Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test

From: 1Z <>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:31:42 -0700

Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >> The problem is that cells are defined and understood only through being
> >> observed with our phenomenal consciousness.
> >
> > Not "only". Cognition and instrumentation are needed too.
> Yes. But the instruments are observed. All the instruments do is extend
> the causal chain between your phenomenality and the observed phenomena.
> Provided you can justify the causal source...all is OK... but that's part
> of the critical argument process using existing knowledge. The observer is
> fundamentally in the causal chain from the deepest levels all the way
> through all of the instrumentation and into the sensory systems of the
> observer. The observer is part of every observation.

Hmmm. Are you sure? Is an earthbound astronomer fundamentally
part of a supernovca which exploded millionsof years ago ? What
do you mean by "fundamentally" ?

> > Why not? Cars cannot understand themselves, but they
> > cannot understand anything else. The fact that the brain
> > is being refelexively usd to understand itself is
> > a unique feature of cosnciousness studies,
> > but it is not clear why it make cosnciousness studies flatly
> > impossible.
> > You might expect it to make the study of consiousness
> > easier, in sone respects.
> >
> The current literature has traced the conscious processes of primordial
> emotions (those related to the 'appetites'/homeostasis) out of the cortex
> to the basal areas and into the reptilian brain. This has been done
> empirically.
> Derek Denton
> The primordial emotions: The dawning of consciousness
> Phenomenal consciousness does not need a cortex to exist. It does not need
> an explicit self model or reflexivity/indexicality. The "I" of a lizard
> can be implicit (it hurts 'ME', I am hungry, I need air etc...ergo
> behave).
> This means that single neurons and/or small groups of neurons are all that
> is needed for _phenomenal_ consciousness.
> 'Consciousness' is therefore at least traced back through the vertebrate
> line of evolution and to the very origins of the basal brain structures.
> This supports the potential for cosnciousness in possibly in invertebrates
> and back to single cell animals...
> Consciousness is not a 'high level' emergent property of massive numbers
> of neurons in a cortex context. It is a fundamental property of matter
> that single excitable cells make good use of that is automatically
> assembled along with assembling cells in certain ways.

There are a number of leaps there. from "basal" areas
to "single neurons", for instance.

> cheers
> colin hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Sep 28 2006 - 14:32:48 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST