🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <58tvfi$c1f@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, mvcs@gramercy.ios.com (Jeff
Baldwin) wrote:

> Given: Life/conciousness/mind is nothing more than chemical reactions.
> Then:
> 1) Why/how did/does subjective perception "come to be"?
> 2) If mind and all its attributes are mere checmical reactions with
> deterministic, material (and therefore objective) origin, then why
> does subjective perception at times differ (and markedly so) from
> objective reality?
> 3) Why does "the subjective" (in humans only?) strive to "objectify"
> itself?

Read Dennett's _Conciousness Explained_ for some good (pseudo)answers to
all these questions and more...

-- 
smisch@tiac.net (emoticons implied by context)

'Where in the world are lunatics allowed to bathe naked in the moonlight?' -- R.D. Laing

In bionet.neuroscience Samson <staring@my.screen> wrote:
> Read Dennett's _Conciousness Explained_ for some good (pseudo)answers to
> all these questions and more...

And where, pray, can one find this publication? What publisher, what
year, for instance? I do not want to look for a needle in a haystack.

Dag Stenberg wrote:
> 
> In bionet.neuroscience Samson <staring@my.screen> wrote:
> > Read Dennett's _Conciousness Explained_ for some good (pseudo)answers to
> > all these questions and more...
> 
> And where, pray, can one find this publication? What publisher, what
> year, for instance? I do not want to look for a needle in a haystack.

Hello, Dag:

Boston; Little, Brown; 1991.

I hope this helps.
-- 
Alan
Causes precede thier effects absolutely in all frames of reference in
time as well as space and in the transcendent as well as the material.

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Jeff Baldwin wrote:

> Given: Life/conciousness/mind is nothing more than chemical reactions.
> Then:
> 1) Why/how did/does subjective perception "come to be"?
> 2) If mind and all its attributes are mere checmical reactions with
> deterministic, material (and therefore objective) origin, then why
> does subjective perception at times differ (and markedly so) from
> objective reality?
> 3) Why does "the subjective" (in humans only?) strive to "objectify"
> itself?

If the stated given is correct (and it is not at all clear that it is),
then subjective perception came about as did any other physical phenomena.
It came about, for instance, like heat, which is nothing more than the
product of a certain type of behavior among molecules.  In similar
fashion, consciousness would then be reducible to the behavior of
molecules -- all there would be to being conscious is having a certain
molecular configuration.  Currently we have absolutely no idea what kind
of molecular configuration leads to conscious experience.  We do, however,
have a pretty good understanding of heat, which, if I recall, is mean
kinetic energy (or something like that).  

In fact, our efforts to reduictively explain consciousness in terms of the
physical properties of our universe have been so fruitless that we might
begin to suspect that consciousness might not be part of the physical
world.  This is precisely the move Chalmers makes in his recent book "The
Conscious Mind."  He argues for what he calls "naturalistic dualism,"
which basically treats consciousness as outside the domain of the
physical and essentially epiphenomenal in nature.  That is, consciousness
does not influence our behavior -- it is explanatorily irrelevant to the
things we say, and possibly casually irrelevant to the things we do.
Ulitmately I'm not in complete agreement with Chalmers, but he has written
a fascinating and persuasive book which is certainly worth reading.

     2) I'm having problems understanding the second question.  I'm not at
all clear on why you'd expect subjective "reality" to correspond exactly
to objective reality, given that experience is physical.    

     3) I'm also unclear on this one.  Do you mean to say that we like to
think that our subjective experiences are somehow representative of an
objective universe?  I guess I don;t understand what it means to
"objectify" something.  

                                - Mike
 

mvcs@gramercy.ios.com (Jeff Baldwin) wrote:

>Given: Life/conciousness/mind is nothing more than chemical reactions.
>Then:
>1) Why/how did/does subjective perception "come to be"?
I dunno, but I like it. Beats the alternative.

>2) If mind and all its attributes are mere checmical reactions with
>deterministic, material (and therefore objective) origin, then why
>does subjective perception at times differ (and markedly so) from
>objective reality?

Why does it seem as though  Time  as perceived subjectively varies in
inverse proportion to the amount of time previously experienced by
that consciousness?
WeI measure time subjectively as a fraction of all the time we have
previously experienced. That's why it seems like a short time ago
since I moved into my new apartment (and it's been 4 months; and it's
already Christmas time!) As we get older, each month seems shorter,
etc.  When I was 6 years old, summer seemed to last forever.

Can you imagine how this effect will play itself out in the distant
future when people will have conquered old age and disease? How long
will a month seem to someone who is 50,000 years old?

>3) Why does "the subjective" (in humans only?) strive to "objectify"
>itself?

I dunno, but it's an interesting subject. This reminds of author Tom
Robbins' conceit; he wondered how the human brain could ever be
objective when speaking of itself.

Randy

>Jeffrey L. Baldwin
>Mind & Vision Computer Systems
>"Intelligent Processing Systems for the Energy Industry"
>Voice/Fax/Data: (281) 550-4534     (800) MVCSTLM
>email: mvcs@gramercy.ios.com       73051.1316@compuserve.com
>http://gramercy.ios.com/~mvcs

In article <594esa$onl$1@news.hal-pc.org>, cryofan@brokersys.com (Randy) wrote:

> mvcs@gramercy.ios.com (Jeff Baldwin) wrote:
> 
> >Given: Life/conciousness/mind is nothing more than chemical reactions.
> >Then:
> >1) Why/how did/does subjective perception "come to be"?

> I dunno, but I like it. Beats the alternative.

Good answer.
 
> >2) If mind and all its attributes are mere checmical reactions with
> >deterministic, material (and therefore objective) origin, then why
> >does subjective perception at times differ (and markedly so) from
> >objective reality?
> 
> Why does it seem as though  Time  as perceived subjectively varies in
> inverse proportion to the amount of time previously experienced by
> that consciousness?

[good answer snipped]

Good answer, but kind of uninteresting or at least just intuitively
obvious. What is more interesting, less intuitively obvious is how time
perception works at the microscopic level. On the macroscopic level, time
is perceived (correctly) as continuous, unidirectional, and linear, and in
inverse proportion all previously experienced events perceived as
time-ordered. On the microscopic level, the linear order may get
perverted, which is not to say that it ceases to exist, only that it
cannot be perceived in correct order (at least not reliably). One might
have to limit the demominator here to just that time it took to experience
a single time-ordered series of events. At some point, the ratio will
approach 1:1, and no decision as to what came first, last, or in the
middle will be possible based on that calculation. Then, perceived
time-order is more influenced by non time-related factors, like
expectations, suggestions, etc. 

 
> Can you imagine how this effect will play itself out in the distant
> future when people will have conquered old age and disease? How long
> will a month seem to someone who is 50,000 years old?

I'm sure the process stops or slows to a crawl at some point. Does a month
seem much shorter to an 80-year-old than to a 50-year-old? Maybe a little,
but very little. 
 
> >3) Why does "the subjective" (in humans only?) strive to "objectify"
> >itself?
> 
> I dunno, but it's an interesting subject. This reminds of author Tom
> Robbins' conceit; he wondered how the human brain could ever be
> objective when speaking of itself.

Oh sure, just ask the question again in order to drop a name!

I think the best answer to this question is given by Hume in the
_Enquiry_. Briefly and crudely, it's a "curse of nature". But for anyone
interested in this sort of stuff Hume is required reading, provided you
can stand the 18th century English. (I know there are plenty of good
contemporary exegeses out there, but it's not the same without Hume's
"attitude")

-- 
smisch@tiac.net (emoticons implied by context)

'Where in the world are lunatics allowed to bathe naked in the moonlight?' -- R.D. Laing