Mind from Matter

I was wondering if I was the only one who was puzzled by consciousness, but here's a philosopher named Daniel Dennet who says that "consciousness is the most obvious and most mysterious feature in our minds . . . On the other hand, what in the world can consciousness be?"And a guy from MIT, Marvin Minsky says, "There's something queer about describing consciousness: whatever people mean to say, they just can't seem to make it clear. . . How could anything seem so close, yet always keep beyond our reach?"These quotes are from a book called "Up From Dragons: The Evolution of Human Intelligence," the authors of which say that "the unified mind--our sense of self--is, we believe, most likely an artifact or illusion, the seemingly singular result of what are in fact multiple underlying processes."Artifact or illusion--something made by the brain, I guess he means, or something apparently made. Not very clear.

robinrohan
Here is an interesting site on Francis Crick's take on consciousness.
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.htmlI am presently about half way through it and I will discuss some of the points brought forth later tomorrow.

I'm eagerly awaiting what you have to say. I'm trying to figure out what "visual consciousness" means.

No it IS NOT Locke. Locke IS OUT, I don't consider him worth reading from the science side. Kant took him to task but Hume on this other hand woke any constitution from the Prussian Bridge waLk! I was reading HUME, without understanding anything of Kant's except his question to the reader to explain ?WHY?, ^space* has HAD three dimensions and this was about 10 years ago where I noticed many (if not all (I have not finished with Kant but I am done with Hume)Kant's points FROM HuME (never Locke but transcendentally...)) and I READ (past tense) Hume to express the IDEA of an idea which I THINK but have not verified might have been the SENSE OF AWAKENING that Kant THEN seperated IN THE UNDERSTANDING the nouemon(sp?) and the things themselves as appearences. Thus FROM that, there is a regress and a progress which would NOT exist simply at or on Hume's idea even if not in the hierarchy I may have possibly misabducted if indeed that had induced you to SO think SUCH. I will try to get back to this via Aristotle. I don't know if I will succeed but I am almost ready to send you some noncritical info.Leave me another messAge if you want to try to find the passage in Hume. I dont have (his) book anymore but I spent quite a few weeks with it, so I am sure to be able to find the passages (in) time.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-31-2004 13:01 AM

Minksy also thought haptic vibrators were interesting. I dont. It was simply tactical fourier analysis in a different biological sense.

robinrohan Visual consciousness refers to the cumultive groups of cells,each group of which,deals with a specific function of vision.{Cell groups that deal with shapes.ones that deal with motion, deal with recogniton etc..} which when taken as a whole produce the neuronal collective that constitutes our awareness of the sense of sight.I was far too hasty when I suggested that I would be back to discuss this quickly. However, there is much to absorb on this paper and I wish to understand it properly so I will try to aim for early next week. My apologies for the delay.

The relation of Russel and Lebesque depends on the word COLLECTION but for now I limit my comments on that to this following matter of the mind;You anchored in a context with,

quote:

---

Mind without hardware is literally untenable.

---

but let’s be so very clear at this place lest I fear I will either find your posts to end for me like Loudmouth’s did else also/or can’t go on any more one on one. If you feel that I have undone your reference to ‘mind’ here then you can have a last word but that will be left to you and your ‘hack. A duck is a not Tai. What I need to notice is that hard vs. software is as far as internet MUST STILL be conversed in terms ONLY of Von Neumann’s notion of computer memory storage and NO INVISIBLE analogy to living human memory is supportable by what I have said. So, unless you meant a looser and colloquial understanding of tow words mind hardware, then we part in this paragraph uniquely. So else, When you said,

quote:

---

This struck me as particularly interesting extension (or application; I’ve just

---

provided you are satisfied that I have answered by consulting this post then HARDWARE is being provided by a new history of the Galvani-Volta-Faraday dispute provisioned for the Gladyshev thermostat in scientific memory and thus your linguistic use of, coincidence between our system is without attachment to my view/cognition of your sense or taking of Your application of Gladyshev’s observarionstraightforwarding manner of mine UNDER THE RECENT REVIEW of Georgi’s e-mail to me.I need to distinguish that I TOOK Dr. Gladyshev’s WHOLE observation as indicating a particularly earth bound view THAT I HAVE ESTABLISHED through many posts @EvC and that this particular thread is headed ONLY to the point that God made creatures were Croizat form-making made ONLY insofar as they obey Gladyhev’s ‘law’ of isolatable biological objects WITHIN THE POTENTIAL perception ONLY. I would like to congrauate you for your ability to follow up my posts thoughout cyberspace at least it can not be said that A’s Nothing seems to me to prove more directly and more fully the action of a reflective mind, to indicate more plainly a deliberate consideration of the subject. In particular your,

quote:

---

I think..dualist claim.

---

Clearly has what preperceptive idea I could and want the reader to have possessed before posting! Thank you for reaching a level of communication with me where none have gone before. If yours and mine (no longer GG’s and me) differences appear less and less over time this will indicate yet another advantage of EvC in liquidating false polarities and dialectical illusions that DON’T exist.
gottleibbiogenetic law
The German however would have to relate to good will and NOT ‘free’ from Kant’s USE of the German language however. This clearly would than be not also nor within a common compass of both (of us) lest you had inter alia agreed with the paragraph first (working IN the isomorphism between A’s chapter’s brining up the subjective details in the process etc). I will not get this far with personal identity in terms of Russel’s electrons NOW if you don’t tron through this family of electronic electrons for the electron’s electronic whether continuous or discontinous but material nonetheless. If you had conceived the word occult in Newton as analogous to the term physicotheological then one might have found how we have all this talk about free will and little about the good will behind whatever it would have been that it preexisted aposterior OR apriroi. In any event that at least enables one to compare dualist and monist perspectives within the restricted nature of the Galvani-Volta difference I operate chemically on. I did not think sufficient to deal with pantheism at this asymmetry.In general the relation of synthesis and analysis arises here where there is EITHER a reciprocal OR a mutual correspondence of levels which I start to diagram now below as illustrating ONE way to diagram the gg monohierarchy.Please answer if we disgree or agree wlse there is little need for you to see me elaborate the philosophy of chance coincidences within the textual circumscribtion availed on the internet and beyond. What you seem to be at issue with is the culture of degrees of being (since Plato) that permits and argues against ontological proofs of God but I had only started with the position that there is not a science greater than God as to the degree of the cosmological issue I do not write much about on eVc!One would begin to elaborate this incidence geometry ONLY under criticism of evolutionary theory that postulates as objective changes in rates of process purely by morphological perception whether objective or subjective. I hold this to be critical for the next few wordings of Agassiz combined WHILE Kant had had this to say, But we overlooked, up to this point, an essential difference existing between conceptions of the understanding which reason endeavors to raise to the rank of ideas — two of these indicating a mathematical, and two a dyanamical synthesis of phenomenona. Hitherto, it was not necessary to signalize this distinction; for, just as in our general representation of all transcendental ideas, we considered them under phenomenal conditions, so in the two mathematical ideas, our discussion is concerned with an object in the world of phenomenona. But as we are now about to proceed to the consideration of the dynamical conceptions of the understanding, and their adequateness with ideas, we must not loose sight of this distinction.p320Barnes and Noble Critique of Pure Reason.I will use VRMLHistory, and yes, Tony, I had started to design the program, to SIMULATE this , hopefully before the Summer. My guess is that the 3DWebConsortium rather put economics above the nanoecological implications but that is a social commentary and only valuable as to the transcendental doctrine of method.I assert that this has been overlooked in theoretical biology, except possibly by Wright technically and Croizat formally for this remands that one MUST address Agassiz’s Now the suggestion that such peculiarities could be produced by physical agents is for ever set aside by the fact that neither the birds nor the reptiles, nor, indeed, any other animals of New Holland, depart in such a manner from the ordinary character of their representatives in other parts of the world; unless it could have been shown that such agents have the power of discrimination. I however reached this conclusion by finding a CLADE in panbiogeography where/when Gould could find nothing of profit, not even stewed juices.I t remains to be shown if instructed mixtures do or do not both maintain the distinction and discrimination without 3-D. Today I respect this thought of mine with this spliced diagram from which I will articulate, should this be necessary. Subtraction from infinity might indeed be constitutive for instructed mixtures of gilde reflexion lines coded and isolated by distance (1-D).But so far it only seems to be written in the literature that Mayr took offense at suggestions so pin pointed on the globe during a period of evolutionary theory change that found him both on Wright’s side and against bean bags (with regard to Fisher’s contribution). I don’t consider island biogeography to have altered this relation of math and dynamics but should it also be found that time invariant process were defineable for any regresss to coexistent places such then a new axiom basis for all rate differences would have already been implied in the adaptive oversight I assert successively was no hardening of adaptiveness by humans either technically or in the flesh.If I obscured your references I will edit them back if you have spread yourself too thin across EVC.