Jim Muth wrote:

At 11:22 PM 2/17/05 -1000, David wrote:

...

IOW, you want [the generation of self-awareness demonstrated] objectively ... Are you, perhaps, thinking of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's glorified version of selfishness? ;-)

(Let's move this to the philofractal list.)

I'll try CC this note to it, but I don't believe I'm a member of that list at the moment.

Yes, having the mechanism of the generation of self-awareness demonstrated objectively would be a great idea. If it were done subjectively, that is if it were dreamed, I doubt that it would carry much conviction. :-)

Well, for those who believe in evolution, it was first ennunciated by a poet in a poem many decades before Mr Darwin latched onto the concept as a way of rebelling against is minister-father ...

I have read a number of books about consciousness, and so far they have done more to convince me that self-awareness is not an emergent phenomenon of the brain than to convince me that it is.

I have ready one theory that consciousness is rooted in quantum phase phenomena, I think it was involving electrons at the interchanges between neurons. At this point, the technology we have for investigating quantum-level phenomoena would probably have some serious deleterious effects on the consciousness they were trying to study!

The books describe in intimate detail the inner workings of the brain in various stages of consciousness and unconsciousness. But they all invariably arrive at the point where interacting neurons must fade into the background and conscious thought emerge. At this point the writers imply, 'and then a miracle happens'. And at this point, I start thinking, 'the writer is merely spinning a lot of fancy words. He knows quite a bit about what happens in the conscious brain but he really does not know how this activity produces consciousness'.

They probably don't, at this time, but science is a PROCESS, not a destination. In that sense, science is fractal; the more iterations, the sharper a view you might get - of more and more details that you never knew were there before.

I would like the cognitive theorists to be more specific at the point of the miracle.

I'm pretty sure they would like to be more specific, too. But science is a bit more tied to facts and proof than is speculation.

It is one thing to describe what happens in the visual cortex when we observe a lovely scene; it is quite another to explain how a mushy pound or so of meat can have the awareness of the activity of its visual cortex. How can a brain be aware that it is observing a lovely scene and then feel the emotional elation? If our present methods of doing science are incapable of finding the answer, perhaps we should invent some other means of investigation.

Perhaps a fractal microscope could reveal the answer! -- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community