Consciousness, New Thinking About

DJ DJ at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 17 20:26:13 EST 2002


JGC9 <jgcasey at hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:3d0e5214_1 at news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "DJ" <DJ at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:newscache$zg1sxg$puh$1 at maggie.netlink.com.au...
> >
> > tony.jeffs <tonyjeffs2 at REMOVEaol.com> wrote in message
> > news:WAIO8.1308$sv5.86493 at newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "DJ" <DJ at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:newscache$mr0rxg$gn2$1 at maggie.netlink.com.au...
> > >
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > I like the shared consciousness view because it seems simpler, but
does
> it
> > > actually mean anything?
> > > Myself and a colleague's pc are on the same central hard disk drive.
> > > ==equivalent to one consciousness- or does it?.
> > > Butsince we have our own passwords, and sharing some server management
> > > software,  we can't access each other's files or front-end software,
so
> we
> > > effectively have two independant systems, equating to two independant
> > > consciousnesses.
> > >
> > I think that your analogy of running the same software on two separate
> > machines (each with different physical characteristics) is a useful one.
> > The physical characteristics of each client PC will determine how the
> > program performs, providing each with a unique experience.  To improve
the
> > analogy I would have the same program running on a server
simultaneously.
> > The server software (including data) is continuously broadcast to all
> > clients.  The client PCs, because of their physical limitations, cannot
> use
> > all of the software.
> >
> > Stretching the analogy a bit (no, a lot!) further...the clients notify
the
> > server about each event (eg keyboard input).  Each client maintains a
> record
> > of its events in the form of index entries in its own - unreliable -
> memory.
> > If a client PC needs to recall/retrieve a particular event, it can use
an
> > index entry as a "key", thereby giving it access to the appropriate part
> of
> > the continuously broadcast server software.  Advanced clients are able
to
> > store simulated events (thoughts) wholly, but imperfectly, within their
> own
> > memory.  During memory retrieval these can override and confuse the
> > retrieval of real events.
> >
> > Under this scenario you and your colleague do have independent
> > consciousnesses, but at all times you are both dependent on the
existence
> of
> > the server.  You can be aware of the same events (imagine the PCs share
> the
> > same modem).  You might be able to be aware of events that you haven't
> > personally experienced (using ESP) if you can somehow manage to create
the
> > appropriate keys.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> > DJ
> >
> Would the pc clients hardware be brains? What is the hardware
> of the server? That is what kind of brain would the conscious
> entity have in this analogy?
>
> JC

I was thinking that somebody was going to ask some tricky questions like
these!

For the purposes of this simple analogy, yes, the client PCs are equivalent
to brains :)

Unlike the server in the analogy, the "real world" server doesn't consist of
hardware.

Taking the concept a bit further... the "real world" server is a "thing"
that developed the ability to create simple physical life-forms.  It isn't
responsible for creating every individual physical being, but it was able to
set the evolutionary process in motion.  As life-forms have evolved it has
also evolved through a symbiotic relationship with them.  It provides them
with consciousness.  They provide it with information about the physical
world.

The more I think about this scenario the more attractive it seems, although
I wouldn't expect it to convince anybody else about anything at all.  But,
since it provides the opportunity to unite many seemingly opposite
philosophical viewpoints, some others might think it worthy of
consideration.

creation = evolution
dualism = materialism
free will = determinism
no life after death = life after death

DJ





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list