"Kevin Aylward"  wrote
in message news:brcqk8$7bc$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Jim Menegay wrote:
> > "Kevin Aylward" quotes:
> >> "Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
> >> therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
> >> without referring to itself for the explanation,
> >> therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
> >> is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.
> >
> > In my opinion, the mathematical results of Goedel and
Turing tell us
> > very little about the phenomenon of consciousness.
>
> I agree. All Goedel does is says that hey, its *ok*, to
introduce
> another axiom into physics. That is, consciousness being
true but
> underivable should not cause any concern, in principle.
>
> >
> > As it happens, I have no such reductionist understanding
of mental
> > processes, but I might have someday.  My understanding
may be perfect,
> > as is my understanding of the workings of a Turing
machine, however my
> > ability to use this understanding to make some kinds of
predictions
> > will be limited.
> >
> > Therefore, I just don't see that consciousness is a
harder problem
> > than any other difficult problem.  Mathematics places a
lower bound
> > on how difficult it is - at least as difficult as
Arithmetic or
> > Computation. That is not a very scary lower bound.
>
> The "hard problem" and the "easy problem" of consciousness
are technical
> definitions. It is not about how difficult it might be to
solve the easy
> problem. The hard problem is about explaining how you
actually "feel"
> things. It is not about the mundane engineering facts of
the mechanics
> of the brain.

Exactly right! I like your use of the word "feel" too. I
think I have a clue to the hard problem though, namely,
"feelings" (a derived  aspect of emotions) are generated by
the presence and release of biochemicals specific to
emotions in the brain. The emotions generated are what gives
consciousness "life" or its qualia. I suspect this is due to
certain resonances with stored memories of past events and
their associated past "feelings" (past biochem traces.)
Perhaps it's best to say consciousness, at a given point in
a person's life, is the accumulated _combination_ of all
such memories, to date. Which is why I have only slight
recollection of my consciousness before ca. age 2-3...maybe
before it becomes even a continuous phenomenon, a certain
quantitive measure of memories/feelings must be reached?
.....tonyC

>
> Kevin Aylward
> salesEXTRACT{at}anasoft.co.uk
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
>
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
>
> "Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
> therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
> without referring to itself for the explanation,
> therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
> is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.
>
> "I now understand how inanimate matter results in
> consciousness. What do you mean by "understand"?
> Understanding is that quality which results when
> one has consciousness".
>
>
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/14/03 11:36:34 AM