Consciousness, New Thinking About

JGC9 jgcasey at hotkey.net.au
Tue Jun 18 02:28:28 EST 2002


"DJ" <DJ at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$pznvxg$r0a$1 at maggie.netlink.com.au...
>
> JGC9 <jgcasey at hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3d0e5214_1 at news.iprimus.com.au...
> >
> > "DJ" <DJ at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:newscache$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

Using the idea of a "real world" server "thing" as the provider of
consciousness simply transfers the problem (what is consciousness?)
to this "thing". It cannot resolve the problem. I am a sentient being.
This sentience is what "I" am,  not what is given to me. It _is_ me
not something I have.

I like the idea of being part of a Universal mind but I am not sure
exactly what that means.

JC














More information about the Neur-sci mailing list