From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is conciousness?
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:56:40 GMT


   In article <BeJ1TB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
writes...

>isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:

>> Seriously, death isn't such a great mystery as you make it out to be. 

>We don't think that the death of the body is a mystery. 

   If you "don't think that the death of the body is a mystery" then
exactly what is your point?  Earlier you defined "conciousness" == "life".
If this is the case then "non-conciousness" == "dead".  It would help if
you would present whatever ideas you are trying to get across in a much
less ambiguous manner.

>It is a fact that if we are talking one minute to a living person and
>the next minute that person dies, we will know intuitively that
>there is something missing. We immediately think "he is gone". Who is
>"he"? The body is still there, but the person is gone. The self that
>was the object of awareness is gone. What was this self? Was it the
>beating of the heart. Was it the oxygen in the brain? Was it some
>combination of material elements? No, of course not.

   Kalki, you seem to be confusing talk.origins with a useful forum for
carrying on metaphysical discussions.  Now, although there are undoubtedly
people here who can help answer your questions, these same questions have
little or nothing to do with evolution.

   You have said you plan to present a simple straight-foward proof of
the improbability of abiogenesis.  Unfortunately, abiogenesis deals with
the question of how the first living object developed, and has nothing to
do with conciousness.  Let me rephrase, abiogenesis deals with conciousness
only if you define conciousness == life.  If you are making that assertion,
than you cannot attempt to weasel out of the questions Mark originally
put to you by claiming that "Well we are really asking about conciousness,
not death", because you have defined these concepts in relation to one
another.

>Evidently, consciousness is something very hard to understand. Therefore
>it is truly a mystery; so much of a mystery in fact that science does
>not "officially" acknowledge its existence.

   As I said above, this is really not the best forum for metaphysical
ramblings, but I will respond to this because you appear to be really
confused.

Begin metaphysical ramblings.

   Let us look at a common example, called "The Paradox of Theseus's Ship."
Theseus sets out on a 10 year Aegean-Mediterranean voyage upon his ship the
Dawntreader (apologies to C.S. Lewis fans out there).  Now wooden ships tend
to rot when exposed to water, so periodically the Dawntreader's crew would
set ashore, fell some trees, form them into beams, planks, etc., and replace
the rotting components.  At the end of the ten years, the Dawntreader returns
to Athens with all of its original constituents replaced as described above.
Now, the question to you, Kalki, is--Is the returning ship the Dawntreader?

   Be careful in answering, this is a rather knotty question.  If you say,
"No, everything has been replaced so it is not the Dawntreader", you would
find rather vocal opposition from Theseus and his crew, whom have strode the
planks of the "same" ship over the past 10 years.  Furthermore, since 10
years is more than enough time to replace all constituents in a human body,
by the same criterion you would have to admit that the returning captain is
not Theseus, or provide a more accurate distinction between the cases.

   If you say, "Yes, the returning ship is the Dawntreader", then you are
exalting the Dawntreader, surely an inanimate object, to the same status as
a living creature.  That is, you have said that an inanimate object has a
continuity regradless of its components.  This continuity is precisely
what it appears that you are defining conciousness (and hence life) to be
in you musings on "He's gone.  Gone where?"

   In either case, it would be interesting to hear your answer, but realize
that this is exactly the type of question which has been debated as long
as man has debated anything (or at least since the break down of the bicameral
mind 8^}).  While fun to discuss, it is difficult for one to believe that
even the greatest mind would come to a universally accepted manner.  No insult
intended, Kalki, but from what you have written here, it is apparent that
you, Kalki, are not the greatest mind to ever live.

End metaphysical ramblings.

>We can say what consciousness is, but first we would like your opinion:
>what is it, what happens to it after death, and why?

   I, for one, would like to see your definition.  You seem to be confusing
continuity of existence, with conciousness, with life.  To provide anything
of use, you need to do better than attempting to pass off confusion as insight.

>Kalki Dasa

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov