Social construction of the self is incompatible with natural selection. 2012/8/15 Roger <rclo...@verizon.net>
> Hi Bruno Marchal > > I disagree about the self not being a social contruct. > > It must at least be partly so, for to my mind, the self > is your memory, and that includes to some extent the world. > > And the self includes what your think your role is. > At home a policeman may just be a father, but > when he puts on his uniform and stops a car for > speeding, he's a different person. > > > Roger , rclo...@verizon.net > 8/15/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-08-14, 11:03:48 > *Subject:* Re: on tribes > > > On 14 Aug 2012, at 14:42, Roger wrote: > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > I think that your soul is your identity in the form of point of view. > > > I agree. I use almost that exact definition. > > > > As we grow up we begin to define or find ourselves not out of any great > insight but pragmatically, out of choosing what tribe we belong to. > We define ourselves socially and culturally. We wear their indian > feathers or display their tattoes and are only friendly to our own tribe > or gang. So a liberal won't listen to a conservative and vice versa. > It greatly simplifies thinking and speaking, and is a dispeller of > doubt and tells us with some apparent certainty on who we are. > > > OK, but that is not the root of the first person self, which can still > exist even when completely amnesic. > If not you make the first person "I" a social construct, which it is not. > > Bruno > > > > > So Roger , rclo...@verizon.net > 8/14/2012 > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-08-12, 10:47:23 > *Subject:* Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain > > > On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: > > brain objective and modular > mind subjective and unitary > > > OK. You can even say: > brain/body: objective and doubtable > soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable > > > > > The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. > > > Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, > but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong > assumption like mechanism. > > > > > I believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe > is the monad. It is the eye of the universe, although for us we > can only perceive indirectly. > > > I am open to this. The monad would be the "center of the wheel", or the > fixed point of the doubting consciousness. > > The machines already agree with you on this : ) > (to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) > definition of belief, knowledge, etc.) > > See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally > correct machine: > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > > Bruno > > > > Roger , rclo...@verizon.net > 8/12/2012 > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-08-11, 09:52:29 > *Subject:* Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated! > > On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >> On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or > >>> unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the > >>> total. > >> > >> This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point > >> which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including > >> mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts, > >> you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very idea > >> of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be > >> realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have > >> stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I think > >> that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'. > >> > > > > With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not follow, > > I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his > > "pandemonia" theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious > > process, working disparately, solve different aspects of the problems > > at hand, or provide different courses of action. The purpose of > > consciousness is to select from among the course of action > > presented by the pandemonium of subconscious processes - admittedly > > consciousness per se may not be necessary for this role - any unifying > > (aka reductive) process may be sufficient. > > > > The reason I like this, is that it echoes an essentially Darwinian > > process of random variation that is selected upon. Dawinian evolution > > is the key to any form of creative process. > > > The brain parts I was talking about must be enough big and integrated, > like an half hemisphere, or the limbic system, etc. What I said should > not contradict Daniel Dennett "pandemonia" or Fodor modularity theory, > which are very natural in a computationalist perspective. > Only sufficiently "big" part of the brain can have their own > consciousness as dissociation suggests, but also other experience, > like splitting the brain, or the removing of half brain operation(*) > suggest. > The sleeping or paralysis of the corpus callosum can also leads to a > splitting consciousness, and people can awake in the middle of doing > two dreams at once. This consciousness multiplication does echoed > Darwinian evolution as well, I think. > Yet, I am not sure that Darwin evolution is a key to creativity. It > might be a key to the apparition of creativity on earth, but > creativity is a direct consequence of Turing universality. Emil Post > called creative his set theoretical notion of universal probably for > that reason: the fact that universal machine can somehow contradict > any theories done about them, and transform itself transfinitely often. > Or look at the Mandelbrot set. The formal description is very simple > (less than 1K), yet its deployment is very rich and grandiose. It > might be creative in Post sense, and most natural form, including > biological, seem to appear in it. So very simple iteration can lead to > creative process, and this echoes the fact that consciousness and > creativity might appear more early than we usually thought. > > I was of course *not* saying that all parts of the brain are > conscious, to be clear, only big one and structurally connected. > > Bruno > > (*) See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSu9HGnlMV0 > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to > everything-list@googlegroups.com.<+everything-list@googlegroups.com.> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ > unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. <+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
