Comments on: My Semi-Conscious Mind

By: keebler2012

keebler2012 — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:28:10 +0000

I’m not sure why there was such immediate aversion to the essay fragment that was posted. Getting past the potentially awkward tone of the author, just look at the ideas. Are you fully aware of EVERYTHING at this moment? No? Are you completely oblivious to EVERYTHING at this moment? No? Well then, you must be to some degree semi-aware. If you disagree with that or other ideas, well, let’s focus on them in particular and not simply throw up reactionary flags.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:00:06 +0000

I know perfectly well that I shouldn't be reading blogs, much less commenting upon them, but I thought there might be something more to this than holding one of an infinitude of fools up to ridicule.

"Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town?"

Mark Twain, Huckleberry Finn, used as an introduction to The Fools in Town Are on Our Side by Ross Thomas, now perhaps the slogan of the Republican majority.

By: Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Teresa Nielsen Hayden — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:07:57 +0000

No, no. People acting like bicycles happens because of the bouncing. It’s the atoms. After years of bumping over rough roads, the rider has exchanged so many atoms with his bicycle that he starts to take on its characteristics, and can be seen parking himself by leaning up against walls.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:19:17 +0000

For example, in reference to Shai’s post, Donald Davidson argues from a (relatively) consistent physicalist perspective that mental events are identical with physical events, yet cannot be subsumed under physical descriptions. You can be a property dualist and a substance monist. Indeed, I tend to think that if you have the same Kantian motivations as Davidson, you’d better be exactly that. The email however, looks to me like a religious nut (pace des).

By: Shai

Shai — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:32:07 +0000

“To me consciousness is nothing but a cause-effect chain of events purely explainable by matter and physical laws. But then I expect these to be the views of most people here.” it depends what kinds of inferences you make from physicalism (a substance monism). the way the “nothing but” claim is framed tends to cause some people to get entangled in weird ideas about determinism and the human will. (similar to but different from people like Kurt Vonnegut who are also a little bit crazy and solipsistic, but driven more by pessimism about human nature than “we’re meatbag robots” talk)

By: AAB

AAB — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:36:42 +0000

I would think there is a spectrum of consciousness starting from a system with a mere reaction to an input (for example a transistor where the level of voltage on one end (the gate) determines the current flow from the source to the drain terminals) to a highly complex system (which is yet constrained by the physical laws) as our brain. There may even be a higher level of cousciousness. To me consciousness is nothing but a cause-effect chain of events purely explainable by matter and physical laws. But then I expect these to be the views of most people here.

By: pierre

pierre — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:28:08 +0000

Looks like somebody’s ripping off Gurdjieff/Ouspensky. No reason to give those guys credit for every spontaneous outbreak of emanational theology. Every couple years another group of the locals trips over an archetype, just like the hominids finding the black monolith in “2001” … this time it’s one of the gnostic monoliths. Nothing to see here. Move along. Actually, if John Holbo is reading this, he should be interested to know that Neal Adams is convinced of a very similar idea. (It’s on his website. Look for the plate tectonics sections.)

By: The Eradicator!

The Eradicator! — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:23:30 +0000

Well, it is true that atoms “make up all things of matter from rocks to humans.” Hence, consecutively and consequentially, you can safely infer that you are made of atoms yourself and so is your fob pocket and the tail of your shirt and the instrument you use for taking the leavings out of the crook of your hollow tooth. Which explains why some people act like bicycles.

By: Mary Kay

Mary Kay — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:42:29 +0000

My husband is a physicist and used to work at Lawrene Livemore Laboratory. They got the people who invented Whole New Theories of Physics. Not to mention Grand Unified Field Theories. I went with him to visit the guy who had figured out All About Magnetism! Really really scary, though probably harmless, dude. MKK

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:56:59 +0000

So, most everything is somewhat conscious, to some degree or other? Sounds like he’s been reading David Chalmers! Are you sure he’s not a U. Arizona Grad student?

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:11:28 +0000

I’m not sure I understand the point of this post Are you sure you should be reading blogs?

By: des

des — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:34:53 +0000

Well, my mind is notoriously bent way out of shape, but “semi-conscious” in that seems to be doing much the same work as “finite” in the existential tradition. (Although I am by no means claiming that you would treat Kierkegaard or Heidegger with more respect, perish the thought.) And I, for one, demand rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:50:49 +0000

I’ve programmed drunk (for my private use, not professionally) with results not substantially inferior to my usual output. One of my best inventions sprang itself upon me in the course of one of the worst hangovers I’ve ever endured. The clarity of one’s consciousness is generally less important than one’s understanding of the task at hand. That being said, I’m not sure I understand the point of this post. It put me in mind of the old line, “I’ve been thrown out of better places than this!”

By: luci phyrr

luci phyrr — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:35:59 +0000

Scientology, maybe? “Clears” have perfect memory and judgement – might qualify as fully conscious under the correspondent’s rubric. Or maybe he’s high.

By: rps

rps — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:10:36 +0000

Looks like somebody’s ripping off Gurdjieff/Ouspensky. There are some strange people into that stuff.