>>> Defining consciousness and looking for it's equivalent in DNA would suit=
my
>>> purposes best.
>>So go for it! What are you waiting for?
>>Despite evidence to the contrary, I can't do all the talking here on CoV
>>all the time. In fact, I'm going to slip into the shadows for a time and
>>let others pick up the reins. Be good, I'll be watching you.
>>-Prof. Tim
William James
(http://wiretap.spies.com/Gopher/Library/Classic/empiricism.txt) says that:
...all conscious experiences have this in common that
what we call their content has a peculiar reference
to a centre for which 'self' is the name,
in virtue of which reference alone the content
is subjectively given, or appears....
or, that consciousness may be thought of as *content*. Then he says:
...the consciousness is one element, moment, factor -- call it
what you like -- of an experience of essentially
dualistic inner constitution, from which, if you
abstract the content, the consciousness will remain
revealed to its own eye....
or, that consciousness can be thought of as what is left when content is
removed a *context* still remains.
This world [consciousness],
just like the world of percepts, comes to us at
first as a chaos of experiences, but lines of order
soon get traced. We find that any bit of it
which we may cut out as an example is connected
with distinct groups of associates, just
as our perceptual experiences are, that these
associates link themselves with it by different
relations,(2) and that one forms the inner history
of a person, while the other acts as an impersonal
'objective' world, either spatial and temporal,
or else merely logical or mathematical,
or otherwise 'ideal.'...
He actually breaks it into three parts content (or *percepts*), context (or
*the ideal*--spatial, temporal, logical, mathematical...), and *associates*
(connections); but for arguments sake leaves out the association throughout
the paper saying that a thought contains an objective content (house) and an
objective context (the history of the house) and that consciousness is first
the one and then the other (they are both the same, the house and its
history, are both objective). =20
Above though he speaks of how--if viewed as a singularity-- consciousness
appears to first be historical context without content, "at first as a chaos
of experiences": I would like to make the connection between this chaotic
jumble and the theory of natural selection (both appearing as a chance
combination of experiences). Then, James states that (like perceptual
experiences), "these associates link themselves" into an objective
phenomenon, or thing.
So, if a life form is seen as a "history" and an "object" which is linked by
an association; then, it has all the characteristics that James considers
necessary in order that we can compare it to consciousness. The statement
"DNA is conscious" is a "pragmatic" statement which takes into account
Darwinian theory and three definitions of consciousness (consciousness as
object, as subject, and as object/subject inclusive).
So what does "pragmatic" mean? I take it to mean what I said before, that
if we can say that humans are conscious and that humans come from DNA, then
we must say that DNA is conscious (or that the relationship between humans,
DNA, and consciousness can't be separated...all are objective parts of the
same whole). As above, the history of a life form (DNA) and that life form
(a human, etc.) has an association and this association is, by definition,
consciousness.
Brett
At 05:18 PM 8/27/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
>>> Defining consciousness and looking for it's equivalent in DNA would suit=
my
>>> purposes best.
>>So go for it! What are you waiting for?
>>Despite evidence to the contrary, I can't do all the talking here on CoV
>>all the time. In fact, I'm going to slip into the shadows for a time and
>>let others pick up the reins. Be good, I'll be watching you.
>>-Prof. Tim
>Some references to theories which suggest "conscious" DNA or a design to
>evolution as opposed to--or in addition to--chance.
>I like the developmental stuff by Piaget...am still looking for more=
current
>material on self-organization.
>Brett
>After considerable thought, the only answer that I could arrive at is that
>altruism is the biological
>baseline of all the species; designed to encourage the development of the
>group, and that natural
>selection is a "maximum effort mechanism" designed to ensure the survival=
of
>the individual, which
>of course, in multiples, is the foundation of the group. The problem is not
>in the theory of natural
>selection, but in the belief of those who feel that natural selection is=
the
>overriding law of evolution
>and nothing else can replace it. Biological altruism is the very reason=
that
>we, as a civilization, are
>here. Inclusive fitness, which helped to create the clan, is the step
>between the natural selection
>maximized individual and the various groups that began to form our early
>societies. It very simply
>has to do with group cooperation vs.
>individualism.(http://www.evoyage.com/Altruism.html)
>Freud, Piaget, and Vygotsky =FE the three principal figures in the=
foundation
>of 'genetic psychology"
>=FE were all concerned, in elaborating their theories, to understand=
processes
>which can be
>conceived at one and the same time as semiotic, cognitive, and biological.
>(http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock/hbook/section3.htm#sinha2)
>If what humans do is called design, then it wouldn't be hard for the=
process
>of evolution to employ similar strategies. It's "goal" could be to reduce
>entropy, by creating more complex beings. Or it could have a "goal" of
>reducing tension between an organism and its environment...
>So now we enter the world of speculation. Under what circumstances could a
>cross-generational mechanism be employed to "design" new creatures? It
>would require: A feedback mechanism in the genes, to "recognize" how well=
an
>organism is doing; In other words, a cross-generational inner eye. Our
>genes must be parameterized, such that body size or shape, for example,
>could be adjusted by a cross-generational mechanism. In other words, if
>genes leave themselves open to be adjusted in standard ways, they could be
>employed to design creatures, given certain restrictions.=20
>A cross-generational "note pad," which could record which genetic
>parameters were altered, and how well the change worked. This information
>would be stored in the genes, to be transmitted on to later organisms. It=
is
>plausible that DNA has evolved an ability to record information into=
itself,
>perhaps employing retroviruses,which can alter human DNA.
>(http://www.objana.com/frog/evolve.html)
>br
>Returning,
>rBERTS%n
>Rabble Sonnet Retort
>Rule 46, Oxford Union Society, London:
>Any member introducing a dog into the Society's premises
>shall be liable to a fine of one pound. Any animal
>leading a blind person shall be deemed to be a cat.
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a
pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
George Bernard Shaw
=20