Subject: (whorl) mechAnIsm of consciousness

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:15:17 +0000

I think the [correct/best/proper] explanation of (eg) Rose's 
[memories/personality/consciousness/soul] 
[infiltrating into/integrating with] [that/those] of 
pMarble/Molybdenum] may be simpler than what [Shellac/Dan P]
[suggests/proposes]. 

Who is to say, in a universe where [souls are (in some sense) 
demonstrable fact/consciousness can (apparently) exist 
independently of hardware], that the brain is the [sole/primary] 
seat of [soul/consciousness/memory/personality]? It makes a kind 
of sense that [it is/they are] [more distributed/less local] in 
the nervous system and perhaps other [organs/parts of the 
organism/tissues], particularly if one accepts that [it is/they
are] at least partially [spiritual/non-physical/supernatural] in
[nature/origin/constitution]. Then a(n) [organ/part/tissue] which
has spent a significant time in one body, even if it is not an
original [component/part] of that body, [may/will] "house" some
[aspect/part/holographic image] of the 
[soul/memory/personalty/consciousness] [inhabiting/controlling]
that body and, when [transferred/transplanted] to a [new/different]
body may carry that [aspect/part/holographic image] to the 
[new/different] body.

On the contrary, allowing that "souls" specifically are 
[non-physical/spiritual/supernatural] in [cosntitution/nature]
allows us to [suppose/believe/conjecture] that "souls" may
habituate to their bodies (as they may habituate to a location,
giving rise to phenomena such as Pike's ghost), and "hang around"
remaininf functional [parts/organs/tissues] of the body after 
the death of the body proper, so that whatever aspect of 
[memory/personality/consciousness] attaches to the "soul" rather
than physical [tissues/organs/parts] might in fact 
[transfer/travel] along with them and "inabit" the [new/different]
body.

Now, isn't that ever so much simpler than [Dan/Shellac]'s
ultraphysicalist explanation?

--[Dan'l/Blattid]

*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun.
*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.moonmilk.com/whorl/
*To leave the list, send "unsubscribe" to whorl-request at lists.best.com
*If it's Wolfe but not Long Sun, please use the URTH list: urth at lists.best.com

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:07:10 +0000

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

> seat of [soul/consciousness/memory/personality]? 

There is some diversity of opinion on this, but I think Catholic theology
teaches that while the soul can have some kind of existence apart from the
body, that a person isn't fully a person without a body (and not just "a
brain")--thus the importance of the doctrine of bodily resurrection.

>From there one can see Wolfe imagining (thought I doubt the church
teaches) that something of a person's "personness" resides in her body
(not just her brain).

Other philosophers (essayist Wendell Berry comes to mind) have argued 
that when considering what makes a person who he is, it is impossible to
draw a neat line between the brain and the rest of the body (the senses,
organ systems, limbs all effect who we are) or perhaps even between a
person's body and his physical and social environment.

Then too, Wolfe also may be drawing inspiration from fantasy/horror
stories such as the ones where someone receives a transplant from a
murderer and begins to have murderous impulses.  Or the magic hand that
will graft itself to the stump of a person's forarm, granting her great
power but slowly remaking her in the image of the hand's original owner.

Magic, in any sufficiently advanced society, is indistinguishable from
techology.

-Rostrum

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:01:19 +0000

> There is some diversity of opinion on this, but I think Catholic
> theology teaches that while the soul can have some kind of existence
> apart from the body, that a person isn't fully a person without a
> body (and not just "a brain")--thus the importance of the doctrine
> of bodily resurrection.

That isn't just Catholic, it's "mainstream" Christian teaching, 
though the details vary. I believe some Protestant & Evangelical
groups talk about a succession of bodies -- i.e., the current 
body, some kind of non-physical body (which I find 
indistinguishable from no body at all) between current death and 
the general Resurrection, and the "Resurrection Body" afterwards.
But in general, Christian groups subscribe to the Apostle's Creed
and its clause "I believe...in the resurrection of the body." It
was, I believe, C.S. Lewis, an Anglican, who observed that a human
soul with no body was not a human but a ghost.

> From there one can see Wolfe imagining (thought I doubt the
> church teaches) that something of a person's "personness"
> resides in her body (not just her brain).

On the contrary, the Catholic church, at least, insists on the
importance of the body in spiritual matters. We are not only
spiritually but physically "the image of God," if only because
God was incarnate as a Man. Further, it is by eating of His Body
(in the Eucharist) that we are incorporated more fully into His 
Body. And the Church takes cognizance of the ways in which 
physical impairments (chemical, neurological, and other) can
alter behavior and "personality." 

To put it in slightly non-Catholic but Catholic-friendly terms:
you can go out and buy a copy of Microsoft Word (or pick 
whatever software you like). But try running it without putting 
it onto a computer first. The software cannot function without 
the hardware. We are not spirits but spirits-in-bodies, spirits 
in a material world, and nothing in orthodox Christian teaching 
allows us to suppose that either the ghost or the machine is
functional absent the other.

That said, Wolfe's speculations do go well beyond (though I
believe that they do not actually go _against_) orthodox RC
teaching when you get into conceptions like Marble "integrating"
her "software" and that of Rose.

> Other philosophers (essayist Wendell Berry comes to mind) have
> argued that when considering what makes a person who he is, it
> is impossible to draw a neat line between the brain and the rest
> of the body (the senses, organ systems, limbs all effect who we
> are) or perhaps even between a person's body and his physical
> and social environment.

Well, vide "the social construction of personality" (60s-ish 
psychology text by -- name forgotten: Timothy Leary's mentor) in 
this context.  And grumble about calling Wendell Berry a 
philosopher; might as well call _me_ one at that rate.

Which wanders around but manages not to have said: I agree.

> power but slowly remaking her in the image of the hand's original owner.

Is that "real" fantasy/horror? The only place I've run across that
is in D&D, the "hand of Vecna." But I haven't read all the fantasy/
horror classics by any means...

> Magic, in any sufficiently advanced society, is indistinguishable
> from techology.

Ummm. Magic _is_ technology. But that's another debate.

--Dan'l

---

From: E Dorian <edorian at hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:43:35 +0000

>horror classics by any means...

There was a movie released 10 years ago called Body Parts.  It was a stupid 
horror movie, the plot of which was the following.  A "mad-scientist" type 
doctor had a project where he would take body parts from convicted felons 
(death row folks, maybe?  I don't recall the details), and 
graft/insert/affix/install them on/in/upon law-abiding citizens.

You can guess what happened.  For example one man wakes up to find his new 
arm attempting to strangle his wife...

The movie is listed on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6302270871/o/qid=985198009/sr=2-1/103-8761236-2403868
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:56:11 +0000

> alter behavior and "personality." 

I'm also reminded now of Catholic veneration of relics.  If a leg bone of
a saint is venerated and can be a source of miracles, then it implies that
something of the saint's "personness" continues to inhere in his body even
after the soul has departed.

> And grumble about calling Wendell Berry a 

Well, I just referred to philosophers and mentioned that he came to mind,
not that he actually was one of the philosophers.  It's just that his
recent book "Life is a Miracle," has (in the context of a huge rant
against E.O. Wilson's "Conciliance") one of the best articulations I've
seen of arguments against regarding human beings as machines (but the
arguments are not original to him).

And Berry may not be a professional philosopher but he writes engaging
essays with important, insightful things to say that few people are
saying.  I'd take it as a great compliment to be put in his category.

> horror classics by any means...

It must be.  D&D never came up with anything original, it was all stolen
from something or other.  And the transplanted murderer's body part has
been used by Stephen King, and I think has been the subject of at least
one horror movie.  Don't know if that counts as "real" or not.

-Rostrum

---

From: jmcazurin <mikah at info.com.ph>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:52:43 +0000

>after the soul has departed.

One might also say that it is the faith of venerators in physical relics 
that is the wellspring of miracles, and not the relics themselves.

Of course, the relics have first to perform a miracle before they get 
venerated. Chicken and egg problem?

I'm remembering Severian's observation about all claws being sacred claws.

Mikah
(my name seems to make me a chem)