alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (07/12/84)
*
Re: The Origins of Consciousness
This discussion is being moved here from net.books .
When i wrote that i am not sure that i am aware of my existence,
i was being only partially droll. It seems to me that there are
different levels of consciousness.
Sometimes i am very aware of certain aspects of the external
world, and sometimes i am not. Why shouldn't the same be true of my
internal 'self'? For example, i am usually not aware that my blood
flows, that i am sitting down, that i am moving my mouth when speaking,
etc. Also, i am rarely aware of any of the processes involved when i
speak English, divide numbers, etc. Could it be said that i am more
conscious, or more aware of my existence, when i am aware of these
things? I suspect that the answer is: yes.
Going to the more controversial examples, i am rarely aware of
the reasons for most of the decisions i make in my daily life. Why am
i writing this? Why am i doing it now?
I believe that if i was more aware of what i was deciding to do,
and why, i would be more productive and successful, probably maximizing
my long-term happiness far better than i do.
I suspect that we, and many higher animals that i observe, drift
in and out of various levels of consciousness throughout the day, and
as we grow and age. And i suspect that Nature selects for those who
are more aware of their existence than others.
So, you see, i don't think that being aware of one's existence
is a binary parameter, either you are or you aren't. It seems that there
is a continuum. Maybe this is the ultimate 'measure' of intelligence.
I'd like to hear what others think about this.
Alan Algustyniak (sdccsu3!sdcrdcf!alan)
(ucbvax!ucla-vax!sdcrdcf!alan) (allegra!sdcrdcf!alan)
(decvax!trw-unix!sdcrdcf!alan) (cbosgd!sdcrdcf!alan)rbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt) (07/15/84)
> Alan Algustyniak (sdccsu3!sdcrdcf!alan) > I believe that if i was more aware of what i was deciding to do, >and why, i would be more productive and successful, probably maximizing >my long-term happiness far better than i do. Perhaps you would just spend more time thinking about totally trivial events, and never getting to higher levels of abstraction. >And i suspect that Nature selects for those who >are more aware of their existence than others. I don't think it is awareness per se which is selected for. Your consciousness acts as a filter, to detect novelty, or stimuli relevant to a problem, thought or memory. It is very valuable to ignore unimportant things (if they really are unimportant!). Tuning in to a single conversation at a loud cocktail party is one example of the filter at work (you can pick which conversation to hear). You might ignore the pain of running barefoot over rough ground (not to mention all the details of how you do it - which muscles to move and when...) if you knew that getting to a tree and up it fast might save your life. The interesting question is how do you detect novelty or relevancy? It is something that happens very fast. Analysis of eye movements in primates shows that they detect novel stimuli and track them differently in a matter of roughly 100 milliseconds. I think it is the quality of this filter which is one of the features being selected, just as better sensory and motor systems are selected in some environments (look out for the offspring of the flies that get away...). But is important to remember that nature doesn't select for single features, but for the combinations of features that genetic recombination deals out. If I had to choose one which I thought was the most important to the success of homo sapiens I would choose the adaptations related to language including changes in larynx, brain and social structure. Rich Goldschmidt cbosgd!rbg
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (07/16/84)
Rich, Thanks for your comments on the role of consciousness. The idea of a filter is one which i should have been more aware of :-) You make a good point with the idea that we need a filter to remove the awareness of a lot that is going on, so we can handle the matter at hand. I agree with you. But my idea is that this filter we all have almost always leaves us with a sub-minimal set. We are usually not aware of enough of what's going on, to make good decisions. Intense concentration on a problem, organizing out ideas on paper, and spending the time to drive the ideas into ourselves, are things which help to enlarge the filter. I think i can safely say (Even on net.philosophy?!) that the mind has only a limited capacity to be aware of its surroundings. But i get the impression that the filter i have is way too small for maximum benefit. sdcrdcf!alan
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (07/17/84)
****
The recent discussion of "mind as filter" reminds me of
something Aldous Huxley once said about that idea:
" ... The suggestion is that the function of the brain and
nervous system and sense organs is mainly *eliminative* and
not productive. Each person at each moment is capable of
remembering everything that is happening everywere in the
universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to
protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of
largely irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we
should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and
leaving only that very small and special selection which is
likely to be practically useful." According to such a theory ,
each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as
we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To
make biological survival possible Mind at Large has to be
funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous
system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle
of the kind of consciousness whic will help us to stay alive
on the surface of this particular planet. To formulate and
express the contents of this reduced awareness, many has
invented and endlessly elaborated those symbol-systems and
implicit philosophies which we call languages. Every
individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the
linguistic tradition into which he has been born -- the
beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the
accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim
is so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced
awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense
of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for
data, his words for actual things.[1]
____________________
[1] Aldous Huxley *The Doors of Perception*, Harper Colophon books.
1954. pps 22-23.
Don Steiny
Personetics
109 Torrey Pine Terr.
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
(408) 425-0382
ucbvax!hplabs!pesnta!scc!steiny
harpo!fortune!idsvax!scc!steinyjim@ism780b.UUCP (07/25/84)
#R:sdcrdcf:-119600:ism780b:27500018:000:874 ism780b!jim Jul 18 00:05:00 1984 > I suspect that we, and many higher animals that i observe, drift > in and out of various levels of consciousness throughout the day, and > as we grow and age. And i suspect that Nature selects for those who > are more aware of their existence than others. Thise is a really warped view of evolution. Man is not the most selected for, not the latest species to be developed, not the most complex organism. There are millions of other species out there. Each is the pinnacle of its own evolutionary path. Most of them are more stable than man. Ants have been selected over and over and over for millions of years. They evolved into an extremely selectable state. Man is just an experiment, and it looks like he is about to select himself right out of existence. I found the rest of your article pretty sensible. -- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)