"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wXmP8.41279$LC3.3144274 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> John H. wrote in message ...
> >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.
> >
> >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.
>> Correct. if it were already "the best way", then 'learning' would be
> superfluous.
>> >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 ...
>> Not-True. anything that physically dis-integrates the one
> internal-frame-of-reference [IFR] Geometry reduces the
> information-processing capacity of the nervous system in question.
>> >
> >
> >I was stupid for thinking for that evolution went to any trouble at all
...
>>> Not-True. that Evolutionary dynamics =include= the dynamics of 'learning',
> which derives in the way any instance of the biology is 'driven' in
> interaction with its external environment, is Verified by the fact that
that
> which is 'learned' makes a difference with respect to survival propensity.
>> 'learning' constitutes physically-real Work.
>> hence, Evolutionary dynamics do 'take-pains' in their own unfolding.
>> the 'pain' [going-through-the-'trouble'] of Doing-Work
>> k. p. collins
PF:-
Hi Kenneth,
It seems to me that your reaons for objecting were "read in" by you.
Had you just made these statements as comments WITHOUT the "Not-True"
remarks, your reply would have been just fine.
Peter
