Consciousness

[Dagan]

So, I answered your questions, LNC. Now what? Are my answers not as exciting as arguing about the definitions of the terms of how we should argue?

[NotBlinded]

"Naturalistic Dualism," I like that.

Me too.

 

(Did you have fun?)

[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?

 

Discussion with LNC? FUN?

HA! I really meant giving opinions and speculating.

 

See...you made me laugh!

[NotBlinded]

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.

See...matter is intelligent. I knew we agreed.

[Ouroboros]

(Did you have fun?)

In Sweden? Yes. We're still there, but we've figured out a hotspot in the house where we have wireless. But I don't get much time to be online.

 

We're heading home again on Saturday. And I can't wait to get home. It's too friggin' cold here.

[Shyone]

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.

See...matter is intelligent. I knew we agreed.

Ahem, my matter is intelligent. I'm not so sure about yours.

 

Oh, and I am just kidding!

 

It does raise an interesting perspective. I am reminded of a Ven diagram. Matter and intelligence. The intelligence would be within the circle for matter, but they would not be the same size.

 

i.e. all intelligence requires matter. Not all matter is intelligent.

[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.

I'll take a look at the video when I get a chance. Regarding perception, the question is whether we perceive a thing as it is or whether it is mediated. If it is mediated, then we don't have the same perception as anyone else, let alone animals. We may have the same equipment (roughly), but that doesn't result in the same perception, even from person to person (ala, Kant, Hume and others). Regarding chimps and humans, I am not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make regarding a material connection to intelligence and the universe. It seems to me that we cannot prove that intelligence is limited to a material connection only that most of what we perceive as intelligent is exhibited by physical creatures. However, there is no evidence that it is limited to physical entities. It seems that the universe exhibits some intelligence; however, it seems to be derived intelligence rather than intrinsic.

 

I think that the challenge of AI will be crossing the line from derived intentionality to intrinsic intentionality, I don't know that it will ever happen, but it will be interesting to watch.

 

It seems that if one can hold to the Gaia hypothesis or a panpsychist view, then it isn't a big leap to believe that there is a God as both ideas posit an intelligence to matter, which assumes an intentionality, which assumes a mind, which is an immaterial element of the physical. I don't know how we explain intentionality otherwise.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.

 

It will be interesting to see how this progresses. I think that they will still have challenges addressing the questions that I initially laid out. Qualia is another problem that you have introduced here that I haven't even addressed, but poses a big issue to overcome. Yet, the questions that I have asked are mostly concerned with philosophical problems that categorically, I believe, cannot be answered by physical explanations.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

 

I'll take a look at the video when I get a chance. Regarding perception, the question is whether we perceive a thing as it is or whether it is mediated. If it is mediated, then we don't have the same perception as anyone else, let alone animals. We may have the same equipment (roughly), but that doesn't result in the same perception, even from person to person (ala, Kant, Hume and others). Regarding chimps and humans, I am not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

Clearly, physical differences do "mediate" differences in perception. Deafness, blindness, neuropathy, and even color blindness are examples of physically mediated differences in perception. By verbal communication and testing, we can at least determine if we have the same abilities to differentiate things - colors, scents, tastes, etc. Given that some can differentiate these things, and the mechanisms for all of these are species general, we can reasonably extrapolate that the perceptions are the same for all humans with some differences that are frequently based on physical differences (genetics, disease, etc.).

 

In the same sense, we can test chimps to see if chimps have similar ability to discriminate between colors, shapes, scents, and so forth. Again, they are limited by the same shortcomings as humans, and their abilities are similar to humans.

 

A philosopher that, in the absense of data, can "think" his or her way into different qualia does not command my respect. I'd rather trust something that is testable, verifiable and falsifiable.

 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make regarding a material connection to intelligence and the universe. It seems to me that we cannot prove that intelligence is limited to a material connection only that most of what we perceive as intelligent is exhibited by physical creatures. However, there is no evidence that it is limited to physical entities. It seems that the universe exhibits some intelligence; however, it seems to be derived intelligence rather than intrinsic.

<snip>

LNC

 

The material connection is one that we can examine repeatedly with the same results. We have no examples of intelligence in the absense of any matter or energy (a pure vacuum). That is the evidence. Matter? Intelligence. No matter? No intelligence. Every single time.

 

The extraordinary claim of intelligence without matter would require more than assertion to be accepted. Subjective impressions that "seem" intelligent are not evidence. If you saw a dust devil, you might think it acts with intention or intelligence, but your personal impressions do not translate to testable intelligence.

 

To me, the universe is filled with matter and energy with intersting properties, but I would expect you to tell me what seems intelligent about something spread out so far that it takes billions of years for even light to reach parts of it.

 

What would a stupid universe look like?

[NotBlinded]

Ahem, my matter is intelligent. I'm not so sure about yours.

 

Oh, and I am just kidding!

 

It does raise an interesting perspective. I am reminded of a Ven diagram. Matter and intelligence. The intelligence would be within the circle for matter, but they would not be the same size.

 

i.e. all intelligence requires matter. Not all matter is intelligent.

Damn you and your math...I had to go look up this diagram!

 

But wouldn't that leave intelligence existing outside of matter on the outer side of the circle? If not all matter is intelligent, not all intelligence is matter. I may not be understanding that right. Is it just one circle?

 

(Matter (Matter/Intelligence) Intelligence)

[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.

 

Sure, people had all kinds of strange beliefs back then and still do now. We will look back someday at many of the scientific theories that we hold today and shake our heads in disbelief that we could have believed such ideas. We once believed that luminiferous etherwas a substance that filled the universe and could block electromagnetic waves while allowing solid objects to pass through. It wasn't until the 19th century that the theory was proved wrong (over two millennia since it was first hypothesized by Aristotle). So, science is not completely reliable either.

 

Regarding consciousness, I have done research that indicates that if we were purely material beings which are the products of evolution, we would have no basis for knowing anything reliably. All of our concepts that undergird intentionality would be derived leaving us with no basis for truth, sound logical relations, and noetic unity. So, no I am not making an argument from personal incredulity or an argument from the gaps, but an argument based upon what we know and need to know. You, on the other hand, have committed the genetic fallacy in your attempt to try to refute any immaterial explanation. I don't believe that I have given the answer that I don't know what consciousness is, nor do I believe that it is the only honest answer. If that were the case then we wouldn't have so many people studying it. Do you know what it means that someone is unconscious? Do you know what it means that someone is conscious? Well, then if you do then you know something about consciousness. Do we know everything about consciousness? No, in fact, we don't know everything about anything, but that doesn't seem to stop us from trying to understand concepts and ideas.

 

Regarding your comment that "invoking souls or god is the metaphysical form of infinte regression," you will have to explain how you come to that conclusion as I see it as a non-sequitur. If you are right, then you don't avoid an infinite regression by eliminating God from the equation, you simply end up with a physical infinite regression. But, I think you are wrong in your assessment and, in fact, I believe that God is the only way that we avoid such an infinite regression. But explain away and tell me how you come to your conclusion.

 

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.

 

First, you have confused omnipotence with omniscience. Omnipotence does nothing for having knowledge as it is related to power, while omniscience is the quality of seeing all. Second, you are also confused about the concept of seeing the future and determining the future. God can see the future without necessarily determining the future. Here is a weak example, but an example nonetheless. If I put out cookies in my house and tell my kids that they are free to eat or not eat the cookies as they choose, I know pretty well what the outcome will be (even though I'm not omniscient), yet they still have a completely free choice to make about the cookies. One of my kids may choose not to eat the cookies due to an upset stomach. The other may decide to go out and play rather than eat the cookies. They still have a free choice; however, I'm almost certain that they will eat the cookies.

 

Now, the difference is that God knows for sure what our choice is, not because he has determined it, but because he has seen into the future to know what our choice was (for him)/will be (for us). There is no determination on our part as we could have freely chosen something else and then he would have seen that. Do you see the distinction? There is no reason that an omniscient God is bound by spacetime from seeing the future events, in fact, such a limitation would make him less than God. You are simply imposing human limitations on God. I also find that your statement that by creating another sentient being God ceases to be God a non-sequitur. Why would God, who self-limits himself as to directing the futures of his creation, necessarily lose his divinity? You are saying that, in essence, God's essential nature changes by creating free creatures and that does not follow. You are also confused in saying that in creating free creatures God has created beings with equal potential power. That is a Nietzchean concept that does not carry. Man does not possess the power to become omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, etc., all attributes of God. You seem to fall into Nietzsche's will to power camp, but that project has failed since Nietzsche thought it up.

 

Your last paragraph is basically contradictory. If we are the unintentional products of a blind process, then we cannot achieve knowledge as knowledge requires truth and truth requires intentionality and you have already denied intentionality so you have, in essence, locked yourself out of the capacity for knowledge. But, you don't operate your life that way, which would lead to nihilism, so I don't believe that you have either thought through your position carefully enough or you are living with known contradictions and ignoring them. I would suggest that it is probably the former, which is why I started this thread, so that we can all think through these ideas carefully.

 

Thanks for the thoughts and post.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

What would a stupid universe look like?

Like this one, brother. Like this one.

[Shyone]

 

Damn you and your math...I had to go look up this diagram!

 

But wouldn't that leave intelligence existing outside of matter on the outer side of the circle? If not all matter is intelligent, not all intelligence is matter. I may not be understanding that right. Is it just one circle?

 

(Matter (Matter/Intelligence) Intelligence)

Ok, here's the diagram (my version) (you may have to click on it to read the writing):

 

 

I suppose that there is some kind of diagram that has intelligence partly on material and partly on the vacuum if immaterial.

[Shyone]

 

Damn you and your math...I had to go look up this diagram!

 

But wouldn't that leave intelligence existing outside of matter on the outer side of the circle? If not all matter is intelligent, not all intelligence is matter. I may not be understanding that right. Is it just one circle?

 

(Matter (Matter/Intelligence) Intelligence)

Ok, here's the diagram (my version) (you may have to click on it to read the writing):

 

 

I suppose that there is some kind of diagram that has intelligence partly on material and partly on the vacuum if immaterial.

Um, I forgot those that see Intelligence in everything and in nothing (independent of matter).

 

Matter is then all intelligent, but intelligence also exists independent of matter.

 

 

For those that simply think all matter is intelligent, and there is no intelligence without matter, the

circles would be the same size.

[Antlerman]

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.

Which in itself, is a creation myth.

 

 

Just saying to provoke some thought. It's a created story based on a scientific understanding of the world as to how things happened in order to give us a basis to interpret the significance of our existence = creation myth. There's as much truth to that, as to the story of Adam and Eve - in that it offers an understanding of who we are and where we fit into the scheme of things. Evidences are irrelevant in this regard. (Even though I feel the Genesis myth is more deliberate in its symbolism - and hence possibly more poetic, more suited to express that existential angst of being if not understood literally).

 

 

P.S. Yes, I've been trying to read this thread. Just a bit busy.

[Shyone]

Qualia is another problem that you have introduced here that I haven't even addressed, but poses a big issue to overcome. Yet, the questions that I have asked are mostly concerned with philosophical problems that categorically, I believe, cannot be answered by physical explanations.

 

LNC

(QUAIL-yuh or QUAL-yuh singular: quale, QUAL-ee or -ay). Often referred to a “raw feels”, qualia are those subjective, qualitative properties of mental states such as sensations and emotions—the “what it is like” to see red, feel pain, be angry. ...

 

You know, the Christian should argue that "qualia" are the same for everyone (which makes sense to me since we are based on the same physiology). If not, then the bible is worthless as a guide.

 

Many of the seven deadly sins are qualia:

 

lustful appetite (Gluttony, Fornication, and Avarice)

irascibility (Anger)

intellect (Vainglory, Sorrow, Pride, and Discouragement)

 

If we cannot equate one person's lust with another's, then the whole concept of a sinful qualia falls to pieces. If one adopts the viewpoint that everyone's experiences are different, then even love and hate or pleasure and pain are potentially different. How can I be sure you feel pain when I stick you?

 

Did Jesus feel pain? Not being human, it's even less likely that he felt pain as we do. I think he said to one of the thieves next to him, "Man this is a kick!" Or maybe not. Maybe he just thought it. I can't remember.

 

If we all experience different "qualia" then we are bordering on solipsism - not in terms of existence, but quality of existence. Perhaps everyone else is an automaton, or robot, with no emotions, pain etc. Maybe everyone else just fakes it in some vast cosmic conspiracy to make me think I'm not the only one that exists.

 

So, if the Christian thinks his love is different, or his "gut" is a better judge of reality, then s/he is arguing that there is no basis for telling people not to experience certain qualia that are sinful.

 

I think there is good reason to say that our qualia are identical - within some parameters of physical differences.

 

I wonder if serial killers experience empathy, and is there a physical basis for their behavior.

 

When the hypothalamus, the temporal lobe, and/or the limbic brain show damage, it may account for uncontrollable aggression.

[LNC]

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.

 

Those are interesting theories; however, without any supporting proof, they are merely "just so" stories and really nothing more. For example, regarding the blues skies, in my part of the world this time of year, blue skies generally mean bitter cold, while in other parts of the world they mean searing heat. So, it is an over generalization to say that it means good hunting, therefore, we like them. I'm afraid the same could be done with each of the examples. To say that art is some form of pattern or lack of pattern, therefore, we are drawn to it because we find it aesthetically pleasing is begging the question. Is it the patterns or the lack of patterns that we like? Why do some call classical music art while others call rap music art?

 

To say that some day evolution will explain the totality of consciousness is just a wish statement or a faith statement - a sort of "evolution of the gaps" hope on your part (and probably that of others on this site).

 

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.

 

The definition that I gave for knowledge is a commonly held definition in philosophy. If there are no true beliefs then there is no knowledge either, so we would be wasting our time in this exchange - yet, I don't think you really believe that, nor do I. Beliefs that fit with reality would be justified and that would be knowledge. Something that fits with reality is called truth, so you have backed yourself out of your first statement that there are no true beliefs. It would either be one or the other, but couldn't be both. Regarding morality, we can say that beliefs change (i.e. what a person believes about morality for example); however, truth doesn't change. So, if moral standards change, it is beliefs and not the morals themselves that are changing.

 

Knowledge cannot be equivalent to a collection of information since the information collected may be false information (e.g., that the moon is made of green cheese and Mars is filled with little men with with helmets with brushes on top.) That is a collection of information, but not knowledge. The evolutionary explanation that you give may be possible for basic explanations given that we perceive directly (which is not agreed upon by many naturalists)and that we have intrinsic intentionality (again, not agreed upon by most naturalists). Otherwise, that explanation would not work. That is the reason for the opening questions in my OP.

 

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.

 

How do you know that most people's brains work the same way if we cannot perceive a thing as it is? That would be begging the question (assuming your conclusion within your argument). Do you disagree with the naturalists who say that we cannot perceive a thing as it is? If so, you would need to explain how that is the case given naturalism. However, you continue to say that someday evolution will explain these concepts and that is not guaranteed, it is only a hope on your part. Maybe you could get back to those opening questions and address how evolution might answer those questions.

 

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

You actually have not explained how intentionality could be intrinsic to a person given naturalism. If you can, then you would be the first person to ever do so. Intrinsic intentionality is an unsolved problem for naturalism. Naturalism is left with derived intentionality (concepts are derived from other concepts which are derived from other concepts, ad infinitum). This leaves us unable to grasp truth since none of the concepts finds ultimate grounding in truth, at least we cannot verify that they are.

 

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.

I'm not sure that you completely understand the problem that Hume, Kant and others found. Sure we can have these sense perceptions, but according to their theories, we are not seeing, touching, tasting, etc. a thing as it is. We are only getting impressions on our brains that are then mediated through our derived concepts. What is filtered through our brain is not the image or impression of the thing itself, but what was mediated to us. You cannot simply state that this is just the way it is unless you can explain why and how it can be that one can perceive directly given naturalism.

 

However, you sound more like a substance dualist (one who holds to the idea of an immaterial mind) than a physicalist (one who holds that all reality is made up of physical stuff). Is that your position?

 

LNC

[Antlerman]

As much as I am hopeful of truly stimulating discourse which can provoke us to inspiring heights of the soul, I'm going to call something here:

 

 

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?

 

along with this...

 

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.

This is not an exploration of a 'possible answer' as you put it, but YOUR answer. Your belief, and your justifications for it using all your resources as best you can muster to vindicate your investments in time, energy, and dollars to create an edifice to support your structures of security.

 

In many regards, I appreciate what you are trying to do. But the reasons for it are weak, not strong. Again... the reasons for it... not all the rationalities. You have a good mind, no doubt, and you hold my respects for that. But you expend your energies on trying to make something beyond rationality, appear comprehensible rationally. You don't seem to understand the very nature of what you wish to support. It's looking for Gold in a copper mine.

 

Let's see if you can process that...

[LNC]

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.

 

I am referring to the only experiment to date that has produced "self-replicating" RNA in a lab and I am not mistaken about what I said. Wow, you seem to think you can read my mind - unfortunately, you cannot, so I wouldn't quit my day job if I were you. You may want to read the articles more carefully as you seem to be confusing concepts. Here is a quote from Scienceblog on the issue:

The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze. But, while the building blocks likely would have been simpler, the work does finally show that a simpler form of RNA-based life is at least possible, which should drive further research to explore the RNA World theory of life's origins. (emphasis added)

 

I think what you are confusing is the statement that some have made that the precursors of these elements have been found in stellar clouds; however, as this article says, these complex nucleotides would not have been found naturally. If you would like to show me your evidence that these elements are found in nature, I will be glad to consider that evidence.

 

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.

 

I think you have changed my argument as you are so intent on arguing religion and trying to dispel the idea. I am speaking about consciousness and its many components and aspects, so maybe we could stick to that argument rather than diverting off course. You also make ad hominem arguments which are completely ineffective in making a case. I don't assume an immaterial mind, but unlike you, I don't discount the possibility simply because my worldview won't allow it. The difference between us is that I allow one more possible explanation than you and keep my mind open to that possibility. You have, without due reason, closed your mind to that possibility and like to call people names who are open to that possibility. You cannot show evidence that I have made an argument that assumes an immaterial mind within the argument, so your assertion is false. Your assessment of my logic is also suspect as you haven't shown a good enough grasp of it yourself. Now, can you actually try to make a positive argument for your beliefs without ad hominem and question-begging? Maybe you can go back to the initial questions that I raised and address them more directly.

 

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.

To say that something is not proven is not the same is to prove that it does not exist. To be satisfied with ignorance is to happily live in a dark room or the dark ages. When you say that you believe in what has been demonstrated, does that mean that it has been demonstrated to you directly, or do you take the word of someone else who has demonstrated it to themselves? In other words, do you need direct empirical proof or do you take indirect proof as well?

 

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?

You like to say that I don't get it, does that make you feel better, superior to me or something? Yet, you never really seem to explain anything satisfactorily. Maybe you could spend less time trying to insult me and more time explaining yourself. You also like to change the questions and discussion when it appears that you cannot explain yourself. You haven't explained why you moved past the why question, merely that you find it silly. OK, you find the question silly, yet it still remains unanswered and you choose to ignore it and move on blissfully.

 

You assert that I answered "God did it" which I have not, when you answer "evolution did it" and you have no proof to back it up. Who is it that is filling the gap with faith? (answer, in case you are wondering: you are). Who is answering one mystery with another? (answer again: you are). Reasonable people try to find the answer instead of saying that they hope that someday evolution will be the answer (to all questions). Reasonable people don't wallow in ignorance, repeating dutifully, "I don't know..." to every difficult question asked, "but I hope the answer is evolution. You'll see, someday it will answer all the questions, really! Until then, I plead ignorance and you should too!" You don't know your history very well. Existentialism is traced back to Soren Kierkegaard and Frederich Nietzsche. Both were instrumental in its advance. Kierkegaard was a Christian (of sorts) and Nietzsche was an atheist. I would argue that Nietzsche was more instrumental in the spread of existentialism than Kierkegaard, which explains why there are more atheistic existentialists than theistic ones. I'm glad to hear that you don't like postmodernism.

 

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.

 

I am very familiar with the TAG argument and although I have lied in my lifetime, as I suppose you have as well, which makes us both liars, I am not lying in this case. You throw accusations out there pretty loosely, my friend. Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts so that you can show me where I introduced God into the discussion (another hint: you won't find it). My purpose in this thread is to find out if naturalists have an adequate explanation and answers to the questions with which I opened this discussion. You are overly suspicious. I will expect you, if you are an honest person, to apologize for your false accusation, as well as your condescending attitude - however, I won't be holding my breath.

 

Listen, these question aren't a trap if you have the answers to them from a naturalist perspective. I mean it should be simple enough if you have arrived at your worldview based on rational reasons as I would assume you would have considered these issues. They are big issues and difficult issues, but somehow you have rationalized them in your worldview, haven't you? I just want to find out how. Did you consider it a trap when your teachers gave you quizzes in school? I don't know, maybe you did...however, I look forward to your reply and your answers to these questions.

 

LNC

[NotBlinded]

 

Damn you and your math...I had to go look up this diagram!

 

But wouldn't that leave intelligence existing outside of matter on the outer side of the circle? If not all matter is intelligent, not all intelligence is matter. I may not be understanding that right. Is it just one circle?

 

(Matter (Matter/Intelligence) Intelligence)

Ok, here's the diagram (my version) (you may have to click on it to read the writing):

 

 

I suppose that there is some kind of diagram that has intelligence partly on material and partly on the vacuum if immaterial.

Thanks Shy...I was racking my brain last night and this morning and what you have is the conclusion I came to about what you were talking about.

 

I see intelligence/consciousness being right there with/alongside/unified with matter-energy the instant the singularity went "bang".

 

[NotBlinded]

 

Damn you and your math...I had to go look up this diagram!

 

But wouldn't that leave intelligence existing outside of matter on the outer side of the circle? If not all matter is intelligent, not all intelligence is matter. I may not be understanding that right. Is it just one circle?

 

(Matter (Matter/Intelligence) Intelligence)

Ok, here's the diagram (my version) (you may have to click on it to read the writing):

 

 

I suppose that there is some kind of diagram that has intelligence partly on material and partly on the vacuum if immaterial.

Um, I forgot those that see Intelligence in everything and in nothing (independent of matter).

 

Matter is then all intelligent, but intelligence also exists independent of matter.

 

 

For those that simply think all matter is intelligent, and there is no intelligence without matter, the

circles would be the same size.

Yes...thanks again. I was driving home and seeing circles in my mind and trying to overlap here, put them inside each other there, and on and on. It's a wonder I made it to pick up my daughter!

[NotBlinded]

P.S. Yes, I've been trying to read this thread. Just a bit busy.

I've been wondering where the heck you were!

[Dagan]

LNC, I learned lots of 10-dollar words in university philosophy classes too, and I'm familiar with Kant and Hume et al but I really don't give a shit about which philosopher I should follow.

 

You seem determined to fit me and my opinions in a box, so you can quantify them and label me. Fine, have your fun, I figured a conversation with you would be a waste of time and I was right. All you want to do is pick away at technicalities and label things and endlessly set the terms of engagement and force people to be on the defensive. I don't have time or energy for this ridiculous navel-gazing. Good day.

[Kuroikaze]

I am referring to the only experiment to date that has produced "self-replicating" RNA in a lab and I am not mistaken about what I said. Wow, you seem to think you can read my mind - unfortunately, you cannot, so I wouldn't quit my day job if I were you. You may want to read the articles more carefully as you seem to be confusing concepts. Here is a quote from Scienceblog on the issue:

 

Ha, I am probably better at my day job than you are too. Lets see you repair a computer.

 

Ithink what you are confusing is the statement that some have made that the precursors of these elements have been found in stellar clouds; however, as this article says, these complex nucleotides would not have been found naturally. If you would like to show me your evidence that these elements are found in nature, I will be glad to consider that evidence.

 

Elements are the basic building blocks of chemistry, there are no elements that are not found in nature. Of course you could be misusing the term "element" here, but that just makes you look stupid. Say what you mean, if you want to be understood. I think you mean compounds, not elements, and these compounds do occur in nature.

I think you have changed my argument as you are so intent on arguing religion and trying to dispel the idea. I am speaking about consciousness and its many components and aspects, so maybe we could stick to that argument rather than diverting off course. You also make ad hominem arguments which are completely ineffective in making a case. I don't assume an immaterial mind, but unlike you, I don't discount the possibility simply because my worldview won't allow it. The difference between us is that I allow one more possible explanation than you and keep my mind open to that possibility. You have, without due reason, closed your mind to that possibility and like to call people names who are open to that possibility. You cannot show evidence that I have made an argument that assumes an immaterial mind within the argument, so your assertion is false. Your assessment of my logic is also suspect as you haven't shown a good enough grasp of it yourself. Now, can you actually try to make a positive argument for your beliefs without ad hominem and question-begging? Maybe you can go back to the initial questions that I raised and address them more directly.

 

You are the one changing my argument, I do not discount the "possibility" of an immaterial mind, I just see no EVIDENCE for one. I have said that as Clearly as I can dozens of times.

 

your statement

 

For someone who engages in numerous ad hominems ever post, you sure whine like a stuck pig when anyone else does it.

 

 

Your quote so I do not get in wrong

 

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.

 

This statement most emphatically ASSUMES the existence of an immaterial mind. If no immaterial mind exists then this is not the example you claim it is, therefor you statement is circular. Not my fault you do not proof your own statements.

 

To say that something is not proven is not the same is to prove that it does not exist. To be satisfied with ignorance is to happily live in a dark room or the dark ages. When you say that you believe in what has been demonstrated, does that mean that it has been demonstrated to you directly, or do you take the word of someone else who has demonstrated it to themselves? In other words, do you need direct empirical proof or do you take indirect proof as well?

 

The only one living in ignorance is you. I am more than willing to believe in ANYTHING, even immaterial minds, or god, if they can be demonstrated to exist. I'll ask once more the question have been evading. How do you propose we tell the difference between immaterial minds and things that do not exist.

 

 

You like to say that I don't get it, does that make you feel better, superior to me or something? Yet, you never really seem to explain anything satisfactorily. Maybe you could spend less time trying to insult me and more time explaining yourself. You also like to change the questions and discussion when it appears that you cannot explain yourself. You haven't explained why you moved past the why question, merely that you find it silly. OK, you find the question silly, yet it still remains unanswered and you choose to ignore it and move on blissfully.

 

Feel superior? I AM Superior to you, Objectively superior. Does this statement make me a bit of jerk, perhaps, but I am not claiming to be humble.

 

Why? Because I do not appeal to that that "unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith," for my beliefs." To quote Robert Ingersoll.

You assert that I answered "God did it" which I have not, when you answer "evolution did it" and you have no proof to back it up. Who is it that is filling the gap with faith? (answer, in case you are wondering: you are). Who is answering one mystery with another? (answer again: you are). Reasonable people try to find the answer instead of saying that they hope that someday evolution will be the answer (to all questions). Reasonable people don't wallow in ignorance, repeating dutifully, "I don't know..." to every difficult question asked, "but I hope the answer is evolution. You'll see, someday it will answer all the questions, really! Until then, I plead ignorance and you should too!" You don't know your history very well. Existentialism is traced back to Soren Kierkegaard and Frederich Nietzsche. Both were instrumental in its advance. Kierkegaard was a Christian (of sorts) and Nietzsche was an atheist. I would argue that Nietzsche was more instrumental in the spread of existentialism than Kierkegaard, which explains why there are more atheistic existentialists than theistic ones. I'm glad to hear that you don't like postmodernism.

 

No gap filling here, I never said "evolution did it" or any derivation of it. I do think evolution explains much. The fact that it occurs is obvious, the theory attempts to explain how and is yet incomplete. I believe in CAN find many more answers, and perhaps the answer to the question conciseness because it has answered so many other questions, faith is not needed.

 

Kierkegaard was a Christian, and considered to be the founder of existentialism by most philosophers. Some people, who have not read his works closely, claim Nietzsche was a post modernist, but he was not. He believed in a sort of truth or otherwise he could not have believed so strongly that Christianity was false. Post modernist philosophers hold that all religions are true because truth is a matter of personal perception, Nietzsche clearly did not think this, as he describes in great detail why he thinks that the christian religion is false, he claims it portrayed a weak morality that valued the underpowered and weak instead of the strong.

 

That being said, I think he did get several things wrong, but I am not going to get into that here.

 

I am very familiar with the TAG argument and although I have lied in my lifetime, as I suppose you have as well, which makes us both liars, I am not lying in this case. You throw accusations out there pretty loosely, my friend. Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts so that you can show me where I introduced God into the discussion (another hint: you won't find it). My purpose in this thread is to find out if naturalists have an adequate explanation and answers to the questions with which I opened this discussion. You are overly suspicious. I will expect you, if you are an honest person, to apologize for your false accusation, as well as your condescending attitude - however, I won't be holding my breath.

 

I did in fact in my first post, point out that This is STILL a TAG argument even though you do not mention god. In fact my point was that you were being duplicitous by not mentioning god, and hoping that we would not notice that asking the question "where does conciseness come from" is a trade mark beginning to TAG.

 

Yeah I wouldn't apologize, because I only do so where there is evidence I am wrong. The evidence says you are a apologist, and therefore willing to lie for your religion, as most apologists will stoop to any low in discussions for their goal.

 

Listen, these question aren't a trap if you have the answers to them from a naturalist perspective. I mean it should be simple enough if you have arrived at your worldview based on rational reasons as I would assume you would have considered these issues. They are big issues and difficult issues, but somehow you have rationalized them in your worldview, haven't you? I just want to find out how. Did you consider it a trap when your teachers gave you quizzes in school? I don't know, maybe you did...however, I look forward to your reply and your answers to these questions.

 

Everyone rationalizes to some extent.

 

Tests are not traps because there are answers to the questions, you posit the question in such a way so that the only answer you will accept as "rational" is to agree with your theistic conclusions. I.E. you do not think methodological naturalism is good, therefore your response to any answers given is that "it is not good enough" or "does not answer the question" This is what I meant by your questions being silly, not that the question of conscience in general is silly, but that the questions you have created are stilted towards your conclusions already.

 

Any answer that is not "gee you are right I cannot account for the mind via naturalism so therefore there must be something transcendent, that trancendent thing is a god and now I am a christian" is going t be rejected by you because you are not here to hear our answers, but to tell us how wrong and lost we are. This is what I mean by your being dishonest.

 

Can you honestly conceive of another answer which you would find satisfying? That would make you walk away saying "gee those atheists know their stuff?" If you are honest I think you will admit to yourself that I am right. Though I doubt you will admit it to me.

[Kuroikaze]

To say that some day evolution will explain the totality of consciousness is just a wish statement or a faith statement - a sort of "evolution of the gaps" hope on your part (and probably that of others on this site).

 

 

 

How is it faith (belief without evidence) to claim that evolution, which has answered thousands of questions about the nature of biology, will answer even more questions about our biology in the future?

 

Your pathetic attempts to straw man our thoughts is noted but not particularly effective.