Re: Which part of the brain is conscious?

[John Kineman <***>]

Hi everyone, I'm hoping to get back into this discussion in the future. 
For now, I'll just drop-in now and again.

I would modify this statement only slightly, to say as you replace the 
parts and change the organization you would gradually get a different 
kind of consciousness, commensurate with the new organization. If the 
complex organization is replaced with a simple one (i.e., the Borg 
machinery), then the consciousness present will be reduced, just as 
mechanism is a reduction of complexity in theory, i.e., to only the 
aspect of consciousness that has to do with pure material existence 
itself - nothing higher than that. The consciousness of iron, for 
example, is limited to the function/thought of its own nature/existence 
as the properties of iron (i.e., the only intrinsic function is to be 
Iron, and without that function it would exist only in an uncertain 
state, or actually not exist as iron).  This fundamental complexity of 
existence cannot be replaced with a machine, so at that point the origin 
of the parts themselves prevent the final loss of complexity. This 
resolves the paradox of ending up with something that can't exist - pure 
mechanism. It also removes any basic conflict at the roots of science 
and the purest pre-dogmatic spiritual traditions, where the most basic 
function/thought inherent in everything is (again using human language) 
"I am."  Rosen didn't, at least in his science, take it to that end, but 
I think it is a logical extension of the idea that everything is in a 
complex relationship with its possible functions, and that at least one 
such function must always exist that is related to the origin of the 
system being talked about. I think of that function as intrinsic to the 
system, whereas others, like what a person might use iron for, are 
extrinsic. In organisms, there are many intrinsic functions that have 
become internalized in the replicating, metabolizing, and self-repairing 
system. Hence these exhibit far more possibilities of behavior than mere 
existence.

JK

Steve Johnson wrote:

> This is not exactly a deep thought for people on this list but I just realized that my reading of the various Rosen writings and related materials helped clear up a confusion I had a for a while. 
>
> The collapse of the quantum wave function and the role of the conscious observer in it have always prompted me to wonder which part of the brain is actually concious. Clearly if we replace a blind person's eyes with video cameras feeding into the optic nerve he would still count as a conscious observer. You can continue this thought experiment ad infinitum replacing various parts and at each step the "observer" still seems conscious.
>
> This always seemed like a legitimate paradox to me, whereas now it seems pretty obvious that the concious mind is not "contained" in any part of the brain no matter which part you replace. As you continue replacing you will at some point destroy the emergent organization and "lose" the mind much like Rosen always argues that a dead organism is a poor surragate for a living one even though it seems to have the same parts.
>
>
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
>