#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Dust
randyj wrote:
"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message ... randyj wrote: "Volker Hetzer" wrote in message ... i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and sensation. where exactly these dwell can't precisely be determined, so there must be more than chemistry involved. Why do you think they can't? Btw, it is very easy to show where they are. They are in the brain. Do you think there's more that physics involved in a hologram just because some feature of the image is not contained in a single spot of the holo? no, i didn't mention holograms. But somehow you think that nonlocal information in a hologram is different from nonlocal information in a brain. You state that these 4 are in the brain, but you don't provide evidence. Has a brain been dissected to show exactly where consciousness resides? No, but it has been killed to show that it goes away then. You have no way of knowing that it goes away then. that's just conjecture on your part. A) You turn a "no way of knowing" into "must be more ...". That may be a classic rethorical tactic but it's illogical nevertheless. Do you subscribe to the "god of the gaps" philosophy? B) We know quite a lot about the brain and one thing we know is that whenever some part of the brain we *can* attach a function to stops working, the function stops too. We also know that you can remove just about everything else from the body and consciousness won't go away while the brain is still working. The logical conclusion is that the brain (ok, nerve tissue) is the only thing that carries consciousness. Lots of Greetings! Volker -- While it is a known fact that programmers never make mistakes, it is still a good idea to humor the users by checking for errors at critical points in your program. -Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX Applications" |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Dust
randyj wrote:
"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message ... "Volker Hetzer" wrote in message A) You turn a "no way of knowing" into "must be more ...". That may be a classic rethorical tactic but it's illogical nevertheless. Do you subscribe to the "god of the gaps" philosophy? no, not saying there must be more, just saying it isn't known for sure; Of course it is not known "for sure", nothing is. We could all be the dreams of a god, but as long as we have no way of testing this we might as well ignore that possibility. ( As soon as it makes a difference we'd have a test.) can consciousness be measured, by degrees? I think "consciousness" isn't even properly defined. Right now the best idea we've come up with is the mirror test. If an animal can convince an observer that it recognizes itself in a mirror we believe it has a self consciousness. Most primates can do that and at least one bird. B) We know quite a lot about the brain and one thing we know is that whenever some part of the brain we *can* attach a function to stops working, the function stops too. We also know that you can remove just about everything else from the body and consciousness won't go away while the brain is still working. The logical conclusion is that the brain (ok, nerve tissue) is the only thing that carries consciousness. sounds logical; i concede the argument to you. thanks for the exercise Well, the next counter argument I expected would be that consciousness could exist without the means of convincing us of its existence, like a soul in heaven. Only, if this doesn't doesn't have an effect on our universe, which a means of convincing us of its existence would be, why bother? It's a bit like trying to guess whom some imagined god wants me to kill and whom it wants me to spare if I want to go to heaven. As long asI have no way of finding out about what it wants I might as well not bother and make my own decision. Of course you might try to think of possible evidence and set up tests for this maybe you come up with something real? You'd take a real load of the minds of a lot of people. Lots of Greetings! Volker -- While it is a known fact that programmers never make mistakes, it is still a good idea to humor the users by checking for errors at critical points in your program. -Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX Applications" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Dust
"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
- snip Of course you might try to think of possible evidence and set up tests for this maybe you come up with something real? You'd take a real load of the minds of a lot of people. snip I have always thought this to be a better question then, "Why are we here?". I love the "Are we really here?" concept. IMHO, there is really no way to prove that we are here. As far as I know, you are all just figments of my imagination. Now I have to go figure out how my brain invented Bert and Moby. BV. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Dust
Volker Hetzer wrote:
I think "consciousness" isn't even properly defined. Right now the best idea we've come up with is the mirror test. If an animal can convince an observer that it recognizes itself in a mirror we believe it has a self consciousness. Most primates can do that and at least one bird. Another interesting type of test determines whether or not a creature can 'put itself in another's shoes', i.e. model the consciousness of another. IIRC humans don't usually acquire this ability for two or three years, but it has been observed in apes. A _Scientific American Frontiers_ episode I saw had Alan Alda, dressed as a vet, playing the role of a threatening stranger to a couple of chimpanzees. When the entrance to the enclosure was concealed from Chimp A's cage as Alda approached, Chimp B, who was positioned so as to see both the entrance and the other cage, called out an alarm. But when the partition was removed, since B then saw that A could see the threat for herself he didn't make a fuss. --Odysseus |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Dust
Odysseus wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote: I think "consciousness" isn't even properly defined. Right now the best idea we've come up with is the mirror test. If an animal can convince an observer that it recognizes itself in a mirror we believe it has a self consciousness. Most primates can do that and at least one bird. Another interesting type of test determines whether or not a creature can 'put itself in another's shoes', i.e. model the consciousness of another. IIRC humans don't usually acquire this ability for two or three years, but it has been observed in apes. A _Scientific American Frontiers_ episode I saw had Alan Alda, dressed as a vet, playing the role of a threatening stranger to a couple of chimpanzees. When the entrance to the enclosure was concealed from Chimp A's cage as Alda approached, Chimp B, who was positioned so as to see both the entrance and the other cage, called out an alarm. But when the partition was removed, since B then saw that A could see the threat for herself he didn't make a fuss. Sounds interesting. Can this inference be generalized to all animals that live in groups and have individuals assigned this "watcher" role? Do chimpanzees have watchers in their natural habitat? Lots of Greetings! Volker -- While it is a known fact that programmers never make mistakes, it is still a good idea to humor the users by checking for errors at critical points in your program. -Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX Applications" |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Dust
Volker Hetzer wrote:
Sounds interesting. Can this inference be generalized to all animals that live in groups and have individuals assigned this "watcher" role? Do chimpanzees have watchers in their natural habitat? I don't know for sure, but many groups of social animals have members with such roles. Ground-squirrel colonies have pretty obvious 'sentries' posted when they're out foraging. The point, though, is that the chimp's behaviour was based on some kind of awareness of his comrade's perceptions; I think most animals and birds give their alarm cries instinctually, without considering who really needs warning. You won't see a ground-squirrel doing a head-count before it starts squeaking and flicking its tail as you approach. --Odysseus |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Dust
"Odysseus" wrote in message
... Volker Hetzer wrote: Sounds interesting. Can this inference be generalized to all animals that live in groups and have individuals assigned this "watcher" role? Do chimpanzees have watchers in their natural habitat? I don't know for sure, but many groups of social animals have members with such roles. Ground-squirrel colonies have pretty obvious 'sentries' posted when they're out foraging. The point, though, is that the chimp's behaviour was based on some kind of awareness of his comrade's perceptions; I think most animals and birds give their alarm cries instinctually, without considering who really needs warning. You won't see a ground-squirrel doing a head-count before it starts squeaking and flicking its tail as you approach. Quite often my cat lurks in the bushes in front of our home. I know where she is in the front yard at all times, even when hidden, because the finches will gather in a nearby tree and chirp madly in her direction. If she moves, they move, and they always point in her direction. It's really an incredible sight. BV. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Dust
"Odysseus" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Volker Hetzer wrote: Sounds interesting. Can this inference be generalized to all animals that live in groups and have individuals assigned this "watcher" role? Do chimpanzees have watchers in their natural habitat? I don't know for sure, but many groups of social animals have members with such roles. Ground-squirrel colonies have pretty obvious 'sentries' posted when they're out foraging. The point, though, is that the chimp's behaviour was based on some kind of awareness of his comrade's perceptions; I think most animals and birds give their alarm cries instinctually, without considering who really needs warning. You won't see a ground-squirrel doing a head-count before it starts squeaking and flicking its tail as you approach. That's exactly what I was driving at. I was trying to find out how the behavior of the chimpanzee indicated this awareness, whereas similar behavior of other animals does not (indicate awareness). Are there any links on the web to this experiment? Lots of Greetings! Volker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 2 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
Mars in opposition: One for the record books (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 3rd 03 04:56 PM |