Day Brown on "Consciousness"
with me...
 RT>> So consciousness is an emergent quality of a complex self-interacting 
 RT>> system.  
 RT>> What is it though? You haven't defined consciousness   itself, only the
 RT>> mechanisms that possess it. 
 DB> That which *experiences* is not exactly a mechanism. Perhaps this  would
 DB> be more clear to call it a piece of software that runs on a  piece of
 DB> hardware known as the mind. I spoze the atheist would be  of the opinion
 DB> that the mind is the *only* platform consciousness  could run on.  I
 DB> maintain that that is not so, although it would,  no doubt, run somewhat
 DB> differently. 
This is if you believe consciousness to be separate of the hardware. Is there 
any reason to believe this? Even a software program is a series of on and off 
switches in a computer. It is not independent of the machine. The computer's 
"consciousness" is hardwired.
 RT>> Plato may have suggested this but he has no basis of truth   from which
 RT>> to make the assertion. Yes, the brain is a   physical thing and memory
 RT>> may be stored in your brain, but   when we die the brain reformats
 RT>> itself chemically and thus   would destroy the data. 
 DB> You may see a lack of evidence, however, a human mind isn't the  only
 DB> memory storage method;
It is for human memories.
 DB> indeed, we already use computers to  store a lot
 DB> of stuff we cannot remember.  What limit do you see  to the development
 DB> of this process? 
The only limits are raw materials and the laws of physics.
What has this to do with human memory and consciousness?
 RT>> As to introducing the concept of a god that can somehow   access this
 RT>> information and make it available to you and   your friends when you
 RT>> have died is wholly unsupported. 
 DB> What is a ghost?  How do you prove that such a thing cannot be?
I can't, but the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence. There is no 
evidence.
 DB> If a
 DB> thing cannot be detected with scientific instruments, does  that mean it
 DB> cannot exist?  If, thru meditation, or psychedelic  compounds which both
 DB> change the functioning of the brain, there  are reports of supernatural
 DB> phenomena, does that mean that this  *experience* is *necessarily*
 DB> false? 
No. I would say it means that hallucination is a common aspect of man and it 
must be taken into account in cases where there is no other evidence.
The weight of evidence that ghosts are solely a hallucination is far more 
than the evidence that they are external phenomena.
 DB> The problem I see here is that experimenters are professionals,  whose
 DB> careers would be threatened by experimenting with methods  of altering
 DB> the consciousness.
I don't quite see that myself. IMO, if a scientist could show testable 
evidence of ghosts then I think he'd be in line for a Nobel Prize and would 
jump at the chance. The trouble is there is no evidence to date of their 
existence. Only personal testimony and we all know how unreliable that can 
.
 DB> So where is the unbiased person  who will conduct
 DB> these experiments?
What makes you think professionals are biased?
 DB> Of course, some folks will  not have anything like a
 DB> supernatural experience, but OTOH, you  cannot teach calculus to an
 DB> orangutan either.
I don't see what you are referring to.
    Relatif Tuinn
... "Bother," said Pooh, as Deanna Troi sensed he was hiding something.
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------