'Thoughts'
and
'things'
are
names
for two
sorts of
object,
which
common
sense
will
always
find
contrasted
and will
always
practically
oppose
to each
other.
Philosophy,
reflecting
on the
contrast,
has
varied
in the
past in
her
explanations
of it,
and may
be
expected
to vary
in the
future.
At
first,
'spirit
and
matter,'
'soul
and
body,'
stood
for a
pair of
equipollent
substances
quite on
a par in
weight
and
interest.
But one
day Kant
undermined
the soul
and
brought
in the
transcendental
ego, and
ever
since
then the
bipolar
relation
has been
very
much off
its
balance.
The
transcendental
ego
seems
nowadays
in
rationalist
quarters
to stand
for
everything,
in
empiricist
quarters
for
almost
nothing.
In the
hands of
such
writers
as
Schuppe,
Rehmke,
Natorp,
Munsterberg
-- at
any rate
in his
earlier
writings,
Schubert-Soldern
and
others,
the
spiritual
principle
attenuates
itself
to a
thoroughly
ghostly
condition,
being
only a
name for
the fact
that the
'content'
of
experience
is
known.
It loses
personal
form and
activity
- these
passing
over to
the
content
-- and
becomes
a bare
BewusstheitorBewusstsein
überhauptof
which in
its own
right
absolutely
nothing
can be
said.
I
believe
that
'consciousness,'
when
once it
has
evaporated
to this
estate
of pure
diaphaneity,
is on
the
point of
disappearing
altogether.
It is
the name
of a
nonentity,
and has
no right
to a
place
among
first
principles.
Those
who
still
cling to
it are
clinging
to a
mere
echo,
the
faint
rumor
left
behind
by the
disappearing
'soul'
upon the
air of
philosophy.
During
the past
year, I
have
read a
number
of
articles
whose
authors
seemed
just on
the
point of
abandoning
the
notion
of
consciousness,
and
substituting
for it
that of
an
absolute
experience
not due
to two
factors.
But they
were not
quite
radical
enough,
not
quite
daring
enough
in their
negations.
For
twenty
years
past I
have
mistrusted
'consciousness'
as an
entity;
for
seven or
eight
years
past I
have
suggested
its
non-existence
to my
students,
and
tried to
give
them its
pragmatic
equivalent
in
realities
of
experience.
It seems
to me
that the
hour is
ripe for
it to be
openly
and
universally
discarded.
To deny
plumply
that
'consciousness'
exists
seems so
absurd
on the
face of
it --
for
undeniably
'thoughts'
do exist
–
that
I fear
some
readers
will
follow
me no
farther.
Let me
then
immediately
explain
that
I mean
only to
deny
that the
word
stands
for an
entity,
but to
insist
most
emphatically
that it
does
stand
for a
function.
There
is, I
mean, no
aboriginal
stuff or
quality
of
being,
contrasted
with
that of
which
material
objects
are
made,
out of
which
our
thoughts
of them
are
made;
but
there is
a
function
in
experience
which
thoughts
perform,
and for
the
performance
of which
this
quality
of being
is
invoked.
That
function
is
knowing.
'Consciousness'
is
supposed
necessary
to
explain
the fact
that
things
not only
are, but
get
reported,
are
known.
Whoever
blots
out the
notion
of
consciousness
from his
list of
first
principles
must
still
provide
in some
way for
that
function's
being
carried
on.
Chapter
I
My
thesis
is that
if we
start
with the
supposition
that
there is
only one
primal
stuff or
material
in the
world, a
stuff of
which
everything
is
composed,
and if
we call
that
stuff
'pure
experience,'
the
knowing
can
easily
be
explained
as a
particular
sort of
relation
towards
one
another
into
which
portions
of pure
experience
may
enter.
The
relation
itself
is a
part of
pure
experience;
one if
its
'terms'
becomes
the
subject
or
bearer
of the
knowledge,
the
knower
the
other
becomes
the
object
known.
This
will
need
much
explanation
before
it can
be
understood.
The best
way to
get it
understood
is to
contrast
it with
the
alternative
view;
and for
that we
may take
the
recentest
alternative,
that in
which
the
evaporation
of the
definite
soul-substance
has
proceeded
as far
as it
can go
without
being
yet
complete.
If neo-Kantism
has
expelled
earlier
forms of
dualism,
we shall
have
expelled
all
forms if
we are
able to
expel
neo-Kantism
in its
turn.
For the
thinkers
I call
neo-Kantian,
the word
consciousness
to-day
does no
more
than
signalize
the fact
that
experience
is
indefeasibly
dualistic
in
structure.
It means
that not
subject,
not
object,
but
object-plus-subject
is the
minimum
that can
actually
be.
The
subject-object
distinction
meanwhile
is
entirely
different
from
that
between
mind and
matter,
from
that
between
body and
soul.
Souls
were
detachable,
had
separate
destinies;
things
could
happen
to them.
To
consciousness
as such
nothing
can
happen,
for,
timeless
itself,
it is
only a
witness
of
happenings
in time,
in which
it plays
no part.
It is,
in a
word,
but the
logical
correlative
of
'content'
in an
Experience
of which
the
peculiarity
is thatfact
comes to
lightin
it, thatawareness
of
contenttakes
place.
Consciousness
as such
is
entirely
impersonal
--
'self'
and its
activities
belong
to the
content.
To say
that I
am
self-conscious,
or
conscious
of
putting
forth
volition,
means
only
that
certain
contents,
for
which
'self'
and
'effort
of will'
are the
names,
are not
without
witness
as they
occur.
Thus,
for
these
belated
drinkers
at the
Kantian
spring,
we
should
have to
admit
consciousness
as an
'epistemological'
necessity,
even if
we had
no
direct
evidence
of its
being
there.
But in
addition
to this,
we are
supposed
by
almost
every
one to
have an
immediate
consciousness
of
consciousness
itself.
When the
world of
outer
fact
ceases
to be
materially
present,
and we
merely
recall
it in
memory,
or fancy
it, the
consciousness
is
believed
to stand
out and
to be
felt as
a kind
of
impalpable
inner
flowing,
which,
once
known in
this
sort of
experience,
may
equally
be
detected
in
presentations
of the
outer
world.
"The
moment
we try
to fix
out
attention
upon
consciousness
and to
see
what,
distinctly,
it is,"
says a
recent
writer,
"it
seems to
vanish.
It seems
as if we
had
before
us a
mere
emptiness.
When we
try to
introspect
the
sensation
of blue,
all we
can see
is the
blue;
the
other
element
is as if
it were
diaphanous.
Yet it
can be
distinguished,
if we
look
attentively
enough,
and know
that
there is
something
to look
for."
Just three particles and the forces
that cause them to interact give rise to
all of the incredible and wonderful
complexity that makes this universe such
an interesting place
Nature gives us a lot of examples of complex behavior emerging from the interaction of many individuals. The members of an ant colony are capable of a wide variety of complex behaviors... finding and transporting food... constructing elaborate underground complexes of tunnels and chambers... defending their territory from invaders. Such activity would seem to involve a great deal of planning, memory, and coordination. But there is no “head ant” who draws up a blueprint for the colony and gives directions to the worker ants. “Turn that tunnel to the left! Bring that piece of sand over here!” Instead, each ant follows a very simple set of rules, based on cues from its environment and from the activity of ants nearby.
For example... how do ants know to walk in a single file to pick up food, and then return in single file to the nest? They don’t. They know three simple rules. First, if you come upon something that smells like food - pick it up! Second, when you pick up a piece of food, release a chemical signal... a pheromone. Third, if you come across a pheromone trail left by another ant... follow it.
Let’s see what happens when a group of ants follow these three simple rules.
The first ant wanders about its environment and picks up a piece of food. She releases a chemical signal and begins to leave a trail. As the ant continues to wander, other ants stumble upon her trail. They follow this trail, and are led to the food. Some of them may follow the trail the wrong way, but that’s ok. Once the first ant reaches the nest, she will drop off the morsel of food. And when she exits the nest again, she will come upon her own pheromone trail and follow it. The ant doesn't remember where the food is. She doesn’t know that she is following her own trail. She’s just following rule number three - always follow the trail.
Meanwhile, more and more ants have come upon the original trail and followed it to the food. As they follow the first ant’s path back, they strengthen and refine the chemical trail. Soon the ants will appear to march in single file to the food and back. There is no plan. No memory of where the food is. No need for a leader to point the way. Three simple rules and a few environmental clues are all that is needed to orchestrate this remarkably efficient process.
435 AvatarLude3
KEVIN: I certainly recognize that the ants and the food is a great example of complex behavior arising from a few simple rules.
But don’t we need to ask how those rules got so ingrained in the ants that they follow them?
DIANA: That’s a good question, but one that I believe most good biologists could answer with ease. Why don’t we meet later Kevin and I will show you how good a biologist “I” can be.
KEVIN: It’s a date – but only if you’ll stop being a redhead…it makes me nervous.
DIANA: I will pick you up at 7:03 if that’s OK?
CHAUCER: 7:03??? …Never mind …can we get back to our story please?
…Jeeves…this next section should be of particular interest to you. If nothing else it emphasizes how unique you and a few of your fellows are in comparison to the general state of cybernetics.
440 Robots
From dog stars to dog impos-STARS -- we are now embarking on the age of robots.
The enormous complexity of living things has been brought sharply into focus by our efforts to create machines that mimic organic, living creatures.
We now have robots that help in many fields…Bomb disposal, fire and rescue operations , hospital care, military drones and tanks. Our desire to build robots seems boundless.
Indeed, robot building competitions are held annually at many high schools and colleges across the country.
We now have robots that can fly planes -- Can you guess which plane is being piloted by a robot?
On the other hand the robots that explore other planets can certainly perform feats no human should attempt.
From laser eye surgery to automobile construction, we have been quite successful in building robots that can perform remarkably well in situations that can be defined by simple rules and repetitious tasks.
Similar to the way ants can perform tasks following simple rules, pool robots clean by moving around in random patterns that eventually cover the entire pool bottom. The tail sweeps back and forth to raise bottom debris while a water vacuum sucks the dirt into a container bag or net. And occasionally it backs up to avoid getting caught in corners.
Vacuum Cleaner robots perform their duties with very similar algorithms.
The efforts to equip robots with cameras for eyes and other parts that mimic living creatures have met with considerably less success. Only very recently has there been real progress in creating androids – robots shaped like humans that can exhibit a wide range of our muscular and motor functionality.
But we are still at the starting line when it comes to creating machines that can mimic human thought.
450 Human Brains
It is easy to imagine an ant or a robot as a mindless agent following simple rules that produce the illusion of complexity. But what of the human mind? Surely everything that humans do from designing skyscrapers to composing symphonies... is not the product of a few simple behaviors. And yet it might be...because everything that humans do (or think or feel) is the result of these basic units of brain structure - the neurons.
The human brain contains more than a hundred billion neurons. Just like a single ant could never build an anthill, a single neuron can't think or feel or remember. A neuron's power is a result of its connections to other neurons. Each neuron is connected to as many as a thousand of its neighbors. These trillions of connections provide the playing field upon which the complex activity of the brain takes place. Each neuron can turn its neighbors on or off depending on the signals it sends, and the resulting stable patterns of neuron firing represent memories…and images… and thoughts.
We don't yet understand the relationship between neural activity and mental experience. We don’t know what the precise pattern of a memory or an image or a thought looks like. We don’t yet know how to read the cerebral "code" of the neurons. But by looking at the behavior of other complex systems - from anthills to computer simulations - we may yet learn some techniques that allow us to work our way UP from the activity of a few neurons to see the structure that emerges from the whole.
It is possible to view the entire history of the universe as a story of complexity emerging again and again from simple systems under the influence of simple rules. The laws of physics bind together the most fundamental constituents of matter - electrons and quarks - into stable structures called atoms. Atoms themselves are subject to a new set of rules... pushing and pulling one another, and combining into new forms – molecules – governed by the laws of chemistry.
Simple molecules of water and carbon dioxide, consisting of only a few atoms, can combine and interact in ever more complicated ways... building more and more complex structures... clumps and chains and rings. The rules of chemistry are universal. The same kinds of amino acids that we find in our own bodies can also be found in the cold depths of space.
At some point, very large and complex molecules become capable of something new. DNA molecules make copies of themselves. The chemical metabolism inside of a cell produces and stores energy... energy that can be used for motion... and reproduction. The raw material of chemistry has given rise to a new kind of complex behavior - one that we call... life.
Large multi-cellular organisms involve a whole new class of structures... cells produce tissues and organs and organisms of greater and greater complexity.
Driven by natural selection, yet another set of laws, life has been able to diversify and take on more and more complex forms. From the first organism that could sense its environment and react to light, neurons led to nerves and nerves led to brains.
At this level of complexity, an organism can gather information with its senses and then use that information to influence the future – what a concept!
The human brain is perhaps the most complex structure in the universe, and in its complexity comes the most mysterious phenomenon that science has attempted to understand - consciousness.
At this level of complexity, not only does an organism gather information and use it to influence the future, but it can take notice of itself doing this.
It can influence the future with an intention to change itself. It can also cause changes to its species through direct modification of its own blueprint – genetic manipulation, and DIRECTED evolution – WOW!
So, from three fundamental particles, we have now constructed an organism that is alive, conscious, self-aware, and has the ability to understand itself and the universe that it occupies -- how wonderfully complex.
490 AvatarEnd
DIANA:
Wow! That was simply amazing!
KEVIN:
…What WERE you doing in my truck that night?
KEVIN: “You are woman, hear you roar!”
CHAUCER: OK, Jeeves, you can “deep seven” the rest of it please.
JEEVES(Voice fading as the whole scene fades to black):
Will it make
it easier on
you, now you
got someone
to blame?
You say one
love, one
life, when
it's one
need in the
night.
One love, we
get to share
it
Leaves you
baby if you
don't care
for it.
Did I
disappoint
you or leave
a bad taste
in your
mouth?
You act like
you never
had love and
you want me
to go
without.
Well, it's
too late
tonight to
drag the
past out
into the
light.
We're one,
but we're
not the
same.
We get to
carry each
other, carry
each
other... one
Have you
come here
for
forgiveness,
Have you
come to
raise the
dead
Have you
come here to
play Jesus
to the
lepers in
your head
Did I ask
too much,
more than a
lot
You gave me
nothing, now
it's all I
got.
We're one,
but we're
not the
same.
Well, we
hurt each
other, then
we do it
again.
You say love
is a temple,
love a
higher law
Love is a
temple, love
the higher
law.
You ask me
to enter,
but then you
make me
crawl
And I can't
be holding
on to what
you got,
when all you
got is hurt.
One love,
one blood,
one life,
you got to
do what you
should.
One life
with each
other:
sisters,
brothers.
One life,
but we're
not the
same.
We get to
carry each
other, carry
each other.
One, one.
.
-
-
..
-
-
...
/// ZeitgeistLiving.com
refers to the
ethos of an
identified group
of people, that
expresses a
particular world
view which is
prevalent at
a particular
period of
socio-cultural
progression. ///
Disclaimer:o:p>
This URL is
intended for
information
purposes
only and is not
associated
with any
organization
listed
herewith.
