From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:51:43 GMT


   In article <8Vi5TB11w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
writes...

   First an apology to others out there who replied to this earlier.  I
suggested that you may have bowlderized Kalki's original responses.  After
reading the original it is clear that Kalki's original response was truly
vacuous, and needed no aid from others in this regard.

>brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov writes:

>> Earlier you defined "conciousness" == "life".  If this is the case then
>> "non-conciousness" == "dead".

> We said that life is conscious, not that life is consciousness.

   I stand corrected, still confused, but corrected.  Are you claiming that
life partakes in some quality called consciousness, which means that life is
conscious?  Since this distinction is still not entirely clear, would you
explicate further?  In particular would you comment on the statement, "Life
is the presence of consciousness", pointing out areas of
agreement/disagreement?

>>    Kalki, you seem to be confusing talk.origins with a useful forum for
>> carrying on metaphysical discussions.

> Ok. Then what is the (talk.)origin of consciousness? Of course, first we
> will need to decide what consciousness is.

   Just as an aside, this is still metaphysics.  Now, if you would care to
provide a method of quantifying consciousness, we would all happily leave the
realm of misty metaphysics, and commence with a scientific discussion.  If
such a methodology cannot be provided, then we are back to my original
comment that talk.origins is not the best forum you could seek, because
talk.origins is not designed as a forum for mere metaphysical speculation.*

>> Unfortunately, abiogenesis deals with the question of how the first living
>> object developed, and has nothing to do with conciousness.

>I see. So you think that all our posts should be about the same thing.
>We are not supposed to deal with more than one issue. Is that it?

   Fair enough question, Kalki.  Let me start by answering in a way that
you should find hauntingly familiar...

   Why all this offense, Kalki?  I have made a simple statement, not intended
to cause any rancor yet you have chosen to read it in such a manner.  Such
sensitivity to harmless questions smacks of over-reaction.  Of course, I
always expect such behavior from those trapped by the doctrines of Political
Correctness.

   Having got that out of the way, let me provide an answer that goes beyond
the trivial and insulting (and I would hope someday you would choose to do the
same)...

   I asked simply because I was confused Kalki.  Believe it or not, some
people actually don't understand the exact ideas you are trying to convey.
In such instances a common means of achieving understanding is to ask
questions.  I am sorry if this mode of human intercourse is unfamiliar to
you.

   Since you popped up, you have launched two threads: 1) What is
conciousness, and 2) Probability and evolution.  In the first of these you
have stated that all life is conscious.  In the second you are claiming that
a mechanistic answer to the origin of life is improbable.  I have assumed from
these two topics that you would also claim that a mechanistic answer to the
origins of consciousness is also improbable, or that the reason that
mechanisitic abiogenesis must be faulty is because mechanistic abiogenesis
doesn't include consciouness.

   If I am mistaken about both surmises about where you were going, I
apologize.  If such is the case, however, than the thread "What is
consciousness?" is purely metaphysical speculation having nothing to do with
either creationism or evolution, and you may be better served by taking it to
a news.group where pure metaphysics is the subject.*

>> Begin metaphysical ramblings.

>> [The Paradox of Theseus's Ship, deleted.]

>> Now, the question to you, Kalki, is--Is the returning ship the Dawntreader?
 
>The name of the ship is whatever its proprietor names it. Since you call
>it Theseus' ship, then Theseus can give you an authoritative answer.

   I am sorry that the question I asked was not more clear.**  I would like
you to comment on whether the returning ship Dawntreader is the same
Dawntreader that Theseus departed aboard.  Let me further explicate this.

   You have said that when a person dies one might say, "He is gone", and
that we instinctively feel that this person's consciousness has fled.  Now,
in the example above, we have Theseus, a human being, who departs for a ten
year voyage.  When the voyage ends, Theseus goes back to Athens.  We
instinctively know that the returning Theseus is the same Theseus that left,
even though all of the physical constituents of the original Theseus have
been replaced.  Thus, when one says, "Theseus has returned," we are talking
about that mystical "He"-ness of Theseus that you make such great hay with
above.  My question is does the Dawntreader have a mystical "She"-ness***
related to it, such that when it returns people would say, "THE Dawntreader
has returned."?

   You see, Kalki, this question has double-edged intention.  First, in an
attempt to honestly answer the question "What is conciousness?", I am
trying to discern what exactly your question is asking.  You do not accept
the standard dictionary definitions of the word, which implies that you are
looking for a non-standard answer.  As such, my only means of getting near
to an answer is to try and discern exactly what it is you want us to define.

   Second, this is a small demonstration of my central thesis that this
thread would be better suited moving to a different news.group.*  I am, at
best, a poetaster with regards to philosophy.  I can point you to the initial
questions, and some of the most likely followups (such as Theseus's ship),
but beyond that you would have a clear example of the blind leading the
blind.  If you leave the question as framed, you should not hope for too
much more from talk.origins****.  You have left the bounds of expertise in
this news.group.  This would make your question appear to be an attempt at
proselytizing and not communication.

>Kalki Dasa

* I am not telling Kalki that he/she/they is/are not welcome on t.o.  I am
  merely pointing out, that if he/she/they truly seeks/seek answers to the
  question of "What is consciousness?" there may be more fruitful avenues
  of exploration.  This advice may be freely ignored, as I have ignored
  similiar advice in the past.

** I am giving Kalki the benefit of the doubt here.  I do not feel that
   the question and its followup explication were unclear, and this position
   is buttressed by other posters (e.g., Ray Ingles) understanding what
   question I was actually asking.

*** For some reason ships are always "She".  If Kalki chooses to claim that
    ships are not viewed in this manner, I would recommend that he visit
    any reunion of mariners or a decommissioning ceremony.

**** I am not claiming that I am the only or the best person on talk.origins
     to discuss metaphysics with.  I am claiming that the best people with
     this knowledge are either not taking part in talk.origins, or are here
     for reasons unrelated to their field of expertise.  Furthermore, from
     what Kalki has written to date, it is my belief that a trained
     metaphysician would hand Kalki his lunch in relatively short order.

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins