Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?

In article
<c86ac763-0ba8-42ff-8ceb-2a220b91969d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Treus <treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article
<b198f02a-3bb0-4382-9f56-e3d584923aff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Treus <treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Let's consider consciousness to start with. The subjective dimension
of awareness that perceives the object as distinct from itself.
Describe how that is accounted for in terms of properties the physical
brain.

I'm meditating on the key phrase in your response here:

The subjective dimension of awareness that perceives the object as
distinct from itself.

So awareness has at least one dimension, a subjective one. This
dimension perceives some object and perceives that it is distinct from
the dimension. That word salad sounds impenetrably philosophical, but it
reflects what some philosophers have shown is a beginner's view of
existence: that there is some arbitrary boundary between self and
non-self.

In other discussions on this newsgroup, teaching science is said to
require a through knowledge of the subject matter. It's really
disappointing that in the study of mind you are so ignorant of important
previous work to answer exactly this question: how does consciousness
arise in the brain?

There are sensory organs and processing centers in the brain. (In the
case of the eyes, the brain has actually extended itself into the eyes
so it can start the processing as early as possible.) Along with
long-term memory to provide a framework in which to interpret sensations
and short-term memory to tie everything together, these processes
combine to create the illusion of consciouness.

There have been plenty of instances of people injured in certain
unfortunate ways, each with damage to some specific part of their
brains, with very specific results depending on which part of the brain
was hurt.

Consciousnees is an illusion created by all the parts of the brain
working at the same time, receiving, processing, weighing and storing
information, making decisions and doing things.

Okay, that is what you believe, Do you have an empirical basis for
that belief? If so, what is it (with citations, of course)?

You're playing a nice game here, but you won't win. You make a
statement,. We rebut it. You ask us to prove our rebuttals. As we are
sure of our rebuttals, we are happy to provide references. (I'm grumpy
right now so I will just throw my vast collection of back issues of
Scientific American at you.) and then you will somehow dismiss each one
as insufficient. Meanwhile, however, the real issue at hand is ignored:

Do YOU have an empirical basis for YOUR belief that there is more to
'mind' than the brain alone? How was this empirical evidence gathered?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.

.