>Surely the "I" that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist >outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real.
Its real in the same way that a whirlpool is real -- it has a form and appears to be a "thing" even though the matter in it changes every second. It's a temporary pattern with no fixed or permanent substance. It's probably the result of a feedback loop -- all creatures, even single celled ones, can to some extent recognise patterns in their environment. At some level of development sufficiently complex creatures begin to turn that pattern recognition ability on themselves -- they can recognize patterns in their own behavior. Its what makes higher learning possible. But that also means that you're feeding the output of the system back into the system. That, I think, is a very simple description of what we call conciousness. It doesn't require anyting mystical or immaterial to explain it. To re-introduce those things is simply to try to hang on to some illusion that there is something special about us -- that we are somehow transcendet of the material universe. We're no t. We're matter arranged in very compelx patterns that were themselves the product of evolution. "Real", in the context of science, means that it has consequences. If you posit the existence of some "immaterial" thing -- call it soul or whatever -- then you have to say, these are the consequences we can expect if this thing exists and this is how -- at least in principle -- we can test those consequence. A real scientific theory has to be falsifiable. There has to be some evidence that, if it were found, would disprove the idea. And the problem with non-material, invisible, undetectable soul stuff is that no matter what we find out about the brain, the believer will just say that we haven't learned to detect it yet. But the real clincher is that we don't need it. It's not necessary to explain conciousness or anthying else about humans -- its only necessary to make us feel special, like believing we were the center of the universe made us feel special. ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Eddy<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion<mailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 8:07 PM Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Olin Elliott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com<mailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com>> >Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:54 AM >Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy >The "I" that perceives is not anything -- its an illusion, a trick of >perception and >memory. It doesn't exist -- there is not fixed self. >Buddha knews that 2500 years ago, ?>and modern science is showing him >right. Hi Olin, Surely the "I" that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. If matter couldn't exist outside this universe, would that mean that matter is an illusion? Software can't run outside a computer, does that mean it's not real? What exactly does real mean? Regards, Wayne. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l<http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l> _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
