Consciousness

[florduh]

Holy Shit! I've found my spiritual brother!

 

What an inappropriate way to put it!

 

The irony of that is that I have no problem using the symbols of any mythology to succinctly express a complex situation. We all know what is implied by saying someone is your soul mate or a spiritual brother. We can refer to a "Herculean task" without having to believe in the ancient Greek pantheon of gods.

 

We all have our cross to bear I guess. Godspeed and I pray all goes well with thee, brother.

[Shyone]

Holy Shit! I've found my spiritual brother!

 

What an inappropriate way to put it!

 

The irony of that is that I have no problem using the symbols of any mythology to succinctly express a complex situation. We all know what is implied by saying someone is your soul mate or a spiritual brother. We can refer to a "Herculean task" without having to believe in the ancient Greek pantheon of gods.

 

We all have our cross to bear I guess. Godspeed and I pray all goes well with thee, brother.

Oh, Lord, I think you overdid it.

 

But there was nothing overdone in your post. I was reading my thoughts from your mind, and that was freaky.

[Antlerman]

12. Evolution has directionality (pg 74)

 

A) Increasing complexity

B ) Increasing differentiation/integration

C) Increasing organization/structuration

D) Increasing relative autonomy

E) Increasing telos: "The regime, canon, code, or deep structure of a holarchy acts as a magnet, an attractor, a miniature omega point , for the actualization of that holon in space and time."

 

 

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but a lot of it is "semantics." Not that "semantics" is a bad thing; but it does not necessarily have any practical application.

I would hardly consider complexity theories 'semantics', nor that it hasn't any practical application. I would say it could lead to an entire paradigm shift in how we approach science, but aside from that minor contribution... I'm glad to hear you agree with it.

 

But I do think that #12 may be incorrect. Not all of the time, but as a principle. There is no requirement for evolution to be directional. Sometimes creatures evolve into "lesser" species - subject to ones definition of lesser.

I understand those examples you gave. I think it would help to understand it in the context of tendencies and trends, or to use a term you hate, a 'theme', not a linear package deal, that each and every life form gets more and more sophisticated. I don't see that that's what this is suggesting.

 

Quoting from Jantsch again,

 

"The evolution of the universe is the history of an unfolding of differentiated order or complexity. Unfolding is not the same as building up. The latter emphasizes structure and describes the emergence of hierarchical levels by the joining of systems, "from the bottom up". Unfolding, in contrast, implies the interweaving of processes which lead simultaneously to phenomena of structuration at different hierarchical levels. Evolution acts in the sense of simultaneous and interdependent structuration of the macro- and the micro-world. Complexity thus emerges from the interpenetration of processes of differentiation and integration..."

 

Remember, this is part of systems theory.

[LNC]

I find it hard to believe that you are searching for understandings for yourself here, though I may be wrong. If I felt that way, if we all felt that, then it would be interesting to see the shift in discourse that would occur. The impression is you have the answers in your mind, and you're trying to prove others wrong and yourself right.

 

Of course I believe what I believe, but I am not married to a set of beliefs and doctrines as part of that belief. As as Christian, in order to be considered "saved", you have to adhere to orthodoxy. That places you on the side of defender, not seeker. It comes with the territory unfortunately. One huge reason why I left it behind. I had to.

 

I am a seeker of truth and that search is the primary pursuit. Do I have an idea as to what I think best fits the phenomena? Sure, but that doesn't mean that if I came across a better explanation I wouldn't change my mind. I think we should all be open to go where the truth leads us, no matter what the implications. You make it sound like being tied to a set of beliefs is a bad thing; however, if that set of beliefs is true then I don't see where it is problematic to adhere to them or defend them. If they are not true, then I would among the first to abandon them. So, I don't find us to be ad odds in where we seem to stand on this. I wouldn't be on this site if I wasn't in pursuit of truth and willing to put my beliefs on the line. Sorry, I find your characterization of me and my beliefs to lack correspondence with reality.

 

I'll put it this way, I see leaving behind that system as a process of change. Not just changing your beliefs, but your whole approach to them. Changing beliefs is relatively easy. Changing how you think about things altogether is a considerably longer, more challenging process. Not everyone, but understandably some approach science and reason now in the same way they approached the Bible as authoritivative and the Rock of Truth. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying anyone in particular, but to be sure that does happen, and understandably so. It is something I personally still struggle with.

 

I'll never forget my Bible College buddy who also left Christianity saying some years ago now to me, "I'm so glad I know the truth now". I joked with him, "Haha, I remember you saying that exact same thing when we were little upstart apologists in Bible School [jab-jab]". His response was most telling to me. He said, "Yes, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth!"

 

You see?

 

Confidence is a psychological state, not necessarily an epistemological state. He had the same confidence in both situations, first as a Christian believer and then as a non-Christian believer. The question that an outsider could ask is why should one trust his latter state any more than his former state as both gave him the same confidence when he held them. Why does he believe that he now really has the truth? Does he have any better basis now than he did then (I mean personally?)

 

So I hear you taking that same approach to your beliefs. Authoritative. Period. It's not about what we can learn from other points of view. It's about being Right! For your benefit, I will quote from that Christian professor of comparative religion here in my home state who says it best for how I see your 'faith', as it were:

 

Shall we dismiss anyone who takes an authoritative stance to his or her beliefs? If that were the basis of accepting or dismissing one's beliefs, then we should dismiss most of what we know as it comes from people who speak authoritatively. Or, is it only certain people who speak authoritatively? I think that is more the problem here. I never speak with absolute authority as no mere human has such knowledge or merits such authority. However, in the case of this thread I have offered no answers, merely asked questions, so I don't know why you object here. Finally, to criticize me for speaking with authority is a tacit statement on your part that I am wrong and that implies that you know better, which is a back door method of saying that you know more authoritatively that me, so I find such objections to be self-incriminating.

 

"One of the ironies of biblical literalism is that it shares so largely in the reductionist and literalist spirit of the age. It is not nearly as conservative as it supposes. It is

modernistic

, and it sells its symbolic birthright for a mess of tangible pottage. Biblical materials and affirmations -- in this case the symbolism of Creator and creation – are treated as though of the same order and the same literary genre as scientific and historical writing. “I believe in God the Father Almighty” becomes a chronological issue, and “Maker of heaven and earth” a technological problem."

 

(from here)

 

Boy I would love it if that registered with you.

 

OK, so I read the article that you linked, not just the paragraph you quoted. Here are a few critiques of the article. I find that these types of complaints ultimately get down to question-begging. Why is that? Well first, I don't know of any Christian that reads the Bible completely literally as the author uses the term. For example, Isaiah 51:5 reads, "My righteousness draws near,my salvation has gone out,and my arms will judge the peoples;the coastlands hope for me,and for my arm they wait." I read that and I don't picture God with literal arms by which he will judge or for which the people literally await and I would challenge the author to name a Christian who does.

 

It is not the idea that Christians take the whole Bible literally, but that he believes that Christians take too much of the Bible at face value, which begs the question of who decides which parts to take literally and which to take metaphorically or allegorically. He would take less than I would simply because of his a priori assumptions of, I would guess, naturalism. However, that is a philosophic position, not a scientific one, so I have no reason to trust his a priori commitments, especially when I have evidence and experience to think otherwise.

 

Also, I don't think the author would take it too kindly if I applied the same standard to his writing. I could arbitrarily choose to read his article as a piece of irony and assume that he means completely opposite of what he has literally written. But again, I don't think he would appreciate my interpretation of his work in that way.

 

Or it could be true in part, but not an absolute. I love what a philosopher I enjoy says about that:

"It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

 

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge.

In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal.

Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration.

 

Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13"

 

I too see your views as truth in disguise. The error is in concluding the answer.

 

One must first account for consciousness, knowledge, intentionality, and perception before one can argue in the way that the Sri does. He merely assumes these concepts; however, my question is still how naturalism/materialism can adequately account for these phenomena. I don't see him addressing these questions and I have no reason to think that he has a rational basis to make these statements if naturalism/materialism cannot adequately answer these questions.

 

Well, it's been my contention based on what I see in your apologetics that your faith is built on shifting sand. Not that you aren't trying to make it air-tight rationally, but its the fact that you are.

 

I think it's valid to challenge notions that claim to be Fact with a capitial F, when in fact they are not nearly so religiously absolute as we may want them to be. The same thing is being done in your direction as well in showing how fallacious it is to rely on your reading of a holy text as the Rock of Truth. It is after all, not a direct interface with reality. It's your brain, reading the text, trying to understand it in the light you have - which is limited - extremely limited.

 

How you can call that your Rock of truth, is itself perhaps the greatest fallacy of them all. That is not the Rock of a faith. That you seem focused to make it that, makes me perceive that your faith is in fact built on shifting sand; in the very way you perceive others in doing so.

 

It seems that you are shifting the discussion and I would like to stay on topic here. Again, if atheists and agnostics want to claim the ground of rationalism then they should be able to account for the basis of consciousness, knowledge, intentionality and perception, which are foundational to rationality.

 

Certainly. It would be my greatest hope that through that process you in fact walk away with something more than you brought in. Something from others in their understandings. This is all our path.

Great, I will look forward to you and others providing answers to these questions so that we can interact further on this topic.

 

LNC

[LNC]

IOW, naturalism cannot explain consciousness. Isn't this an argument from ignorance? Sure, a first person perspective of the mind is not explained presently (by naturalists AND theists), but how could it be uncaused? Genetic predispositions of behavior and personality, brain injury studies, and brain imaging that shows distinctive neural regions that are active simultaneously with corresponding mental states or processes, are causal evidence. Brain activity and mental states or processes are inseparable.

 

Other animals must be special in god's sight too, because they have minds that are to some extent, rational. It seems the evidence shows that electrochemical activity and patterns of synchronous neural firing produce brain states. There is evidence that the universe produced life, so why not rationality?

 

Hey agnosticator,

 

Thanks for posting the link to that article. I am familiar with Groothuis, but hadn't come across that article before.

 

Regarding your claim of argument from ignorance, it is actually quite the opposite in that it is an argument from what we know about consciousness and the fact that these phenomena are outside the bounds of what can be explained by the physical. People commonly make this error of asserting a "God of the gaps" objection, when in reality is is often a physicalism of the gaps argument that is put forth as you have done. Scientism claims that we will eventually fill all knowledge gaps with a naturalistic explanation; however, if naturalism is true, then it has been shown philosophically that we could never achieve knowledge and therefore, the argument becomes self-defeating. Dallas Willard makes a good argument along that line in many of his articles.

 

You also argue that neurology isolates regions of brain activity, which is true; however, it is one thing to say that certain regions of the brain control certain behaviors and another to reduce mental states merely to the physical, a position I might add that many physicalists reject (called eliminativism).

 

I would agree with you that humans are not the only species that have minds. The Bible does describe soulish creatures which would be creatures who have minds. I am not aware that thee is evidence that the universe produced life, could you point me to that research? I would be interested in reading that and also if you have research that would show how the universe produced consciousness, I would like to read that as well. Thanks again for locating that article, it is interesting and summarizes (although very briefly) some of the problems of explaining consciousness from a naturalist/materialist position.

 

LNC

[Antlerman]

Or it could be true in part, but not an absolute. I love what a philosopher I enjoy says about that:

"It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

 

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge.

In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal.

Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration.

 

Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13"

 

I too see your views as truth in disguise. The error is in concluding the answer.

 

One must first account for consciousness, knowledge, intentionality, and perception before one can argue in the way that the Sri does. He merely assumes these concepts; however, my question is still how naturalism/materialism can adequately account for these phenomena. I don't see him addressing these questions and I have no reason to think that he has a rational basis to make these statements if naturalism/materialism cannot adequately answer these questions.

I do plan to offer an adequate reply to the rest of your response to me, but I had to jump at this at this moment.

 

Do you think Sri Aurobindo is a reductionist? A materialist? An atheist?

 

Perhaps the reason you don't see him addressing this is because this is a brief two paragraph quote from his book of over 1100 pages! Would you like me to type the whole thing in here?

 

The name of his book is The Life Divine, and he very much makes a strong case for things that you might find helpful to your point of view, even though I see the Christian perspective as a bit too restricted. Aurobindo most definitely was not a reductionist or an atheist. If you even reread what I posted from his book above, you may find a great many layers in it that says things I'm quite certain you overlooked. Let me see if I can find one example...

 

Heck, even in what I highlighted in red above is a clear indication you lept to incorrect conclusions:

 

"Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism

had done for the

Divine

and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge."

 

"Atheism had done for the Divine", with a capital D?? Does this sound like an atheist?

 

Another example:

 

"In emerging, therefore,

out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge

we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains"

 

Say, there's a reference to emergence... But the point is he is seeing us beginning to move beyond the reductionist/materialist philosophy. You missed that, it seems?

 

Another example:

 

"Well, if it could always be, as it has been

in the great period we are leaving

, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration."

 

He sees us as in our pursuit of the naturalistic understanding of the world, to have made many, extraordinarily beneficial gains to help deepen and further our development in our ultimate goal towards a depth of knowledge and apprehension of the Divine. Science and reason are handmaidens of that Truth. You missed the entire meaning of what he was saying. And very likely my own in what I say.

 

Not a lie, a partial truth. Just as I see you have.

 

When you catch up to my post where I laid out the principles of emergence, take my word that I haven't made the case for consciousness yet. But it's not from the reductionist point of view. It does tie into that post, but it shouldn't be cause to rejoice that you can start with that and leap to the conclusion that your religious doctrines are Truth with a capital T. They too are partial truth, and as much as anything else, contain that Truth with a capital T.

 

You're going to need to make a shift in tactic in discussing with me these views. They're not what you've trained for. In fact, it's all a glorious exploration. Much different than arguing for a doctrine. The fact you in response to my quote from Sri Aurobindo missed so much - pretty all of what he said actually, let alone the rest that I'll have to correct, seems to indicate some missteps here. I'm more than happy to sit down and discuss, but suspect your apologetics won't serve you in this.

[Antlerman]

I find it hard to believe that you are searching for understandings for yourself here, though I may be wrong. If I felt that way, if we all felt that, then it would be interesting to see the shift in discourse that would occur. The impression is you have the answers in your mind, and you're trying to prove others wrong and yourself right.

 

Of course I believe what I believe, but I am not married to a set of beliefs and doctrines as part of that belief. As as Christian, in order to be considered "saved", you have to adhere to orthodoxy. That places you on the side of defender, not seeker. It comes with the territory unfortunately. One huge reason why I left it behind. I had to.

 

I am a seeker of truth and that search is the primary pursuit. Do I have an idea as to what I think best fits the phenomena? Sure, but that doesn't mean that if I came across a better explanation I wouldn't change my mind. I think we should all be open to go where the truth leads us, no matter what the implications. You make it sound like being tied to a set of beliefs is a bad thing; however, if that set of beliefs is true then I don't see where it is problematic to adhere to them or defend them. If they are not true, then I would among the first to abandon them. So, I don't find us to be ad odds in where we seem to stand on this. I wouldn't be on this site if I wasn't in pursuit of truth and willing to put my beliefs on the line. Sorry, I find your characterization of me and my beliefs to lack correspondence with reality.

I wasn't meaning to conclude anything, but was honest in expressing my thoughts. I said I may be wrong, and would be happy to be. If I feel someone is open-minded then it in fact does change the nature of discussion from defense postures, to open discussion - which can be very exciting indeed.

 

As to what I highlighted in red above, yes, very much I say being tied to a set of beliefs is a bad thing. I will say that repeatedly without fail. Being tied to it, being married to it, means you are unwilling to let it go, unwilling to entertain the possibility you may need to let it go, or at the least shift how you look at it. I always make the observation that so many Christians I know worship their beliefs and not God. I see that as an entirely valid assessment. Couldn't you say that as well in your experience with various believers? Any? Surely.

 

So then being tied to a belief is not a good thing at all.

 

Should you believe your beliefs? Obviously. Just like you should love your wife. But is love putting chains on her legs? Is belief clutching them with a tight grip and fighting anyone and anything that threatens that marriage? Are you seeing my point?

 

I'll never forget my Bible College buddy who also left Christianity saying some years ago now to me, "I'm so glad I know the truth now". I joked with him, "Haha, I remember you saying that exact same thing when we were little upstart apologists in Bible School [jab-jab]". His response was most telling to me. He said, "Yes, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth!"

 

You see?

 

Confidence is a psychological state, not necessarily an epistemological state. He had the same confidence in both situations, first as a Christian believer and then as a non-Christian believer. The question that an outsider could ask is why should one trust his latter state any more than his former state as both gave him the same confidence when he held them. Why does he believe that he now really has the truth? Does he have any better basis now than he did then (I mean personally?)

You raise good points here. But he felt he had the evidence as a Christian as well. What's with that? Could it be that we seek to rationally defend our beliefs to ourselves because those beliefs serve us in some way?

 

Knowledge is constantly changing our ideas and notions of what is fact. Isn't there something more existential on which to anchor our souls? (I realize I just opened a door for you... but you best be truly prepared to enter that realm, a realm where your apologetics will be irrelevant).

 

So I hear you taking that same approach to your beliefs. Authoritative. Period. It's not about what we can learn from other points of view. It's about being Right! For your benefit, I will quote from that Christian professor of comparative religion here in my home state who says it best for how I see your 'faith', as it were:

 

Shall we dismiss anyone who takes an authoritative stance to his or her beliefs? If that were the basis of accepting or dismissing one's beliefs, then we should dismiss most of what we know as it comes from people who speak authoritatively. Or, is it only certain people who speak authoritatively? I think that is more the problem here. I never speak with absolute authority as no mere human has such knowledge or merits such authority. However, in the case of this thread I have offered no answers, merely asked questions, so I don't know why you object here. Finally, to criticize me for speaking with authority is a tacit statement on your part that I am wrong and that implies that you know better, which is a back door method of saying that you know more authoritatively that me, so I find such objections to be self-incriminating.

I don't know where to begin to unravel this mess. I scarcely can see anything in your response here that relates to anything I said or meant. I never said you are speaking authoritatively, etc, etc... ( hmmmm... quite a curious leap there). All I can say is try rereading it and if you still walk away with what you seem to have got out of it, then I'll come back to it and break it apart for you.

 

Edit: all I meant was that you look to those you see as authoritative to justify your beliefs to yourself. Curious you thought I was seeing you as presenting yourself as an authority. If it helps, I don't see you that way.

 

Alright, enough for now.

[agnosticator]

Scientism claims that we will eventually fill all knowledge gaps with a naturalistic explanation; however, if naturalism is true, then it has been shown philosophically that we could never achieve knowledge and therefore, the argument becomes self-defeating. Dallas Willard makes a good argument along that line in many of his articles.

 

 

There may be no logical entailment from physical facts to facts about consciousness, but I don't think that means consciousness can't be a result of physical brain activities. The scientific method has given us reliable knowledge of many things, and will continue to do so.

 

 

You also argue that neurology isolates regions of brain activity, which is true; however, it is one thing to say that certain regions of the brain control certain behaviors and another to reduce mental states merely to the physical, a position I might add that many physicalists reject (called eliminativism).

 

 

When mental states can be altered by physical changes, that demonstrates a direct causal connection. Nature (and the brain) is made up of mass, energy, electrons, etc., and these aren't all physical. IOW, the brain isn't just physical; it's more than mass.

 

(edited to add:) Eliminativism doesn't describe what I said. Wiki says,"Its primary claim is that people's common-sense understanding of the mind (or folk psychology) is false and that certain classes of mental states that most people believe in do not exist."

 

"Eliminativism about a class of entities is the view that that class of entities does not exist.[3] For example, all forms of materialism are eliminativist about the soul;" This is where it may be relevant, but not when it comes to mental states.

 

 

 

 

I would agree with you that humans are not the only species that have minds. The Bible does describe soulish creatures which would be creatures who have minds.

 

 

??

 

 

I am not aware that thee is evidence that the universe produced life, could you point me to that research? I would be interested in reading that and also if you have research that would show how the universe produced consciousness, I would like to read that as well.

 

 

I know I am made up of water, carbon, calcium, nitrogen, phosphorus, and minerals, and that I came from the uniting of sperm and ovum from my parents. Where else did life come from, since we are made from stardust?

 

Scientists are working on how the brain produces consciousness. Their research is beginning to shed some light on it. Of course, nobody has completed the research.

 

Thanks again for locating that article, it is interesting and summarizes (although very briefly) some of the problems of explaining consciousness from a naturalist/materialist position.

 

 

You're welcome.

[Kuroikaze]

I am a seeker of truth and that search is the primary pursuit.

 

 

:lmao: :lmao:

 

What else needs to be said?

[LNC]

That's because they don't know anything about facts and reality. They attempt to separate the brain and sensory organs from perception, but then they are just wandering off into incomprehensibility.

 

Really? Do you mean this of all philosophers or just the ones with whom you disagree? The fact is that I know of no philosopher who separates the brain and sensory organs from perception, that seems foolish. However, I know of many philosophers who would say that the brain and sensory organs cannot completely account for perception and many of those philosophers are physicalists. Could you tell me which philosophers whom you consider wander off into incomprehensibility and in what specific ways you see them doing this? Then, could you tell me how you account for perception from your viewpoint?

 

Detecting intelligence in the universe is not possible because 1) as we understand it, it does not exist in the universe, and 2) the mechanism for such intelligence remains undefined - just as God is undefined.

 

That's interesting as that would be news to the likes of Einstein and just about every other physicist. Einstein himself saw intelligence in the universe when he said that the "harmony of natural law...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." (Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein). So where do you get the idea that intelligence is not possible to detect in the universe? Can you cite a reference or two to back up that assertion?

 

Saying that "since we are intelligent it is necessary that intelligence greater than ours exists in the universe" is wishful thinking. Our abilities and properties are clearly the result of our physical existence and can easily be seen as an adaptive mechanism for survival. The smart early people ran from the predators and the stupid ones just stood there. Smart prevails.

 

There is no basis for saying that there is a greater anything existing anywhere until it can be demonstrated to be possible. Possible. Give us a way that intelligence can exist. What would it look like? What would it do? What has it done?

 

I'm not speaking of things that have already been explained by science or the subjective experiences of a few. "Patterns emerging" from strictly physical processes do not warrant the addition of anything intelligent.

 

Everything that happens in the universe has a physical basis, and any claim for something intelligent existing independent of matter has no basis.

 

If intelligent life exists elsewhere, it has a physical basis and is derived from some kind of simpler unintelligent matter. We have only our example, but that is better than you have offered by way of explication.

OK, since you seem confident of your assertions, maybe you can back them up with some evidence. Can you explain the origin of intelligence? First, please define intelligence as you understand it and then give your theory as to how it has arisen with details, timelines, etc.

 

Then, please go back to the original questions and explain them from a purely physicalist framework, which was the basis of this thread in the first place. I don't believe I have seen anyone make a good case for answering these questions from that framework without simply asserting that it is so and citing the brain as the basis. I would appreciate a more detailed explanation and an understanding of the questions to begin with as you seem to be misusing and misunderstanding the terminology as I explained it in the OP. Thanks.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

OK, since you seem confident of your assertions, maybe you can back them up with some evidence. Can you explain the origin of intelligence? First, please define intelligence as you understand it and then give your theory as to how it has arisen with details, timelines, etc.

I really don't want to mess with this. You wouldn't understand anyway.

 

"origin of intelligence" = evolution.

 

See? What did I tell you?

[Antlerman]

That's interesting as that would be news to the likes of Einstein and just about every other physicist. Einstein himself saw intelligence in the universe when he said that the "harmony of natural law...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." (Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein). So where do you get the idea that intelligence is not possible to detect in the universe? Can you cite a reference or two to back up that assertion?

That was an interesting quote. I had to look that up. Here's the surrounding context:

 

"You will hardly [find] one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.

 

But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."

 

From here. For context sake, do recall that Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God." Good quote, BTW. Doesn't lend itself to supporting the Christian God though.

[Kuroikaze]

I really don't want to mess with this. You wouldn't understand anyway.

 

"origin of intelligence" = evolution.

 

See? What did I tell you?

 

I have been trying to tell him this for pages.

 

He keeps saying we have not answered questions we HAVE answered because he is predisposed to only accept certain (read metaphysical) answers as "really" answering the question.

[Shyone]

I really don't want to mess with this. You wouldn't understand anyway.

 

"origin of intelligence" = evolution.

 

See? What did I tell you?

 

I have been trying to tell him this for pages.

 

He keeps saying we have not answered questions we HAVE answered because he is predisposed to only accept certain (read metaphysical) answers as "really" answering the question.

It's strange that, on one level, the questions about "intelligence" are so easy and simple. There was no intelligence, and now there is. Bingo, problem solved since every "development" in every species since the first single celled organism has necessarly come from evolution.

 

On another level, it's complicated. I understand when some ask, if eagle's eyes are arranged so that the receptors are in front of the vessels, then why aren't all animals made the same way to have that superb eyesight? Or, if we are so intelligent, why aren't all species benefitting from the same evolutionary process and equally intelligent? The question, however, is answered by the process itself which relates to everything from the starting species, the environment and challenges, particular disasters or development of other species, and competition.

 

We are not the strongest, or the fastest, or the best "sighted." We are the ones that have used intelligence as our means of adaptation and survival. We were not always so smart, and (perhaps tragically) may not always be so smart.

 

We have the genes that swam in the seas and crawled onto land. We have the genes that ran from the dinosaur predators and climbed in the trees. We have the genes that allowed the cooperation of packs, and we have the genes that made us war against each other. And now we can use tools to work in packs to war against each other. That is the legacy of human evolution.

[Dagan]

He's just a dick who wants to argue about the ground rules for the discussion which never really happens, and play the slippery eel when you try and actually have a conversation in layman's terms.

 

LNC = Listens , Not Comprehending

[Legion]

I believe consciousness, or the mind, remains a profound and compelling mystery for us. This strikes me as somewhat odd because it seems that the mind is the closest thing to us. Indeed I think in many ways we are our minds; our minds are us. If so, then we are a mystery to ourselves.

 

I don't believe there is anything unphysical, unnatural, or supernatural about the mind. But I don't expect contemporary physics to shed much light on it. Nor do I believe that reductionism is going to yield much understanding of the mind. I expect that biology will be the scientific discipline which will make the first substantial discoveries.

 

Increasingly I've been focusing on the nature of anticipation. Anticipation is a form of control based upon predictions. Accurate predictions, in turn, are aspects of a modelling relation. And I believe examing this relation in greater detail will give us some tools with which to approach questions of the mind.

 

I could write more about this. But I'll pause here for the moment and see if anyone's listening, or if I'm talking to myself.

[Ouroboros]

I'm listening.

 

But I already know what you're saying, and I think we're very close in our views.

 

Most of the time I think we fail to communicate. I think that we many times believe the same things, but because of language, we fail to really understand that the other person really have the same or similar view.

[Shyone]

I believe consciousness, or the mind, remains a profound and compelling mystery for us. This strikes me as somewhat odd because it seems that the mind is the closest thing to us. Indeed I think in many ways we are our minds; our minds are us. If so, then we are a mystery to ourselves.

 

I don't believe there is anything unphysical, unnatural, or supernatural about the mind. But I don't expect contemporary physics to shed much light on it. Nor do I believe that reductionism is going to yield much understanding of the mind. I expect that biology will be the scientific discipline which will make the first substantial discoveries.

 

Increasingly I've been focusing on the nature of anticipation. Anticipation is a form of control based upon predictions. Accurate predictions, in turn, are aspects of a modelling relation. And I believe examing this relation in greater detail will give us some tools with which to approach questions of the mind.

 

I could write more about this. But I'll pause here for the moment and see if anyone's listening, or if I'm talking to myself.

I "think" that we are closer than we "think" to a major breakthrough. At least, that's what I "anticipate."

[Legion]

I "think" that we are closer than we "think" to a major breakthrough. At least, that's what I "anticipate."

Perhaps we are Shyone. Perhaps we are. All I know is that I've been interested in this for years and what I mostly see among many researchers is confusion.

[Legion]

... I already know what you're saying...

That's curious Hans, because half of the time I myself am not sure what I'm saying.

[agnosticator]

I could write more about this. But I'll pause here for the moment and see if anyone's listening, or if I'm talking to myself.

 

More, Legion, more!!

[Ouroboros]

... I already know what you're saying...

That's curious Hans, because half of the time I myself am not sure what I'm saying.

I know, because I'm just as confused.

 

Can two chaotic systems be synchronized or harmonized?

[Antlerman]

While I was putting this reply together, I saw Legion responded. I thought of him several times while working on this, him and his fondness of Rosen's "Life Itself". Sorry for the length of this. I have today off, and got on a bit of a roll. Hope it's not too convoluted....

 

 

You also argue that neurology isolates regions of brain activity, which is true; however, it is one thing to say that certain regions of the brain control certain behaviors and another to reduce mental states merely to the physical, a position I might add that many physicalists reject (called eliminativism).

 

 

When mental states can be altered by physical changes, that demonstrates a direct causal connection. Nature (and the brain) is made up of mass, energy, electrons, etc., and these aren't all physical. IOW, the brain isn't just physical; it's more than mass.

We can also see direct relationships between social environments and mental states. So can we reduce all mental states to social causes? Our mental states also directly affect our chemistry, so can we reduce everything down to mental alone? I literally can make the pores of my skin on my face sweat simply by thinking about spicy foods. (It always amazes people when that happens by me reading the menu at a restaurant! I have plenty of people who will attest to that). I can also make myself depressed through belief that the world is ugly, and if it goes on long enough, make the chemicals in my body respond to my thoughts, which in turn feed into that way of thinking in a sort of negative feedback loop. This is well accepted and recognized in the fields of psychology that deal with Cognitive Behavior Therapies.

 

We can literally alter our body chemistry with thought! But our chemistry is not caused by our thoughts, any more than our thoughts are caused by the chemicals. There are however, interactions, between mind with body, body with mind, environment with body, body with environment, mind with mind, body with body, and so on and so forth. These are interactions that occur, a multidimensional pathway of causes and effects. What I see as part of an holistic system.

 

This is a small part of why a radical Eliminitive materialism is considered by many, non-religious and religious philosopher's regardless to be wholly inadequate in explanatory power, and a potential danger to our ultimate understandings of 'the way things are' when embraced to the point of 'eliminating' other pursuits of understanding, replacing one system of religious belief, the mythological, for another, the materialistic, where if something doesn't fit within that worldview, it is dismissed with derision as "quackery" (as opposed to "heresy").

 

It is fair to point out that these disputes over reductionism are not just issues between science and religion, but within science itself. In my opinion, religion is ceasing upon some of these objections rightly so, if not perhaps for slightly misguided reasons (i.e., to justify a theology - which is typically the case). Just some examples to put out for consideration of this, one example of numerous philosophers who say similar things, I found this this morning about Mary Midgley and here's some points she makes regarding this sort of reductionism:

 

She argues against reductionism, or the attempt to impose any one approach to understanding the world. She suggests that there are "many maps, many windows," arguing that "we need scientific

pluralism

—the recognition that there are many independent forms and sources of knowledge—rather than reductivism, the conviction that one fundamental form underlies them all and settles everything." She writes that it is helpful to think of the world as "a huge aquarium. We cannot see it as a whole from above, so we peer in at it through a number of small windows ... We can eventually make quite a lot of sense of this habitat if we patiently put together the data from different angles. but if we insist that our own window is the only one worth looking through, we shall not get very far."[10]

 

She argues that, "acknowledging matter as somehow akin to and penetrated by mind is not adding a new ... assumption ... it is becoming aware of something we are doing already." She suggests that "this topic is essentially the one which caused Einstein often to remark that the really surprising thing about science is that it works at all ... the simple observation that the laws of thought turn out to be the laws of things."

 

She further criticizes Dawkins' philosophies in The Self Gene,

 

Midgley, meanwhile, has continued to criticize Dawkins' ideas. In her recent writings,

Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears

(2002) and

The Myths We Live By

(2003), she writes about what she sees as his confused use of language — the sleight of hand involved in using terms such as "selfish" in different ways without alerting the reader to the change in meaning — and some of what she regards as his rhetoric ("genes exert ultimate power over behaviour"), which she argues is more akin to religion than science. She wrote in a letter to the The Guardian in 2005:

 

[There is] widespread discontent with the neo-Darwinist — or Dawkinsist — orthodoxy that claims something which Darwin himself denied, namely that natural selection is the sole and exclusive cause of evolution, making the world therefore, in some important sense, entirely random. This is itself a strange faith which ought not to be taken for granted as part of science.

 

The debate of reductionism is one of philosophical approach to science. It is hardly "The Truth" of how to look at the world, and the minute it becomes that it is no longer science but risks becoming a Religion. If we look back at the history of Vitalism it reveals some interesting things:

 

Vitalism is now considered an obsolete term in the philosophy of science, most often used as a pejorative epithet. Still, Ernst Mayr, co-founder of the modern evolutionary synthesis and a critic of both vitalism and reductionism, writing in 2002 after the mathematical development of theories underlying emergent behavior, stated:

 

It would be ahistorical to ridicule vitalists. When one reads the writings of one of the leading vitalists like Driesch one is forced to agree with him that many of the basic problems of biology simply cannot be solved by a philosophy as that of Descartes, in which the organism is simply considered a machine…..The logic of the critique of the vitalists was impeccable. But all their efforts to find a scientific answer to all the so-called vitalistic phenomena were failures.… rejecting the philosophy of reductionism is not an attack on analysis. No complex system can be understood except through careful analysis. However the interactions of the components must be considered as much as the properties of the isolated components

 

<snip>

 

Vitalism was also important in the thinking of later teleologists such as Hans Driesch (1867-1941).[12] In 1894, after publishing papers on his experiments on sea urchin eggs, Driesch wrote a theoretical essay entitled Analytische Theorie der organischen Entwicklung, in which he declared that his studies in developmental biology pointed to a "blueprint" or teleology, an Aristotlean entelechy, a scientific demonstration of Immanuel Kant's notion that the organism develops as if it has a purposeful intelligence;

 

"Development starts with a few ordered manifoldnesses; but the manifoldnesses create, by interactions, new manifoldnesses, and these are able, by acting back on the original ones, to provoke new differences, and so on. With each new response, a new cause is immediately provided, and a new specific reactivity for further specific responses. We derive a complex structure from a simple one given in the egg."

 

This of course a whole lot like emergentism. And this was in part where I was leading this to:

 

Relationship to emergentism

 

A refinement of vitalism may be recognized in contemporary molecular histology in the proposal that some key organising and structuring features of organisms, perhaps including even life itself, are examples of emergent processes; those in which a complexity arises, out of interacting chemical processes forming interconnected feedback cycles, that cannot fully be described in terms of those processes since the system as a whole has properties that the constituent reactions lack.[13][14]

 

Whether emergent system properties should be grouped with traditional vitalist concepts is a matter of semantic controversy.[15] In a light-hearted millennial vein, Kirshner and Michison call research into integrated cell and organismal physiology “molecular vitalism.”[16]

 

According to Emmeche et al. (1997):

 

"On the one hand, many scientists and philosophers regard emergence as having only a pseudo-scientific status. On the other hand, new developments in physics, biology, psychology, and crossdisciplinary fields such as cognitive science, artificial life, and the study of non-linear dynamical systems have focused strongly on the high level 'collective behaviour' of complex systems which is often said to be truly emergent, and the term is increasingly used to characterize such systems."

 

Emmeche et al. (1998) state that "there is a very important difference between the vitalists and the emergentists: the vitalist's creative forces were relevant only in organic substances, not in inorganic matter. Emergence hence is creation of new properties regardless of the substance involved." "The assumption of an extra-physical vitalis (vital force, entelechy, élan vital, etc.), as formulated in most forms (old or new) of vitalism, is usually without any genuine explanatory power. It has served altogether too often as an intellectual tranquilizer or verbal sedative—stifling scientific inquiry rather than encouraging it to proceed in new directions."

 

In talking about humans being reduced down to strictly our chemical responses or our molecular components, is to not recognize the complexity of these levels of interplay that go into the whole system. The "soul" of man, to use that word as some descriptive pointer, is far more than just flipping the switch of this chemical or that that changes things. For me, I find what emergentism explores to be much more encompassing in its scope, where we can treat these interplays as part of a system, opening up fields of the 'soft sciences' to not mere aspects of the material world, but as things in themselves.

 

Bertalanffy puts it well,

"Reality, in the modern conception, appears as a tremendous hierarchical order of organized entities, leading, in a superposition of many levels, from physical and chemical to biological and sociological systems. Such hierarchical structure and combination into systems of ever higher order, is characteristic of reality as a whole and is of fundamental importance especially in biology, psychology and sociology."

 

General Systems Theory

p. 74

 

Does this tie into the OP about consciousness. Yes. I see it as not simply a product of our biology, but as part of the unfolding of nature herself, present at all levels in one form or another, from simple 'sense' of surrounding environments in interaction, to the 'sense of self' in reflective self-awareness, to beyond. It is that trend of Nature to unfold itself in higher and higher forms, of greater and greater depth - not in a straight linear line of course. It is part of the interior world that exterior world interacts with, and it with it. Our 'understanding' of the world in our complex systems of signs and symbols shapes and influences that experience of reality, which in fact affects the exterior reality of our biology, and our physical environments. Biocultural feedback loops are just one example of this.

 

Supposing that the reductionist point of view is insufficient to explain consciousness? Then what does this say for LNC's position? Clearly there are many non-religious who likewise don't agree. And this all makes for interesting discussion among us. Let's for argument say LNC is correct, that reductionism is insufficient to explain it. Now what? What is the point of raising this for him? I think that is a fair question to ask.

[Legion]

Antlerman, if LNC is asserting that reductionism cannot explain the mind then I tend to agree. But this does not imply that I adhere to vitalism. We always seem to run into this and I think that the mechanism/vitalism dicotomy is a false one. I think there are other alternatives. And yes, you're right. I do have a fondness for Robert Rosen's work. I think he was a pioneer into one of these alternatives, namely, relational biology.

 

I'm glad LNC began this thread. I know some must grow weary of a subject that never seems to go anywhere, but I think trying to understand the mind is a noble endeavor.

[Shyone]

I "think" that we are closer than we "think" to a major breakthrough. At least, that's what I "anticipate."

Perhaps we are Shyone. Perhaps we are. All I know is that I've been interested in this for years and what I mostly see among many researchers is confusion.

It's a bit like what's going on in Quantum Mechanics. Outwardly, it's all confusion or silence, but in the ivory halls there is a continuous buzzing sound as mathematicians and scientists dig into the nature of matter - and related cosmological stuff.

 

There is, IIRC, a journal devoted entirely to the subject of consciousness, and possibly another for memory. Approaches varying from the neuronal to the anatomic to the chemical are all being used to explore the subject. Alzheimer's research is hot now, and understanding how the drugs work (or don't work) is also likely to contribute to our understanding.

 

On the news, the only things you'll hear about are drugs or surgery, but not something as complex as consciousness, intelligence or memory. But that's where the fun is!