information processing'  device that then deceives its
> > > > 'owner' as to what is really going on!
> >
> > Because the 'information processing' device _is_ the 'owner'.
> >
> > It is not a question of deception but of function.
> >
> > If it 'chooses' to do something and 'finds it can' then it has
> > 'free will'. The idea that 'free will' would have to mean
> > 'without a cause' is something doesn't make sense. It is
> > based on the religious concept of a 'soul' that somehow
> > can 'override' a maladaptive or malfunctioning brain.It
> > is based on the concept that this imaginary soul has the
> > power to choose 'good' over 'evil'.
> >
> > extract from "DJ" comments below:
> > > > If our society was to truly embrace determinism anybody
> > > > could go and kill whoever they liked without fear of legal
> > > > retribution
> >
> > Why?  If someone is accepted as crazy in the current legal sense
> > it doesn't mean we will allow them to act in an anti social way.
> > Indeed I believe acceptance that we have no uncaused behaviours
> > will change the way we deal with anti social behaviours to a more
> > pragmatic and effective manner. Our punishment systems now
> > only aggravate the situation. They are counter productive because
> > they are based a false belief we have 'free will'.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "DJ" <DJ at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:newscache$mr0rxg$gn2$1 at maggie.netlink.com.au...
> > >
> > > John H. <John at overhere> wrote in message
> > > news:apsO8.1$ea5.294 at ozemail.com.au...
> > > >
> > > > Not new thinking about consciousness, the idea of Wegner re the
> illusion
> > > of
> > > > "I" is well discussed amongst neuroscientists wide and far. I
> virtually
> > > take
> > > > it as a given and I'm no neuroscientist, more a vagabond setting up
> camp
> > > > here. Gazziniga will blow your mind re the illusory aspect and in
> > Pinker's
> > > > How the Mind Works, he devotes a subsection with the title "Kidding
> > > > Ourserlves", wherein he in his usual erudite way summarises the
> research
> > > > indicating that our brains really go to a certain amount of trouble
to
> > > keep
> > > > us Misinformed. Anyway, Libet sortta killed the poor little fella in
> my
> > > > skull and that's a long time ago now.
> > > >
> > > > Most if not all neuroscience evidence is against free will, I find
the
> > > idea
> > > > absurd. It's a bit like defining the 'executive functions' in the
> brain,
> > > as
> > > > if we don't have enough ghosts in the machine we have to go and
create
> a
> > > few
> > > > more. As I once said to a friend, the whole universe is the
executive
> > > > function ... . How can we be in control of ourselves? Brains create
> us,
> > > not
> > > > vice versa. Its one hell of an illusion though and raises the
question
> > as
> > > to
> > > > why evolution went to so much trouble to create an 'information
> > > processing'
> > > > device that then deceives its 'owner' as to what is really going on!
> > > >
> > > Maybe the deception that you speak of is necessary because the
illusion
> of
> > > free will brings with it the illusion of individual responsibility.
If
> > our
> > > society was to truly embrace determinism anybody could go and kill
> whoever
> > > they liked without fear of legal retribution.  It's fair to assume
that
> > the
> > > laws of the jungle also incorporate the individual responsibility
> factor.
> > > i.e. We might not have evolved to this point without the illusion of
> free
> > > will.  If you kill your enemy you're held responsible so someone kills
> > you.
> > >
> > > > The feeling is not illusion, I do read the sentence, but the I that
> > reads
> > > > the sentence is an illusion.
> > >
> > > Hmmm... Maybe each of us is a different "instance" of the same
conscious
> > > entity.  Nonetheless real both physically and mentally.  Unique,
> > individual
> > > consciousness might result from "filtering" that single conscious
entity
> > > through each unique physical entity.  This possibility raises the
> question
> > > of how each individual consciousness is able to interact with the
single
> > > conscious entity.  In computing terms, can they update eachother's
data?
> > > Sorry, I'm just pissing into the wind too.
> > >
> > > DJ
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list