killer blade, all,
I couldn't agree more. This is an exciting new area of scientific
endeavor, and I think that it will continue to grow in importance. My first
experience with it was through a book: Complexity by M. Waldrop. A very
readable book about the Santa Fe Institute and its founding. As I read it,
I kept getting these flashes of ZAMM. Here is a whole new area of
scientific research more or less dedicated to "emergent, holistic, and
subjective" problems.
In the early 90's I was working on a project which lead to my reading this
book. Something clicked and I went back and reread ZAMM substituting
"quality recognition" for quality. This clarified things for me. I now
strongly believe that quality recognition and the mechanisms by which this
occurs is the key to understanding the complex dynamics of our world. The
evolution of complex patterns of interacting particles, molecules, organic
chemistry, life forms, and finally entities with minds with various levels
of consciences, all can be viewed as being some physical mechanism with the
general cyclic form:
- quality recognition
- response action
- propagation|reinforcement|capture|inclusion|integration of recognized
quality
This is just a piece of this new science and only hints at the possibilities
that this new science could open up. I think it will be of vast importance
and will emerge as a central theme of 21st century research.
Consciences, I believe, can only be understood by looking at the evolution
of the brain.
Primitive brains (insects etc.) are mostly hardwired quality
recognition/action mechanisms. They cannot learn new patterns of behavior.
New models and behaviors are only obtained through evolution. Some animals
brains evolved do allow more flexibility of action by the introduction of
the ability to vary behavior in limited ways to better respond to their
environment. In other creatures brains evolved the capabilities of building
extremely flexible and varied behaviors to fit entirely new environmental
situations. Mammals,and of course humans, are in this group. It appear
that the brain needs a model of its self in order to build complex behaviors
which include its self (and others as well). Consciences, then can be
viewed as a direct result of our (and any other intelligent entity's ability
to build complex behavior models. A big question is what level of behavior
model complexity leads to what level of consciences? That's my hypothesis.
It works well for me, and I'll keep it until something better comes along,
and it usually does. I really would like to get a discussion going along
these lines.
Since the 19th century a few people had a feeling that something was
fundamentally wrong with the Western approach to understanding. In the 70's
a man wrote a book which better identified the problem's source and nature.
In the 80's the Santa Fe Institute made the study of emergent, holistic, and
subjective problems acceptable within the world of science. Since then
steady slow progress has been made, and I think that ZAMM had a little part
in it. I know it did for me.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: killer blade <killerblade@fcuk-me.co.uk>
To: <moq_focus@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 6:52 AM
Subject: MF Consciousness
>
> >to the MOQ focus, cause MOD is getting too chaotic in my opinion.
> >Maybe, I don't know if there's already a topic for February, I could
> >contribute by sharing some remarks I made on Pirsigs MOQ, concerned >with
> >Conscioussnes (and personality)
> >
> >Marc
> >
>
> Consciousness. Seems like a good place to start. It's the "hard question"
that every neurologist and many physicists want to answer.
>
>
> So first define the problem:
>
> The problem is that neither science nor philosophy currently has a
satisfactory way of describing consciousness nor of making it fit into a
metaphysical paradigm.
>
>
> Some background:
>
> Science in the seventeenth century was about the detached study of
objective reality. Its whole credo rested on the exclusion of subjective
phenomena, which follows from Descartes distinction between mind and matter
and from Newton's preoccupation with matter as the proper object of
scientific inquiry. Consciousness played no role in Newton's physics.
>
> However, since then, with the rise of psychology and the brain sciences in
the twentieth century, mind has become an acceptable target for scientific
study. BUT these studies have applied the assumptions, standards and
procedures of physical science to a phenomenon that is, in large part,
emergent, holistic, and subjective. So we did develop a large body of
information about neurons, the effect of drugs on brain capabilities and the
*mechanics* of perception etc, however the *process* of consciousness was
still neglected. As Alan Watts put it, they were eating the menu instead of
the dinner.
>
>
> More recently:
>
> Theories such as relativity, quantum physics and chaos, have contributed
to a changed understanding of matter. Matter is now widely conceived of as a
process itself, as patterns of dynamic energy. The extent to which its
properties can be measured objectively is often in question. Science is now
coming to terms with uncertainty, ambiguity and the importance of context
and relationship.
>
>
> So the answer to the problem of consciousness is:
>
> I don't know. But reintegrating the study of the mind with the study of
the body, ie subjective and objective paradigms seems to be the direction to
go in.
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> **Short Advert**
> Web Hosting & Domain Names
> http://www.smackhosting.com
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
>
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:34 BST