RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
June 2, 2014 at 9:07 pm
(This post was last modified: June 2, 2014 at 9:25 pm by bennyboy.)
(June 2, 2014 at 8:14 pm)Chas Wrote:You forgot to say, "You have no evidence to support your thought experiment." OR to acknowledge that I gave a sensible alternative-- that there is a "critical mass" of complexity under which a system could (non-arbitrarily, mind you) no longer be said to have even a tiny spark of awareness. You know what would be fun? Since you so confidently assert what mind is-- a function of complexity-- then YOU explain why you think this to be so, and precisely what kind and amount of complexity is required.(June 2, 2014 at 5:47 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If it's a gray scale, and not a critical mass, then you'd expect to get down to either two neuron or to a single neuron, and this should represent the most basic unit of (very primitive) possible awareness. Does anyone here disagree with this?
Yes, I utterly disagree. Your argument is absurd.
(June 2, 2014 at 8:10 pm)rasetsu Wrote: We don't know the minimum requirements for each function. What we do know is that damage to specific areas of the brain correlates strongly with specific deficits of functioning. This implies that those aspects of consciousness are associated with those aspects of the brain. Map them all and there isn't a heck of a lot left over to be explained.Sure there is. What is left over to be explained is why arranging cells into those structures causes the existence of qualia. Since the sections you are talking about can be damaged, and often still have a partially-functioning person, I would say they are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain consciousness. So first, I'd want to find out what part IS responsible, and then start pulling neurons one by one. At what exact point does that switch go off between "something happening" and "nothing here but oblivion"?
(June 2, 2014 at 6:15 pm)pocaracas Wrote: That's not what I said, and no, I wouldn't expect such a thing.Yes, and it's kind of what I have in mind. In this case, the function of the mind deteriorates along with the brain. Since I'm investigating Chas's idea that mind is a function of complexity, and since the deterioration of brain function in Alzheimer's is an example of exactly that, I want to know at exactly what point there is no longer anything there.
Gray scale, fading to darkness while there are still some structures (as in lots and lots of neurons) connected and ticking... Ever heard of Alzheimer's?
I think even after a person forgets their family, or their own name, or even that they are a human being, there is still "something there." They are moving down that gray scale toward a kind of raw, contentless state. And yet, they still have neuronal activity, chemical activity, atomic and subatomic activity. We still haven't identified the specific subtrate that is minimally sufficient and necessary for there to be "something there" rather than complete oblivion.
