Consciousness

[Shyone]

I wonder whether consciousness is really necessary for survival. Suppose, for example, that we weren't conscious, but merely had sense preceptors that received stimuli and moved our parts to the right place to survive (i.e. toward food, away from enemies, and toward a mate)? Could we not survive just as well in that situation without the ability to have the conscious experiences that we do? It seems that consciousness is merely gratuitous as, given evolution, there was a time when beings survived without it. We can also look at the fact that most organisms in the universe are not conscious and seem to survive just fine as you go on to indicate.

LNC

I like this question, but I am sure not to do it justice.

 

Necessary? No, I think not - in principle - but let's say we are talking about another species. I can't quite picture an unconscious person reflexly gathering food, avoiding danger, etc on our scale. In a short while, I'll try to describe why, but for now suffice it to say that there do exist species that act exactly as you describe - and they get along ok.

 

Could we survive "just as well"? This is so interdependent with environment that I have to qualify it a bit. Some species do, and they have no reason to change. What has happened is that other species get along better with more advanced means of gathering food.

 

A couple of examples:

 

Plankton absorb nutrients that are fairly evenly distributed in the ocean. Most have little or no motility as the currents bring nutrients to them (or them to the nutrients).

 

A larger animal requiring more nutrients (e.g. a more complex organism that is basically a network of plankton) may have some advantages - such as movement to take advantage of better sources of nutrients. The size may provide an advantage regarding protection against bacteria, algae or other tiny living things (or environmental challenges).

 

Species that are even larger might take advantage of the larger animals to get a quick and easy source of food.

 

AAhhhh, this is going to take longer that Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" so let me try to cut to the chase.

 

The food chain is not some unidirectional thing. There is competition, there are predators, and the advantage goes to the predator with the best strategy for 1) getting food and 2) escaping predators. The great thing is that there is more than one way to do this. Herbivores, carnivores, speed, size, armor, intelligence, strength, flight.

 

But beyond the simplest species, movement is at least a requirement. Movement requires several things:

 

Some sense of direction, distance, time

Some means of locomotion

Some ability to coordinate - which at some level requires mathematics

Pattern recognition sufficient to tell food from non-food

Other stuff I haven't thought of.

 

Coordination, in particular, is extremely complicated. Birds, for example, don't think of aviation dynamics when they are flying and diving for food, but that's what they are essentially doing. Picture a bird diving for an insect. Binocular vision enables them to judge distances by calculating the change in size and position of the prey and the ground as it dives. Knowing its mass, velocity, and wing lift it can precisely calculate its turning radius so as to catch the prey and avoid the ground. A miscalculation will result in death. The bird will also likely know something of the behavior of its prey and compensate for that as well: Will the insect continue in a straight line, or deviate in some pattern? Birds learn, and experience teaches, so that an adult bird is better than a baby bird at gathering food.

 

These calculations, or similar ones, are necessary for the survival of every animal that hunts. Even simple things like picking berries requires coordination and intelligence - and memory.

 

The development of intelligence of some form or another was then a necessary requirement for survival, and the degree of intelligence and how it was used vary according to the needs of the species. Koala bears eat eucalyptus leaves, but have no natural predators, so they are different from grizzly bears or rabbits.

 

Many things that are learned to survive are taught in circumstances that do not entail danger. Tigers and cubs, birds, apes and humans play "games" that teach necessary strategies for survival, but the games themselves require the participation of the young, and those young that find these games worth doing - even though they do not directly affect survival in any appreciable way - will tend to survive better than those who don't play the games.

 

So we see the intellectual activity of animals involves an appreciation of learning for the sake of learning. "Children" that fail to engage these games are eliminated from the pack, and the propensity for intellectual activity and learning, to the extent it is genetically determined, is passed along to their progeny.

 

This is getting way too long, and I'm leaving out volumes of material, but I think you should be able to see that consciousness, and all that entails, becomes necessary for survival of any species with a significant nutritional burden.

 

The limitations to what can be taught and learned may depend on what is necessary for the particular species, but every time a mutation happens that allows for better survival, such as increased cranial vault volume and brain mass (and neuronal connections) may provide distinctive advantages for survival - and reproductive success - and that is another major category itself. Good singers, story tellers, dancers, artists and the like may be able to attract women better than stupid, ugly, boring people.

 

And that's why you are here.

[NotBlinded]

You talk of commands, orders and programs. With this language, it implies that there is a command giver, or a programmer.

 

I really have a problem with that, but semantics can really screw things around.

 

The Law of Gravity does not require a lawgiver. It is a description, not legislation. Semantics.

 

Likewise, the accumulation of mollecules of water in the upper atmosphere when the temperature is freezing tends to form symmetric patterns (without a "pattern maker") that are crystalline. The patterns formed are the result of an order established by the shape of the mollecule and some random input regarding the initial seed of ice. It is ordered, but does not require an orderer or command giver. Its shape is the equivalent of the result of a program of gradual accumulation, but without a programmer.

I agree 100% that it doesn't require an orderer or a command giver. The "know-how" (used instead of the word intelligence) is innate in it. Yep. You call it ordered yet random. I call it ordered, but far from random. It "knows" what it's doing.

 

Human language is not adapted to speak of things that don't have human attributes very well, and we use terms that are ambiguous to describe things, and along comes the baggage humans attached to the word.

Not all language. Chinese, from what I understand, is capable of expressing the spontaneity of nature pretty good without having to have a noun set a verb into motion. The person, place or thing is action itself. This way, no "ghost", or command giver, is required. This can change a person's entire worldview.

 

Check out Bohm's Rheomode of Language here.

 

And that's why I don't like discussing philosophy. Y'all use words wrong.

The right words don't get the meaning across because of the way our language shapes our worldview, yet if the worldview can shift, the same words can open up a whole new understanding. That is why literalism is wrong on many levels when dealing with abstract concepts such as myths.

[NotBlinded]

Since I'm feeling a tad bit more lucid today, I want to bring Bohm into this conversation. I have the book at home and I must admit, a huge amount of it went soaring right over my head (such as the math!), but there are parts that I could grasp.

 

I put this up for Shyone's sake (and others) but Shyone in particular because it uses the word "holistic".

 

Bucking this tide of modern physics for more than 30 years, Bohm has been more than a gadfly. His objections to the foundations of quantum mechanics have gradually coalesced into an extension of the theory so sweeping that it amounts to a new view of reality. Believing that the nature of things is not reducible to fragments or particles, he argues for a holistic view of the universe. He demands that we learn to regard matter and life as a whole, coherent domain, which he calls the implicate order.

F David Peat interview with David Bohm

 

As in our discussion of matter in general, it is now necessary to go into the question of how in consciousness the explicate order is what is manifest ... the manifest content of consciousness is based essentially on memory, which is what allows such content to be held in a fairly constant form. Of course, to make possible such constancy it is also necessary that this content be organized, not only through relatively fixed association but also with the aid of the rules of logic, and of our basic categories of space, time causality, universality, etc. ... there will be a strong background of recurrent stable, and separable features, against which the transitory and changing aspects of the unbroken flow of experience will be seen as fleeting impressions that tend to be arranged and ordered mainly in terms of the vast totality of the relatively static and fragmented content of [memories].

 

One may indeed say that our memory is a special case of the process described above, for all that is recorded is held enfolded within the brain cells and these are part of matter in general. The recurrence and stability of our own memory as a relatively independent sub-totality is thus brought about as part of the very same process that sustains the recurrence and stability in the manifest order of matter in general. It follows, then, that the explicate and manifest order of consciousness is not ultimately distinct from that of matter in general.

Wiki

 

Consciousness is not seen as distinct from matter. Actually, from what I gather, he is saying that everything is matter, even the Ground of Being/Implicate Order Itself. This takes a 180 degree view of that of the Hindus but is saying the same thing. It's how you wish to define matter. They say that matter is Maya or illusion. And if everything is matter, matter is indeed conscious. Bohm states that matter is the interplay of particles yet these particles are an "abstraction that is manifest to our senses." "What *is* is always a totality of ensembles, all present together, in an orderly series of stages of enfoldment and unfoldment, which intermingle and interpenetrate each other in principle throughout the whole of space."

 

If this is the case, an intelligence is necessary. One that is not separate from matter itself, but is indeed the essence of everything that we consider matter, just on varying degrees. This applies to what we consider "dead" or "living" matter. "Life is enfolded in the totality and--even when it is not manifest, it is somehow implicit." This is evolution.

[Shyone]

 

If this is the case, an intelligence is necessary. One that is not separate from matter itself, but is indeed the essence of everything that we consider matter, just on varying degrees. This applies to what we consider "dead" or "living" matter. "Life is enfolded in the totality and--even when it is not manifest, it is somehow implicit." This is evolution.

Life is a messy chemical process with no intrinsic value, and intelligence is a derivative of the competition of life forms as we try to eat without being eaten.

 

Is fusion "not separate from matter itself, but indeed the essence of everything that we consider matter"? There is a lot more fusion than life (it appears). Fusion, however, is an atomic process requiring no intelligence. Outside of the competitive nature of life on this planet, what does intelligence even mean? Without the context of life, intelligence is meaningless.

 

While Fusion is necessary to life, life does not follow from fusion in every case (as far as we can tell based on the improbability of life in this solar system and the nature of the planets thus far discovered). The existence of physical phenomena is blind, deaf and dumb, and our intelligence is a survival mechanism, not a goal of life, intention of nature, or necessary outcome.

 

Life could have gone on until the sun explodes without any form of life sufficiently intelligent to care about intelligence at all. Our deelopment is extremely fortuitous and depended on everything from the specific composition of the early planet to the K-T boundary extinction. Of all of the species of great ape, we look at ourselves and say, "We are intelligent, so the whole thing must exist for that purpose."

 

That strikes me as anthrocentric as the teachings of early religion.

[NotBlinded]

 

If this is the case, an intelligence is necessary. One that is not separate from matter itself, but is indeed the essence of everything that we consider matter, just on varying degrees. This applies to what we consider "dead" or "living" matter. "Life is enfolded in the totality and--even when it is not manifest, it is somehow implicit." This is evolution.

Life is a messy chemical process with no intrinsic value, and intelligence is a derivative of the competition of life forms as we try to eat without being eaten.

 

Is fusion "not separate from matter itself, but indeed the essence of everything that we consider matter"? There is a lot more fusion than life (it appears). Fusion, however, is an atomic process requiring no intelligence. Outside of the competitive nature of life on this planet, what does intelligence even mean? Without the context of life, intelligence is meaningless.

 

While Fusion is necessary to life, life does not follow from fusion in every case (as far as we can tell based on the improbability of life in this solar system and the nature of the planets thus far discovered). The existence of physical phenomena is blind, deaf and dumb, and our intelligence is a survival mechanism, not a goal of life, intention of nature, or necessary outcome.

 

Life could have gone on until the sun explodes without any form of life sufficiently intelligent to care about intelligence at all. Our deelopment is extremely fortuitous and depended on everything from the specific composition of the early planet to the K-T boundary extinction. Of all of the species of great ape, we look at ourselves and say, "We are intelligent, so the whole thing must exist for that purpose."

 

That strikes me as anthrocentric as the teachings of early religion.

Shyone...we aren't connecting here. I sometimes hear you saying the same thing I am but from a different angle and then I see you thinking things that I may be thinking that I'm not really thinking at all. That's okay though. Although it does still amaze me that people can see nature and reality as dumb when they came out of it.

 

I don't see the whole thing existing for our purpose. Like in Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way". It doesn't matter what form this "Intelligence" takes. It's just playing, there is no purpose in play other than to play. Humans? Big deal... There may someday be something that surpasses the intelligence of humans or they may already be somewhere in the vastness of space. Or, it could all blow up. It doesn't matter though.

 

Intelligence is just the "necessary" player in the game.

[Shyone]

 

Intelligence is just the "necessary" player in the game.

That's the crux of the question. Necessary player, or side effect. Since the effect of intelligence is negligible on the whole of the universe, I think the latter; kind of like a whirlpool at the edge of the river. The whirlpool is not necessary to the river, or to the flow of the river, but a side effect of current and resistance.

[LNC]

OB '63

OB read this: Consciousness and its Place in Nature

 

It's awesome.

 

Yes, that is one of the articles to which I linked. It is a great overview of the various positions. I don't agree with all of Chalmers conclusions, but overall it is a decent article.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I read it, and basically reject the tentative conclusions. The arguments used for a non-materialist view of consciousness amount to argument from ignorance, argument from absurdity and argument from obfuscation. These are the same arguments used to justify the existence of God philosophically, and they don't hold water there either.

 

"It is often held that even though it is hard to see how materialism could be true, materialism must be true, since the alternatives are unacceptable."

 

Or, to rephrase the above, take away the materials, and there isn't any intelligence remaining. Intelligence requires material, but materials alone are not intelligent.

 

Intelligence (and consciousness) is a very tenuous result of the process of growing according to the programs outlined in the DNA (and RNA) in only certain species. It requires not just material per se, but living material, and when that material is no longer living, intelligence (and consciousness) vanishes.

 

It can also dissipate with slight variations of homeostasis; a low blood pressure, a narrow artery, a tumor or trauma, a bodily reaction to infection that raises the temperature too high (greater than 104 degrees F).

 

If one person is more intelligent than another person, and people are more intelligent than any animal, and some animals are smarter than other animals, then there is eventually a point at which no intelligence remains and/or intelligence cannot be measured. At the very least, we can say that inanimate material is not intelligent because it shows in signs of intelligence - although out tendency towards pattern recognition can mistake an occurrence for an intelligent act. If a rock falls down and nearly hits us, we may say the mountain is angry with us. It is primative to attribute intent to inanimate objects, although if a rock had been tossed down the mountain by a creature (or human) intent may be inferred.

 

The larger scale geologic events also have no intellgence or intent. Earthquakes do not punish humans, hurricanes are weather patterns, not angry beings with intent. The same applies to the solar system, the galaxy, the local group and the universe. Matter acting without intent, awareness, consciousness or intelligence. It's just a bunch of rocks.

 

It seems that you are begging the question by assuming naturalism/physicalism to say that intelligence requires material (matter), could you explain why this is the case without assuming materialism? Suppose there was a possible world in which immaterial minds existed, could this not be possible? If not, why not?

 

You explain that intelligence is the result of growing according to the programming of DNA and RNA, but from where did that programming come? You are also begging the question by assuming that consciousness stops when the material vanishes, but how do you prove that? I am not necessarily saying that you are wrong, just that you seem to be making assertions for which you have not given evidence and I wonder how you could.

 

I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to make with your last two paragraphs, so maybe you could clarify what you are trying to say. Thanks.

 

LNC

[Kuroikaze]

It seems that you are begging the question by assuming naturalism/physicalism to say that intelligence requires material (matter), could you explain why this is the case without assuming materialism? Suppose there was a possible world in which immaterial minds existed, could this not be possible? If not, why not?

 

You explain that intelligence is the result of growing according to the programming of DNA and RNA, but from where did that programming come? You are also begging the question by assuming that consciousness stops when the material vanishes, but how do you prove that? I am not necessarily saying that you are wrong, just that you seem to be making assertions for which you have not given evidence and I wonder how you could.

 

 

you are very adept at shifting the burden of proof, I'll give you that.

 

Look, no one is saying that everything is understood. No one is saying we KNOW with 100% certainty where DNA/RNA came from. (though it HAS been shown that RNA can form in a naturalistic way)

 

However, the physical world is here in front of us, we can see and experience it, both you and I accept this fact. Now YOU want to add something non-physical to this, the burden of proof is on you. Exactly how do suggest we show that minds can exist independent of matter? Suppose I have two jars, one empty and the other holds an immaterial mind. How would you distinguish from the two? If you have no means to do so then your argument is vacuous.

 

There is no question begging here, we do not know the answers to many things, and I will even admit that we may NEVER have a complete explanation of consciousness, (certainly never one which would satisfy your a-prioi conclusion that "god did it")

 

I am OK with that, I can accept that I may never know the answer to many things. But in the end all we are left with is a question mark, and if we cannot know the answer then lets get on with living life and stop worrying about unanswerable questions.

 

To quote the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy

civilization goes through three stages: the “How?”, the “Why?” and the “Where?”. “The first phase is characterized by the question, How can we eat? the second by the question, Why do we eat? and the third by the question, Where shall we have lunch?”

 

Humor aside, I always found Douglas Adams to be a very astute philosopher. The reason you do not understand us, is you are stuck on the why stage while the rest of us have moved on the the where stage and are simply looking for a good place to have lunch. This is why, though I like reason, I find much of philosophy to be idiotic rubbish made up by people who need to get real jobs.

 

 

P.S. Do you really thing we are all too dumb to recognize this as the starting point of the TAG argument just because you do not specifically mention god? Do you respect our intellect so little as to think that after months of arguing TAG with us, that you could repackage it a little bit and bait us into a intellectual trap? I am disappointed in you.

[agnosticator]

Apparently, there would appear to be an aspect to us that cannot be merely boiled down to the physical realm. Now, this doesn't mean that philosophers necessarily jump to a supernatural explanation to account for consciousness; however, it appears that the physical alone (brain, etc.) is not sufficient to explain this phenomenon called consciousness. I don't know that science will or won't eventually explain conscious phenomena; however, I can't necessarily count on science to do so and many philosophers (not all of whom hold to a supernatural explanation) doubt that science will be able to fill the epistemic gap (Chalmers being one of those). What I am saying is that there are epistemic gaps that apparently cannot be filled in by a physical explanation according to many philosophers, and that is not based upon what we don't know, it is based upon what we do know.

 

LNC

 

As I hastily get ready for New Year's Eve, I'll just say that I have waded through a few articles and so far found that philosophers have tentative theories, but no definitive answers for the problems of explaining consciousness. It doesn't bother me that we don't know the particulars of how the subjective experiences of the mind arise or are intertwined with our physical selves. But how can philosophers ever fully understand and explain such a thing without the aid of scientific research?

 

It seems to me that consciousness is an integral part of nature for many types of sentient beings. I see no reason to believe the mind/body can be separated without one disappearing and the other decaying.

[agnosticator]

This is why, though I like reason, I find much of philosophy to be idiotic rubbish made up by people who need to get real jobs.

 

When I read and sweat through philosophical articles, then get to the end with more questions than answers, This is how I feel!

[Shyone]

 

It seems that you are begging the question by assuming naturalism/physicalism to say that intelligence requires material (matter), could you explain why this is the case without assuming materialism? Suppose there was a possible world in which immaterial minds existed, could this not be possible? If not, why not?

 

You explain that intelligence is the result of growing according to the programming of DNA and RNA, but from where did that programming come? You are also begging the question by assuming that consciousness stops when the material vanishes, but how do you prove that? I am not necessarily saying that you are wrong, just that you seem to be making assertions for which you have not given evidence and I wonder how you could.

 

LNC

Imagine empty space. No matter, no intelligence. Unless there is some verifiable example of intelligence without matter then from what we know all intelligence requires matter. Proposing intelligence without matter is the extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof would fall on whomever proposes something that is inconsistent with everything we know about.

 

IOW, intelligence requires matter because that is the observable and default position. No examples exist to the contrary.

 

"Programming" is one of those god-damned words that lends itself to semantic distortion. I explained this in another post, but as an example, when we say the sun "rises and sets" we mean that the earth rotates lending the appearance of movement of the sun. Your question about programming is similar to "Well, then, who makes the sun rise and set?"

 

Over billions of years, with multiple organisms that have found ecologic niches, challenges and have benefitted (and suffered) from mutations, the weak organisms failed, the successful organisms survived and passed on their genetic information. In increments that are almost (but not quite) undetectable, the genetic material has increased in amount and "length."

 

That paragraph above could be the introduction to a 20 volume set on evolution, but if I were you, I'd go to the best source and read Dawkins "The Greatest Show On Earth."

 

As for consciousness disappearing when the matter disappears, have you ever spent any time with someone that was Brain Dead? The unconscious state is the default state when the cerebral cortex ceases to function due to trauma, cancer, infection or prolonged hypotension.

 

I realize there are bunches of people who have been to seances and think they spoke with the dead, or people who have seen ghosts (inconsistent with Christian theology incidentally), or who can recall past lives (also inconsistent with Christian theology), or who have felt a "presence", but these subjective experiences are not verifiable (and most such instances have been shown to be the result of fraud, self-deception or trickery), and there is ultimately no proof of any consciousness in a vacuum.

 

No matter, no consciousness.

 

It is up to the proponents of dualism to show otherwise. I am not making assertions without data. I am simply stating what has been consistently observed.

[LNC]

I like this question, but I am sure not to do it justice.

 

Necessary? No, I think not - in principle - but let's say we are talking about another species. I can't quite picture an unconscious person reflexly gathering food, avoiding danger, etc on our scale. In a short while, I'll try to describe why, but for now suffice it to say that there do exist species that act exactly as you describe - and they get along ok.

 

Could we survive "just as well"? This is so interdependent with environment that I have to qualify it a bit. Some species do, and they have no reason to change. What has happened is that other species get along better with more advanced means of gathering food.

 

A couple of examples:

 

Plankton absorb nutrients that are fairly evenly distributed in the ocean. Most have little or no motility as the currents bring nutrients to them (or them to the nutrients).

 

A larger animal requiring more nutrients (e.g. a more complex organism that is basically a network of plankton) may have some advantages - such as movement to take advantage of better sources of nutrients. The size may provide an advantage regarding protection against bacteria, algae or other tiny living things (or environmental challenges).

 

Species that are even larger might take advantage of the larger animals to get a quick and easy source of food.

 

AAhhhh, this is going to take longer that Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" so let me try to cut to the chase.

 

The food chain is not some unidirectional thing. There is competition, there are predators, and the advantage goes to the predator with the best strategy for 1) getting food and 2) escaping predators. The great thing is that there is more than one way to do this. Herbivores, carnivores, speed, size, armor, intelligence, strength, flight.

 

But beyond the simplest species, movement is at least a requirement. Movement requires several things:

 

Some sense of direction, distance, time

Some means of locomotion

Some ability to coordinate - which at some level requires mathematics

Pattern recognition sufficient to tell food from non-food

Other stuff I haven't thought of.

 

Coordination, in particular, is extremely complicated. Birds, for example, don't think of aviation dynamics when they are flying and diving for food, but that's what they are essentially doing. Picture a bird diving for an insect. Binocular vision enables them to judge distances by calculating the change in size and position of the prey and the ground as it dives. Knowing its mass, velocity, and wing lift it can precisely calculate its turning radius so as to catch the prey and avoid the ground. A miscalculation will result in death. The bird will also likely know something of the behavior of its prey and compensate for that as well: Will the insect continue in a straight line, or deviate in some pattern? Birds learn, and experience teaches, so that an adult bird is better than a baby bird at gathering food.

 

These calculations, or similar ones, are necessary for the survival of every animal that hunts. Even simple things like picking berries requires coordination and intelligence - and memory.

 

The development of intelligence of some form or another was then a necessary requirement for survival, and the degree of intelligence and how it was used vary according to the needs of the species. Koala bears eat eucalyptus leaves, but have no natural predators, so they are different from grizzly bears or rabbits.

 

Many things that are learned to survive are taught in circumstances that do not entail danger. Tigers and cubs, birds, apes and humans play "games" that teach necessary strategies for survival, but the games themselves require the participation of the young, and those young that find these games worth doing - even though they do not directly affect survival in any appreciable way - will tend to survive better than those who don't play the games.

 

So we see the intellectual activity of animals involves an appreciation of learning for the sake of learning. "Children" that fail to engage these games are eliminated from the pack, and the propensity for intellectual activity and learning, to the extent it is genetically determined, is passed along to their progeny.

 

This is getting way too long, and I'm leaving out volumes of material, but I think you should be able to see that consciousness, and all that entails, becomes necessary for survival of any species with a significant nutritional burden.

 

The limitations to what can be taught and learned may depend on what is necessary for the particular species, but every time a mutation happens that allows for better survival, such as increased cranial vault volume and brain mass (and neuronal connections) may provide distinctive advantages for survival - and reproductive success - and that is another major category itself. Good singers, story tellers, dancers, artists and the like may be able to attract women better than stupid, ugly, boring people.

 

And that's why you are here.

 

Shyone,

 

Thanks for the detailed answer. Now let's go back to the original questions and look at from where these concepts came that allow for the gaining of intelligence (or, might we call it knowledge since intelligence alone will not do anything unless the entity believes it to be true). This knowledge would involve intentionality (thinking of or about things), which involves concepts, and those concepts must have an intrinsic nature to them (i.e., they need to originate with the entity, not be derived from another). So, how are these accounted for? Also, could you address the perception question and let me know if you believe that creatures (animals, humans, etc.) perceive directly or indirectly? That will help to move our discussion along.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

Shyone,

 

Thanks for the detailed answer. Now let's go back to the original questions and look at from where these concepts came that allow for the gaining of intelligence (or, might we call it knowledge since intelligence alone will not do anything unless the entity believes it to be true). This knowledge would involve intentionality (thinking of or about things), which involves concepts, and those concepts must have an intrinsic nature to them (i.e., they need to originate with the entity, not be derived from another). So, how are these accounted for? Also, could you address the perception question and let me know if you believe that creatures (animals, humans, etc.) perceive directly or indirectly? That will help to move our discussion along.

 

LNC

I appreciate your interest, but I'm just not up to debating, explaining, elaborating or researching right now.

 

I did run across an excellent video on anatomy and evolution with respect to function (Carl Sagan narrates):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SHc67Hep48

 

As for perception, we have the same senses as animals in different degrees, the same intelligence in different degrees, and the same intentionality, nature and even knowledge to different degrees. The smartest chimp is smarter than the dumbest human.

 

I've been reading "A Brief History of Time" by Steven Hawking and, given the material connection to intelligence that is so evident in humans, I have had some thoughts about what it would take to have an intelligence involving enormous distances - as though the universe, or parts of it, could be intelligent. I think it's unlikely to be significant, even to itself, but not impossible in some sense.

 

I'd say we have a better chance of creating artificial intelligence than that the universe (or some part of it other than our traditional views of life).

 

OTOH, there is something to the Gaia concept... Integrated interdependent systems that developed concurrently.

 

Not much, but something.

[agnosticator]

Here is something that is interesting from from the site of The Association For The Scientific Study of Consciousness. This is from a book:

 

"...the current first step in trying to understand the link between consciousness

and the brain consists in finding out which neural components are specifically involved during conscious processing, but importantly not during unconscious

processing. Francis Crick and Christoph Koch have coined the term ‘neural correlates of

consciousness’ (NCC; see Glossary) in order to describe this epistemological approach. According to them, the best strategy for a neurobiological science of consciousness is to search for the NCC.Underneath this approach is the crucial principle that ‘correlates’do not imply any relation of causality between the occurrence of conscious mental events and their associated physiological structure. Consequently, this strategy has the advantage of leaving aside, at least for the moment, the hard problem of finding the neural ‘bases’ of consciousness."

 

 

"By contrast, the hard problem consists in explaining the firstorder,

subjective nature of qualias and phenomenal

states, the ‘what is it like to be conscious’ as well as

how and why we experience consciousness at all"

 

 

"...Most neurobiologists acknowledge the

existence of a hard problem. However, they also

endorse the principle that further scientific investigations

will ultimately allow us to resolve it."

 

According to author/cognitive neuroscientist Sid Kouider, this is where neuroscientists are presently approaching the problem of consciousness and the brain. What we have to say in this forum is nothing more than speculation and opinion.

[skepticalme]

 

Shyone,

 

Thanks for the detailed answer. Now let's go back to the original questions and look at from where these concepts came that allow for the gaining of intelligence (or, might we call it knowledge since intelligence alone will not do anything unless the entity believes it to be true). This knowledge would involve intentionality (thinking of or about things), which involves concepts, and those concepts must have an intrinsic nature to them (i.e., they need to originate with the entity, not be derived from another). So, how are these accounted for? Also, could you address the perception question and let me know if you believe that creatures (animals, humans, etc.) perceive directly or indirectly? That will help to move our discussion along.

 

LNC

 

Why do you believe that a purely material being is not capable of these things? And don't say that ther is no property of physics or chemisty that allows for this. That would be an argument from personal incredulity. Just because you can't see one doesn't mean that you should conclude there isn't one. A long time ago people believed that the sun and moon rise and set because Gods move them, some even believed that the sun and moon were gods in of themselves. They would argue that this could not be the result of inanimate forced and interactions in much the same way you argue consciousness. can not be the result of inanimate forced and interactions because, to them, there was no known property that could allow for this. To them it appeared that the sun and moon rise and set with intention and purpose. We know better. We know that the rising and setting of the sun and moon are a byproduct of complex astrophysics, that there is no intention or purpose at all, but the result gives the illusion of those things. That illusion only persist as long as ingorance is maintained. Back to the original question, "What is consciousness.?". The only honest answer you can give is "I don't know." And the thing is you don't know either. You can say that it is the result of a soul or a god, but that is not really an answer. What metaphysical property gives souls or god consciousness? Invoking souls or god is the metaphysical form of infinte regression, it just personifies it and gives it a name.

 

Personally I believe that consciousness precludes the existance of god. If god truely is god then he must be omnipotent. If he is omnipotent then he knows every thing that will ever happen. If he knows everything that will ever happen then these things must already be determined. If events are already determined then I don't have free will at all. I would just be acting out a play that he wrote long ago. If I truely have free will then god can not know my actions ahead of time. Free will neccesitates uncertainty in my actions and decisions. If I really choose to be good or evil then it can't be known until I decide. I put purpose and intention in my actions. If these things come from god then I'm not really conscious, I would simply be an avatar that he created/controls. If god could truely create another sentient being then he is effectively giving up his status as god. He would be creating something that he could not control. Sort of the, "Can god create a boulder so heavy that even he can not move?" question. To create another sentient being would be to create something with equal potential to himself. At that point the only things that would seperate us and god would be knowledge and power, things that we attain more of everyday.

 

I however, reject this notion. We are the unintentional product of everything that has ever happend. We are both a part of and a product of the universe. In a sense, our search for knowledge and understanding is the universe trying to understand itself. And I find that more beautiful and poetic than any creation myth.

[Dagan]

 

A by-product of the evolution of the human brain into a pattern-recognition machine as a survival skill. Consciousness as we call it may be simply an advanced state of pattern recognition, or a happy side-effect of evolution.

 

It was already stated by someone else on this thread that evolution does not explain the totality of consciousness. For example, how do we account for our appreciation of aesthetics? In fact, how do we account for our perception of those items that we appreciate? However, I will look on to your answer of that question.

 

Why do we like blue skies? Could it be because millions of years of experience has taught us that blue skies means warm days and good hunting and berry-gathering weather? Just as animals can be taught to associate a sound with food and good things, maybe the things we find beautiful are because of millions of years of association. Maybe all straight men find breasts pleasant to look at because of an association with mother (as babies) and sex (as adults) that has existed for so long it has become instinct.

 

And all art and music is some form of a pattern, or lack of a pattern. That is what draws us to it, that is what we find aesthetically pleasing. I find the Winged Victory of Samothrace aesthetically pleasing because of the pattern of motion it captures, something I recognize as almost lifelike. I find Beethoven's Ninth Symphony moving because the patterns of music affect me emotionally.

 

I believe that someday evolution will be able to explain the totality of consciousness. It just can't, yet.

 

evolution is about getting our body parts in the right place at the right time, no more, no less. Therefore, they believe that knowledge, which is defined as justified true beliefs, does not fit into that evolutionary model. Truth is not necessary, nor are beliefs, as long as we act in the right way. We could hold false beliefs that would lead to right behavior. Therefore, they and others believe that knowledge cannot be accounted for.

 

Who says that knowledge is justified true beliefs? That's an interesting point on which to hinge an argument, but maybe there are no true beliefs. Maybe there are just beliefs that fit best with reality, and beliefs which don't fit very well with reality. Maybe a truth is just what most people decide best fits with reality. Witness changing morality. At one time -- in Jesus' time -- consensus was that slavery was OK, that executing people for having sex outside of marriage was OK and that seizures were caused by demons afflicting people who had sinned. Now, the consensus has changed on all those things.

 

I'm no philosopher, so I'm probably botching up all the definitions, but I think of knowledge as a collection of information. There is a good evolutionary explanation for that. A creature which can retain knowledge about which food to eat, which food not to eat, which other creatures to avoid and which other creatures to hunt will survive. A creature which cannot do this, will not survive.

 

most naturalists don't believe that we can perceive a thing as it is, but that we all perceive indirectly as mediated by concepts that we have collected along the way. Since none of us has had the same experiences, then none of us actually perceived the same thing, yet it appears from our conversation that we did.

 

But because most people's senses and brains work the same way, they experience something similar. The similarities are overwhelming enough to allow them to come to a consensus on what they experience.

 

Some people's brains don't work the same way. For example, people with autism, mental illness, people who are colour-blind. They experience things differently than others. But still, the overwhelming majority of people experience things the same way, and come to common conclusions. No need for some divinely-inspired framework.

 

And humans are social animals. Everything happens in groups. Ideas and behaviours which pass group consensus are carried on through generations, to the point of becoming instinctive. Again, I think evolution will someday be able to explain this, as scientists study how humans developed societies and group dynamics to survive.

 

there seems to be a need at some point to have intrinsically held concepts, but naturalism has no explanation for these.

 

No, I think a naturalistic view can allow for it in the way I tried to explain.

 

So, I gather by your post that there is no direct perception of a thing in itself, but only perception of variances in colors (actually light waves of different wave lengths), touch sensations, etc. That is consistent with a naturalist position, but still requires the intentional concepts mentioned above to put them all together and that does not allow us to arrive at truth or true perception as it is mediated by those concepts, which themselves cannot be tested for veridicality. I think you have arrived at the problem that many naturalists face. Thanks for your answers and thoughts.

 

I have not arrived at any problems. If I can see, touch, taste and hear something it's real enough. The immovability of the rock face in front of me and the delicious-smelling roast in the oven are truth enough for me.

 

You seem to assume that there must be some sort of greater truth, some sort of one true perception which explains everything, and any worldview which cannot allow for that must be rejected.

 

There isn't any philosophical truth, or true perception. Things just are what they are, and we understand them the best we can. We don't always get it right. Some puzzle pieces will forever be missing, and we've got a bunch of pieces of another puzzle mixed in here. But the body of human knowledge, collected and passed on, is guiding researchers and thinkers to understanding a little bit more each day how things work, and why.

 

Thanks for rephrasing your questions by the way.

[LNC]

you are very adept at shifting the burden of proof, I'll give you that.

 

Look, no one is saying that everything is understood. No one is saying we KNOW with 100% certainty where DNA/RNA came from. (though it HAS been shown that RNA can form in a naturalistic way)

 

However, the physical world is here in front of us, we can see and experience it, both you and I accept this fact. Now YOU want to add something non-physical to this, the burden of proof is on you. Exactly how do suggest we show that minds can exist independent of matter? Suppose I have two jars, one empty and the other holds an immaterial mind. How would you distinguish from the two? If you have no means to do so then your argument is vacuous.

 

There is no question begging here, we do not know the answers to many things, and I will even admit that we may NEVER have a complete explanation of consciousness, (certainly never one which would satisfy your a-prioi conclusion that "god did it")

 

I am OK with that, I can accept that I may never know the answer to many things. But in the end all we are left with is a question mark, and if we cannot know the answer then lets get on with living life and stop worrying about unanswerable questions.

 

I don't know that it is shifting the burden as much as it is calling out assumptions and asking for support of those assumptions. I don't think anyone of us can claim 100% certainty about anything and I would question those who do. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know about RNA/DNA; however, I am simply asking questions about what we do know. Also, I would question your assertion that RNA has been shown to form naturally, that is unless you consider RNA forming within a laboratory with the aid of researchers to be "natural." The fact is that the core elements that were used in that experiment have not been discovered to exist "naturally" (that is, they don't exist in nature, but were concocted in the lab). So, although the experiment is interesting, it doesn't really tell us that RNA can self-organize in nature. It only tells us that given the set of conditions in the lab, the researchers could get RNA to organize from the elements that were created by intelligent agents.

 

You again, however are appealing to circular reasoning by saying that because we can see nature and not see something supernatural (supposedly) that it is not there and therefore we are left with naturalism. You cannot avoid your own burden of proof simply by appealing to current ignorance and some possible future understanding. You still have the burden to dispel your ignorance and find reasonable answers for your ignorance. USC philosopher, Dallas Willard calls this the moral imperative of unbelief. He uses the example of a ships captain who doesn't inspect his ship before setting sail only to have it sink on his journey, killing all of his passengers. He cannot plead ignorance of the problem since he didn't seek out the answers that would have saved his passengers. So, sorry, but you also have the burden of finding reasonable explanations for phenomena like the information that exists within DNA, consciousness, knowledge, intentionality, the existence and fine tuning of the universe and other phenomena. You cannot simply say that we don't know now, but someday we will solve that problem with a naturalistic explanation - that is a faith assertion. BTW, I don't believe that jars hold immaterial minds, so I don't believe it is a legitimate scenario. Now, if you pose it this way and say that there are two bodies, one alive and one dead and ask me which has an immaterial mind, then I can answer that - and I believe you could as well.

 

You should be so satisfied with ignorance, nor should you unnecessarily limit the possible answers by begging the question toward naturalism. The difference between you and me is that I am open to one additional possible answer where you seem not to be, and I wonder whether your position is rationally justified?

 

To quote the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy

civilization goes through three stages: the “How?”, the “Why?” and the “Where?”. “The first phase is characterized by the question, How can we eat? the second by the question, Why do we eat? and the third by the question, Where shall we have lunch?”

 

Humor aside, I always found Douglas Adams to be a very astute philosopher. The reason you do not understand us, is you are stuck on the why stage while the rest of us have moved on the the where stage and are simply looking for a good place to have lunch. This is why, though I like reason, I find much of philosophy to be idiotic rubbish made up by people who need to get real jobs.

 

 

P.S. Do you really thing we are all too dumb to recognize this as the starting point of the TAG argument just because you do not specifically mention god? Do you respect our intellect so little as to think that after months of arguing TAG with us, that you could repackage it a little bit and bait us into a intellectual trap? I am disappointed in you.

 

The question is why have you moved on from the why question when you have already admitted that you don't yet have the answer. Maybe I haven't moved on since I am still pursuing that answer and won't give up until I have a reasonable one. Maybe it is time for you to take a step back and pursue that answer with me as I believe that there is a reasonable answer to it. I also find some philosophy, not most, to be rubbish - but I think that began to happen during the enlightenment when man thought that the sum of all wisdom could be found within. Man turned inward and I think he took his eye off of the real source of knowledge, not to mention that this set up existentialism and eventually postmodernism.

 

Sorry, I am not setting up the TAG argument, in fact, I personally don't use the TAG argument, nor have I in all the months that I have been on this site. So, although I don't consider you dumb, I also don't think that you have mind-reading capabilities to know my intentions. Your disappointment is misdirected. Why do you consider honest questions to be a trap?

 

LNC

[Kuroikaze]

I don't know that it is shifting the burden as much as it is calling out assumptions and asking for support of those assumptions. I don't think anyone of us can claim 100% certainty about anything and I would question those who do. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know about RNA/DNA; however, I am simply asking questions about what we do know. Also, I would question your assertion that RNA has been shown to form naturally, that is unless you consider RNA forming within a laboratory with the aid of researchers to be "natural." The fact is that the core elements that were used in that experiment have not been discovered to exist "naturally" (that is, they don't exist in nature, but were concocted in the lab). So, although the experiment is interesting, it doesn't really tell us that RNA can self-organize in nature. It only tells us that given the set of conditions in the lab, the researchers could get RNA to organize from the elements that were created by intelligent agents.

 

Unless you are referring to a different experiment than the one I am referring to then you are grossly misinformed. The elements used in the experiment were all naturally occurring, and the conditions used were reasonable given what we know about the conditions of early earth. I have actually read the paper on said experiment, not some half assed article from answersingenesis like you apparently read.

 

You again, however are appealing to circular reasoning by saying that because we can see nature and not see something supernatural (supposedly) that it is not there and therefore we are left with naturalism. You cannot avoid your own burden of proof simply by appealing to current ignorance and some possible future understanding. You still have the burden to dispel your ignorance and find reasonable answers for your ignorance.

USC philosopher, Dallas Willard calls this the moral imperative of unbelief. He uses the example of a ships captain who doesn't inspect his ship before setting sail only to have it sink on his journey, killing all of his passengers. He cannot plead ignorance of the problem since he didn't seek out the answers that would have saved his passengers. So, sorry, but you also have the burden of finding reasonable explanations for phenomena like the information that exists within DNA, consciousness, knowledge, intentionality, the existence and fine tuning of the universe and other phenomena. You cannot simply say that we don't know now, but someday we will solve that problem with a naturalistic explanation - that is a faith assertion. BTW, I don't believe that jars hold immaterial minds, so I don't believe it is a legitimate scenario. Now, if you pose it this way and say that there are two bodies, one alive and one dead and ask me which has an immaterial mind, then I can answer that - and I believe you could as well.

 

Oh please you miss the point entierly. So I am a ship captain, how long must I inspect the ship before I conclude that it is safe? We will never know 100%. religion has had thousands of years to make its case and has failed. so why should I keep inspecting even though all my senses lead me to conclude that everything is fine? Would the ship captain take advice on ship safety from a stock broker? Cause I think that is what the word of a theologian is, someone totally unqualified to do anything of use.

 

If you cannot offer some reliable way to tell the empty cup from the other then you admit that in your world view you cannot distinguish things that exist from those that do not.

 

I will believe in the supernatural as soon as it is distinguishable from things that are do not exist. Until then your world view is about as vacuous as Jessica Simpson's brain.

 

The alternative you offer is circular because it pre-assumes there are immaterial minds to begin with. For someone who seems so stuck on me using good logic you seem to suck at it yourself.

 

My answer would be that neither person has a "immaterial mind" because I have been shown no evidence of immaterial anything existing and I have no way of telling the immaterial from the non-existing.

 

You should be so satisfied with ignorance, nor should you unnecessarily limit the possible answers by begging the question toward naturalism. The difference between you and me is that I am open to one additional possible answer where you seem not to be, and I wonder whether your position is rationally justified?

 

Again, no question begging is required to be skeptical of things which have not been proven, nor is saying "I don't know" equivalent to faith. I believe in what has been demonstrated and do not believe in what has not.

 

 

The question is why have you moved on from the why question when you have already admitted that you don't yet have the answer. Maybe I haven't moved on since I am still pursuing that answer and won't give up until I have a reasonable one. Maybe it is time for you to take a step back and pursue that answer with me as I believe that there is a reasonable answer to it. I also find some philosophy, not most, to be rubbish - but I think that began to happen during the enlightenment when man thought that the sum of all wisdom could be found within. Man turned inward and I think he took his eye off of the real source of knowledge, not to mention that this set up existentialism and eventually postmodernism.

 

And you still do not get it do you? I have moved on because I find the question as silly and vacuous as debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

 

Yeah reasonable answer = "God did it" sorry you cannot answer one mystery with another mystery and call than an answer or reason. Again, the REASONABLE person says "I don't know" when faced with a question for which there is no good evidence. He does not make up an answer and tell everyone who does not immediately jump on board with his rationalization and idiot.

 

I do not like postmodern philosophy either so I suppose we agree on something. You do realize that the founder of existentialism was a Christian don't you?

 

 

Sorry, I am not setting up the TAG argument, in fact, I personally don't use the TAG argument, nor have I in all the months that I have been on this site. So, although I don't consider you dumb, I also don't think that you have mind-reading capabilities to know my intentions. Your disappointment is misdirected. Why do you consider honest questions to be a trap?

 

You are either a liar, have a very short memory, or simply do not know what the TAG argument is, which would be weird since you have been making it so often. In short, TAG, or the Transcendental argument for God is the claim that certain transcendental concepts like Morality and logic or the existence of a mind can only objectively exist if they are given by a god. You have, on many occasions, made claims about the existence of logical rules proving god's existence and are currently engaging in an argument that god exists through an argument for a transcendent mind, ergo the TAG argument.

 

As for why I consider it a trap..... um...... I have actually talked to theists, and I have talked to you specifically enough to know the dishonest way theists in general and you in specific address us.

[NotBlinded]

P.S. Do you really thing we are all too dumb to recognize this as the starting point of the TAG argument just because you do not specifically mention god? Do you respect our intellect so little as to think that after months of arguing TAG with us, that you could repackage it a little bit and bait us into a intellectual trap? I am disappointed in you.

If that's the case, then's he's using the wrong philosopher. Chalmers is a property dualist from what I understand. He sees consciousness as a product of the brain but non-reduceable to the brain alone. The other player in consciousness is something that is a fundamental law of nature. It's the interaction between the two.

 

Indeed, the overall structure of this position is entirely naturalistic, allowing that ultimately the universe comes down to a network of basic entities obeying simple laws and allowing that there may ultimately be a theory of consciousness cast in terms of such laws. If the position is to have a name, a good choice might be naturalistic dualism.

 

...

 

If the causal patterns of neural organization were duplicated in silicon, for example, with a silicon chip for every neuron and the same patterns of interaction, then the same experiences would arise. According to this principle, what matters for the emergence of experience is not the specific physical makeup of a system, but the abstract pattern of causal interaction between its components. This principle is controversial, of course. Some (e.g. Searle 1980) have thought that consciousness is tied to a specific biology, so that a silicon isomorph of a human need not be conscious. I believe that the principle can be given significant support by the analysis of thought-experiments, however.

Chalmers

[NotBlinded]

What we have to say in this forum is nothing more than speculation and opinion.

Yes, but it's quite fun isn't it?

[Ouroboros]

"Naturalistic Dualism," I like that.

[florduh]

If a phenomenon is not yet explained down to the last detail, obviously it's a case of "God did it."

 

I'm just glad that rational minds have ultimately prevailed throughout history. Otherwise we'd have stopped looking for answers and still believe the spring wouldn't come after winter unless we offered a sacrifice and that epileptics are demon possessed.

 

The obstinate ignorance and arrogance wears thin after a few thousand years. We must build understanding on facts and evidence, not wishful thinking. All progress is the direct result of this process. Assigning a supernatural cause to natural processes not yet fully understood is counterproductive.

[agnosticator]

What we have to say in this forum is nothing more than speculation and opinion.

Yes, but it's quite fun isn't it?

 

Discussion with LNC? FUN?

[Shyone]

If a phenomenon is not yet explained down to the last detail, obviously it's a case of "God did it."

 

I'm just glad that rational minds have ultimately prevailed throughout history. Otherwise we'd have stopped looking for answers and still believe the spring wouldn't come after winter unless we offered a sacrifice and that epileptics are demon possessed.

 

The obstinate ignorance and arrogance wears thin after a few thousand years. We must build understanding on facts and evidence, not wishful thinking. All progress is the direct result of this process. Assigning a supernatural cause to natural processes not yet fully understood is counterproductive.

Bingo. Why is this so difficult for some to understand?