Hi Everyone,
I've recently joined the list and am in the process of getting
up-to-speed. Before I comment on specific posts, I would like to share
two related thoughts I have had on the subject -- What defines "me"???
First off, I would like to mention work done by a pioneering Canadian
neural psychologist named Penfield. Penfield was the first to explore the
brain through electrical stimulation. Penfield would pick a spot on the
brain, create an electrical current, and observe the effect on the
patient. Penfield found brain areas related to emotion, motor control,
and memory. He would provide an electric current and the subject would
experience a strong emotion, would move a body part, or have a vivid
memory. It seems as though there is a part of the brain that stores
memory and that one could hypothetically copy.
The more interesting finding of Penfield was that all these things the
patient did, felt, or experienced was involuntary. When Penfield fired a
neuron that caused the patients arm to move, Penfield asked, "Why did you
move your arm?". The patient replied, "I did not move it... You did!".
Furthermore, Penfield could stimulate an emotion, but he could not change
the person's interpretation of the emotion. This strengthened Penfield's
belief in a soul. To me, this affirms that there are aspects to reality
beyond matter.
Now on to my second tidbit. I am afraid of going on a limb here. Although
I thought of this, I am unsure if I believe it myself. I have tried to
*prove* that consciousness is necessarily beyond SO matter....
Step 1. There exists an unique, solitary, indivisible entity called "I".
This is where we step out of SOM. Be not a scientist but an
experiencer. Take a deep breath. Ask yourself, "Did I feel that?".
Count backwards from 10 to 1 and ask yourself. "Did I think that". That
is the "I" am referring to. There are billions of possible experiences,
but all relate to a solitary "I". The one that feels ones breath is the
one that hears ones thoughts. That is why we refer to someone as some
one.
Step 2. SOM assumption. Reality is only made of matter and energy.
Step 3. "I" must somehow be defined in terms of matter and energy. (From
1 and 2).
Step 4. A tiny unit of matter and energy does not contain (define) "I".
It is would be absurd to think of I as a tiny molecule of matter and
energy. Otherwise, it would be possible for a tiny molecule to be removed
from my body and I would be removed. People do not lose consciousness,
control of their body, or die if a tiny molecule is extracted from or
naturally expelled by their body. What was once life-giving oxygen in my
brain has likely been exhaled.
Step 5. I can only be identified/defined by a macro system (recipe) of
matter and energy not specific to any part.
If I am not a tiny part of the body, I must be some synergetic
collection of tiny parts. For example, I might have been created by
(and defined as) a collection of oxygen, DNA, blood, and proteins fused
together within a temperature range. I am defined by some recipe of
life that scientists may -- or may not -- one day uncover.
Step 6. Anything only defined as a recipe can be reproduced.
Because I am not specific to any tiny part, I am reproducible.
Hypothetically, one could collect all the molecules of my body as they
were sweated, excremented, etc, arrange them properly and add some form of
energy to reconstruct a perfect clone of me at some previous time.
Step 7. Step 6. Contradicts step 1.
There is only "I". Even if we could make perfect clones, each would have
his/her own experiences. Therefore, the definition of each must allow for
uniqueness. Because of the contradiction, materialism fails!! Assume
that "I" could be something unique and beyond matter, and the
contradiction disappears.
If anyone can, please find the logical flaw. It makes complete sense to
me, but the implications are so profound that I must have missed
something!
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:35 GMT