Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Heavens to Betsy, but this guy may have gotten closer to 'solving' consciousness than anyone heretofore! I still lie in bed at night, wondering where in my brain that observer in the Cartesian Theater (which doesn't really exist, but for lack of a better term, kind of does) sits, but Humphrey has taken a huge step forward here, with a theory that I think works! It explains how a living being could be more fit if it had neurons watching and 'recording' its reactions to reflexes, thus making a major breakthrough (as far as I can see) in the whole 'I am a Strange Loop' framework.

He doesn't surrender to Dennett's "we're all zombies" theory, and...and... well, I tell you this. Each sentence, although the writing style is straightforward and conversational, is so packed with meaning that I sometimes had to read them out loud to make sure I was following his argument. The middle of the book, where we get the main entree, is almost as efficient as a math proof. I had to re-read many sentences and paragraphs, not because the writing is solipsistic, but because there's a whole lot to take in. And maybe I'm not as smart as I think I am, that could be it, too.

The evolutionary explanation is beautiful, too - did you know the optimal temperature for neuron impulses is right about 37 degrees Celsius (that's 98.6, fellow Yankees)? And that the animals that exhibit most outward behavior of having a theory of mind, and of mind-reading, are warm-blooded? And that the more social a species is, the more that sentience will provide an evolutionary advantage?

I do think we got off the rails a bit, and he allowed himself too much liberty, when he started talking about his dog's sentience, with anecdotal evidence of what his dog does apparently being plenty to get across whatever bar needed clearing. And I think this is my fault, but his argument that an octopus doesn't exhibit evidence of what he calls phenomenal conscioussness (that thing that separates what a human brain does from what a computer can do - that difference between what a binary .png file looks like when you open it in a text editor and what the picture looks like) seems like an argument that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I mean, he even addresses that head on, but I didn't follow it, because, well, maybe he's right and I have a bias to want octopuses to have phenomenal consciousness. That's what he suggests. Apparently everybody totally fan-gurls for octopuses for whatever reason.

And like I said, and is always the case with science, it leaves more questions. OK, he's moved the ball - still, what is consciousness? Is it energy in the brain itself? What is energy? I mean really - physics can describe and predict it all day long, but what is it? And if consciousness is made of energy, how can it persist from one moment to the next? So there's still the fascinating paradox that it seems impossible for matter and energy to accomplish this experience we all have, but at the same time it seems impossible for it to be an illusion, because an illusion requires an observer to be fooled, which proves that consciousness exists at least a little...

I want to re-read this. It may very well need a second and a third read. Unfortunately, I got it from a library in a different county. What's that? There are places that sell books? Why wasn't I informed?