Ourcellves? (Identity)

by GateKeeper , Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 13:08 (3664 days ago) @ romansh

The problem with throwing in consciousness into the defintion we end up debating whether consciousness exists, is it simply an after-the-fact phenomenon or does it actually control stuff. The latter is a classical dualist position.
>-true. But for me it is all we have right now. We do not know what "consciousness" is. The brain can make choices within the frame work of its design. Until we do know what it is the word "phenomena" fits.
 
I think there is feedback loops everywhere so these loops should not be talked about as a fix state or "it is this". When the first neuron cells fire, they keep firing. The cells and the firing effect each other for the operational life of the machine. The frame work of the cell does affect how the transmitters will "lock on". How the transmitters "lock on" will affect how the cells "fire". We could keep going down or up, but we are fixed at the cell level here and it is good enough for what we do know (more accurate to say what we don't know).-'dualist" or not does not pin an answer down. First discuss what we have then fit the philosophical view to it. The "dualist" or the "monist" do not have enough information to pin the answer on the philosophical view. Rather the "answer" is the answer and philosophical view is an afterthought (phenomena).- 
> > There is no "independent from"
> sums it up pretty nicely.
> 
> With or without Within constraints I'm not sure it clarifies anything for me.->>-It doesn't for me either. But I don't think we have enough information to have it as clarified as we would like. That causes some of us to be uneasy, unsettled, maybe even a tad anxious. It does me anyway.-The good news is that this "uneasiness" motivates us to keep looking. "Q" from star trek comes to mind for me. The unknown may give some "A purpose".