[MD] Computers vs. Brains

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,

Thanks, I will digest your comments.  By "soul" I am referring to that
which experiences the thinking of my brain, the beating of my heart,
the peace and "fear and loathing, desire and revulsion, joy and pain."
I have heard it described as the "witness", which works for me.
I know what part it is, for me it has a thatched quality visually,
an auditory humming, and a feeling of intense relief.  It 
may be an illusion, but it is the one thing that has been
constant in my inner experience for as long as I can remember.

I may be describing Quality for all I know.

Cheers,

Willblake2

On Apr 25, 2009, at 2:11:37 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

Greetings, Willblake2 --

I was wondering when someone would mention me in all this talk about 
"Science Wars" and such.

> I like what Ham is saying, although I do not quite understand it.
> It seams to be similar to my understanding, I think.
> "Understanding" is a function of putting enough thoughts
> together until I feel comfortable with them, and they reflect
> my personal experience; the separation of mind (consciousness)
> and matter is a difficult one.
> I just read through the string of Computers vs. Brains.
> Heavy stuff, and an age old question.

True. Yet it is a fact of our existence which cannot be dismissed. Anyone 
who tells you he hasn't a mind of his own is a fool, whether he was born one 
or just thinks like one.

"Computers vs. Brains" took me back a few weeks. When I reviewed the 
comments I realized that we weren't really discussing computers and brains 
but the nature of Consciousness. I said to Krimel on 4/6: "It takes more 
than a brain and neural synapses to create conscious awareness. 
Consciousness is the agent of Value, not an electro-mechanical device that 
can calculate and indicate decisions." To which he replied: "You are right, 
it takes more than the brain and neural synapses to create conscious 
awareness. You have to have an environment for the brain to interact with 
and a history of interaction."

You see, this is my predicament here, Willblake. MoQers tell me I'm nothing 
without my "environment" -- that this collection of inorganic, organic, and 
societal "patterns" is all I am, that I couldn't be a cognizant, thinking 
individual living alone on a desert island. Give computers the right chips 
and enough inorganic, biological, and social information, and they will one 
day do our thinking for us. This is electo-mechanical nonsense that I 
suspect would make even Pirsig wince.

> This understanding has social consequences, such as if a body is
> brain-dead, is the self dead to this world? When does a living
> organism (embryo) gain human rights? If a person cannot support
> him(her)self do we let it die. We don't do this for starving people,
> but we may for someone in a coma. We can cry, let nature take
> its way! But by preserving or destroying the embryo we are letting
> nature take its way, because we are nature itself. Our preservation
> of a person in a coma is nature taking its way. Our moral thoughts
> are nature at work.

By your reasoning, nature will have its way in any case. I believe that's 
true. But I also think man is more than nature because he can pursue goals 
that nature never intended, including creating his own environment. He 
won't "escape" nature as a being-aware, but as a value-sensible creature he 
can aspire to lofty heights intellectually, socially, esthetically, and 
scientifically. He will always confront dilemmas, such as those you 
mention, because he is denied answers to moral questions like "what aught I 
to do?" But he's equipped with an exquisite sense of value, the power of 
reason, and (most important of all) the freedom of choice. Why do you 
suppose Mr. Pirsig never said a blessed thing about these human attributes?

> If I read Ham correctly, and I apologize in advance,
> our human consciousness is a sum total of our physical
> experience plus a personal awareness that exists outside
> of that. I think this is true, otherwise we would be zombies
> where all is dark inside. This feeling (maybe a jump) leads
> me to think that all has consciousness, just not in a human sense.

The Pirsigians will cheer at your conclusion, because they believe atoms and 
rocks make conscious evaluations. While consciousness may be thought of as 
all-pervasive, it's the consciousness of the subject who experiences 
objective reality. In my ontology experience is not simply passive 
sensibility; it's the active process whereby we convert sensible value into 
the objective phenomena of our existence. Unlike the existentialists, I 
maintain that Essence is primary to existence. Value-sensibility is 
directly derived from Essence, whereas physical things and events are 
actuated by experience (a "secondary negation" in my creation hypothesis).

> Is there a big difference between our brains and an ant hill?
> Both require extensive communication, both are adapting to
> the environment on a minute by minute basis. If the ant hill
> (or beehive) analogy is to be useful, there must be a queen ant
> (or bee) around which everything is centered. Is there such a
> queen nerve cell? Is there a seat of the soul? ...

All living organisms, including bacteria and protoplasmic cells, have 
"sensibility" which enables them to react to the environment. The human 
brain and nervous system integrates information from many sources to produce 
cognizant awareness that is proprietary to the individual. Thus, the 
central nervous system may be properly called the "seat of awareness". I'm 
not sure what the "soul" is supposed to mean, but I would say that 
value-sensibility is the "essential self".

> At the risk of being nihilist, I don't believe this consciousness
> is anything purposeful, and it brings me peace to just be part of it.

I'm glad consciousness brings you peace. It also brings you fear and 
loathing, desire and revulsion, joy and pain. Consciousness is your 
personal identity with all its intimate feelings. Without it you could not 
function or exist as a human being.

> Ham, I'm sure you have provided the address for the thesis,
> but could you provide it again? I'll try to read it.

Gladly. The website is www.essentialism.net. The thesis page is 
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm. Please feel free to come back with 
questions after you've digested it. Or, if you're really interested, you 
can purchase my book on line at 
http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=41654 . 
.

And thanks for keeping me in mind, Willblake.

Essentially yours,
Ham


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/