Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!news.chalmers.se!news.gu.se!gd-news!d6173.shv.hb.se!sa209
From: sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <sa209.105@utb.shv.hb.se>
Sender: usenet@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: d6173.shv.hb.se
Organization: Department of Scocial Science
References: <3eipvm$169@agate.berkeley.edu> <3ejf8r$krb@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1995Jan6.170017.29157@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3el2i6$6mo@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3em3nf$8g3@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3emf0s$e82@agate.berkeley.edu> <3ems18$661@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 10:48:17 GMT
Lines: 57
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:1713 comp.ai.philosophy:24542 comp.ai:26369

In article <3ems18$661@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel) writes:

>In <3emf0s$e82@agate.berkeley.edu> <jerrybro@uclink2.berkeley.edu> 
>writes: 

>>prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel) wrote:
>>
>>> Where in all of those state transitions and symbol manipulation by
>>> mathematically describale rules does this self-awareness arise? And
>>> of course the second question, what is the reality of will if all is
>>> nothing but a mathematically describable process??
>>
>>Many people seem to think that no matter how advanced
>>our knowledge becomes along the lines of the functioning of
>>the brain, consciousness itself will remain a mystery.  I
>>don't blame them--religions have been founded on the idea that
>>soul and body are not the same sort of thing.  But when we
>>get to the question of exactly what it is about consciousness
>>that seems that it will always remain inexplicable in terms of
>>the functioning of the brain, the answers are unsatisfactory,
>>either vague or question-begging.

>Consciousness most certainly will remain a mystery as long as those
>who try to understand it are standing on their head and wiggling their
>tows in the air. By that I mean, it will be a msystery as long as they
>try to explain consciousness by matter, even if they throw in the
>computational processes tha a brain might be doing. As long as it is
>assumed that brain=mind (perhaps plus qunatum uncertainty and chaos)
> =consciousness, no progress is possible.

>To study connsciousness one must use a means appropriate to the subject
>and the only means is an introspective one, and meditation in 
>particular. One of the experiences that can be had and established by
>such introspective means, is that there are states of connsciousness
>(where the existence of one self is still cognized) which are 
>esentially static and ultimately timeless. They give the certitude
>of having always been and of always will be. These are states of
>pure being and causeless delight.

 Picture a world with humans who lacks conciousness and self awareness. 
They just respond to a stimulus with reactions in exactly  the same way as 
we do. It happens in the same way as they have memory, instincts etc. just 
like us but they are not at all self aware. Then you enter this world... of 
course it would be impossible to detect their lack of self awareness. But 
I can in no way be sure of wheather my self awarness is something unique for 
me.. Well.. I can assume that it isn't but I can't know for sure, in the 
same way as I can't tell if I exist as I think I do or if my brain in fact 
is in a laboratory and fed with the impulses that the scientists in there 
desire. Very well.. The core of this is: Why do self awareness occur at 
all.. it is a sort of level between the stimulus and the reaction (a 
stimulus can be an internal reaction in the brain as well). There is no 
obvious reason for this qualitative state we call conciousness.

 Delight or despair etc. could exist as states of mind without the self-
awareness: it could still be a stimulus.

Claes Andersson. University of Bors. Sweden
