On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely
with
"evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?
I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same consciousness. It is
evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this is not the case (thus my
previous rant).
If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that consciousness if not
shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.
I guess you mean "is not shared".
But are you not conscious right now, we do share the experience of being conscious,
even if we don't share the exact same relative contents.
But I'm not conscious of you being conscious.
Brent
You are. Here you kid yourself. Even without comp we can say you are deluding yourself
here. You have "mirror neurons" which link your consciousness to that of another. You
cannot experience the experience of another but you will come as close to experiencing
it as you can without actually experiencing it - via mirror neurons.
If something like mirror neurons were not present in the human brain, nobody would
bother with anyone else at all as humans would not be in any way interesting to one
another and everyone would revert to their visceral mistrust of one another.
How about mirror gonads? I think that'd work too.
If you have ever watched a porno and found yourself getting aroused by what the people
onscreen were doing - that's mirror neurons at work. We are all one person sharing
one vast, utterly vast consciousness.
They link my neurons to others the same way they link my neurons to rocks - through
perception. You do realize when watching a porno that it's an image on a screen. No
neurons are involved, except yours.
But neurons were clearly involved by others in the making of the image by the
participants onscreen, clearly. You are introducing the time postulate which would seem
to break the link between the two consciousnesses. I don't think it does. The
information about neuronal excitation (hence consciousness) is present however, EVEN
when it's only a movie.
Information about bodily positions is usually in the video - but information about
neuronal excitations? Was that there in the visuals before anybody knew about neurons?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
