Mars Dust

"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.

rj

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"

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"

"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.

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

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"

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

"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.

CS
From: Claudio Solis
CS
Subject: Moon in Corvus
CS
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:48:44 +0000 (UTC)
CS
Organization: Wanadoo Belgium
CS
CS Can Moon be in Corvus constellation or just brushing by?
CS I guess that applies for Auriga, while Sextans, Cetus,
CS Orion, Ophiucus and ??? perhaps some other constellations
CS are to be given credit. How can I know for sure if Pluto
CS is in Bootes or Coma Berenices? Is there a text about
CS "extrazodiacal" constellations and the planets?
CS Thanks, Claudio http://puck.dhs.org /extrazodiacal

You wrote this some long while ago? Pluto is in Ophichus.

---
þ RoseReader 2.52á P005004