Consciousness Unexplained

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Consciousness Unexplained

This thread will serve as a critique of Daniel Dennett's book entitled "Consciousness Explained" (more specifically, it will focus on his explanation for the emergence of consciousness as found on pages 173-176 of Chapter 7)

I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. The standard response is: "Consciousness is an emergent property." But this isn't really a scientific theory or a materialistic explanation. It's simply an evasive tactic. I would simply prefer the honest reply: "I don't know how. My belief in materialism is ultimately based on a faith commitment."

In his book entitled "Consciousness Explained," philosopher Daniel Dennett states that if your model of consciousness requires that "you have to say "then a miracle" occurs you haven't begun to explain what consciousness is." pg. 455

I basically agree with this sentiment. However, I would hasten to add one qualification: this holds true only for those who would seek to explain the emergence of consciousness based on a strictly materialistic worldview. Certainly, there are explanations based on other worldviews where miracles can be invoked. You may not find such a tactic to be a very compelling argument. But, nevertheless, it is an explanation. Also, there are other worldviews where consciousness is posited simply as a brute fact of existence or as a fundamental aspect of nature; and therefore, it does not require an explanation. In other words, consciousness simply is. This is the view that I personally subscribe to. Now, if you take issue with this, then I would argue that materialists make the same assumption for the existence of the physical world. And if you counter this by arguing: "No, they don't, " then I will kindly ask you to explain to me how and from whence did the physical world emerge.

Dennett stated that his purpose for writing the book was to give a materialistic account of consciousness. In my opinion, he didn't achieve his objective. To put it bluntly, he failed miserably. His arguments were deliberately evasive, specious, and contradictory. At times, he appeared to be arguing for what can only be described as a form of panpsychism (the view that minds or conscious experiences constitute the fundamental units of reality). This is not materialism. At other times, he seemed to be denying the very exisentence of consciousness itself. This is materialism, and it is a particular pernicious form of it known as "eliminative materialism." To say that his arguments were simply bizzare would be a gross understatement. They were convoluted, intentionally vague, and just plain unintelligible. In the following I will focus on one egregious example of this obscurantism.

In Chapter 7 (entitled "The Evolution of Consciousness" ), Dennett makes a spurious argument for the emergence of consciousness in the evolutionary process. He simply ascribes self-awareness to the first replicators (i.e. the self-replicating molecular systems in the primordial soup).

Quote:
But, as we have seen, the point of view of a conscious observer is not identical to, but a sophisticated descendent of, the primordial points of view of the first replicators who divided their worlds into good and bad. (After all, even plants have points of view in this primordial sense.)

(source: pg. 176, "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett)

What is his "scientific" and "materialistic" explanation for how the first replicators acquired these "points of view?" 

Quote:
"The first reasons preexisted their own recognition. Indeed, the first problem faced by the first problem-facers was to learn how to recognize and act on the reasons that their very existence brought into existence."

(source: pg. 174, "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett)

Just in case you didn't get it, I will break down the statement for you. The first problem-facers (i.e. the first self-replicating molecular systems) had a problem to solve. And what exactly was this problem? Answer: "To learn how to recognize and act on the reasons that their very existence brought into existence." <== Does anyone here actually think this qualifies as an adequate explanation for the emergence of consciousness? Puhlease! This is where I would insert "then a MIRACLE occurs!" What makes this so laughable is that he has boldly and audaciously proclaimed that he will explain consciousness in materialistic terms. Four-hundred and sixty-eight painfully tedious pages of self-absorbed reflections and bloviated meanderings and this is the nearest thing he offers to the reader as a materialistic explanation for the emergence of consicousness. It's pathetic!

Also, I feel obligated to point out one glaring fact. Ascribing sentience to the first replicators is flirting dangerously with panpsychism. True, he did not ascribe conscious awareness to subatomic particles and molecules. But this compels me to ask the question: Why not? Why not ascribe conscious awareness to the fundamental building blocks of nature? This is what David Bohm (eminent quantum physicist) did. And I would argue that his explanation actually has the backing of science, namely quantum theory.

Quote:
"Even an electron has at least a rudimentary mental pole, resperesented mathematically by the quantum potential."

(source: pg. 387 "The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory" by David Bohm and B.J. Hiley)

Moreover, there are eminent scientists (e.g. Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, and Henry Stapp) who have formulated quantum mind theories which are based not only on quantum theory and neuroscience but also on the process metaphysics (one form of panpsychism) of A. N. Whitehead (mathematician and physicist who co-authored the "Principia Mathematica" with Bertrand Russell).

Now, if we assume that consciousness is fundamental, then it doesn't take much imagination to craft a hypothesis how the first replicators formed self-awareness. Subatomic particles emerge from the quantum void (a field of consciousness) with a rudimentary form of mentality. Atoms (which are composed of the basic subparticles) constitute the next level of consciousness. Molecules and macromolecules constitute the next levels. And if we invoke autocatalytic sets and the self-organizing principle based on the mathematics of chaos theory, we can easily imagine how a higher-level mind known affectionately as a "replicator" emerged from lower-level minds (i.e. molecules in the primordial soup).

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
FUCK!Here we go again...

FUCK!

Here we go again...


Zymotic
Superfan
Zymotic's picture
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I have asked

Paisley wrote:

I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. 

 

I'm not a neuroscientist, and I don't know shit about consciousness, but I'm guessing that the line you're drawing between sentience and insentience is completely arbitrary.

My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Give up, Paisley, you have

 Give up, Paisley, you have demonstrated over and over again that you are incapable of grasping the ideas of someone like Daniel Dennett, whether because of your deep, ingrained, obsolete, presuppositions, or an inadequate grasp of logic and modern approaches to understanding the world, or both.

I doubt I will bother yet again to hash through yet another series of fruitless exchanges trying to get some genuine new insights into your thick skull. 

You are not intellectually worthy to lick Dennett's boots. Not that I agree with every word he utters or writes, but he has provided me with so many really illuminating insights, that I can can only shake my head sadly at your pathetic attempts to disparage his ideas.

Before you make any obvious assertions about me slavishly following Dennett's ideas, gaining an insight from someone else's account is equivalent to them opening a door on the world which I had not realized was there, rather than just taking on board one of their theories. Once I realize there is this fresh way of looking at a subject, and I find it works for me, it becomes part of my own conceptual tool-set.

Dennett's writings, including 'Consciousness Explained' has given me just so much rich food for thought.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
U R WINNAR!!!Great victory

U R WINNAR!!!


Great victory is yours, Paisley; you're officially the greatest mind on the face of the internet in matters of neurological science, and have trumped those evil, damnable atheists are their ridiculous 'millions of years old Earth' hypothesis!

Now go run along and tell all of your friends what a genius you are and be sure to make yourself a replica Nobel Prize in shop class to put on top of your dresser.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I have asked

Paisley wrote:
I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. The standard response is: "Consciousness is an emergent property." But this isn't really a scientific theory or a materialistic explanation. It's simply an evasive tactic. I would simply prefer the honest reply: "I don't know how. My belief in materialism is ultimately based on a faith commitment."

You know what's unbelievable? You. Your "honest reply" is a non-sequitur. Ignorance does not imply faith (though I see how you could make the mistake).

You consistently fail to describe the spiritual world that you hold responsible for consciousness, life, and the universe, but decide that it's correct because the materialist position is wrong. You're right because we're wrong.

How you imagine that a description of emergent properties is an "evasive tactic" instead of an explanation is beyond me.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Zymotic wrote:Paisley

Zymotic wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. 

 

I'm not a neuroscientist, and I don't know shit about consciousness, but I'm guessing that the line you're drawing between sentience and insentience is completely arbitrary.

Haha! Point to Zymotic.

Dude, seriously go to a university if you can. It will blow your mind.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3633
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

FUCK!

Here we go again...

   ( long sigh ) ..it's like watching a comedian who still expects to get a laugh after telling an audience the same joke over and over and over. 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 How many examples of

 

How many examples of emergence can you give someone before they get it through there head? Or are they all false analogies to Paisley?

 

Two atoms forming together to form a compound with completely different characteristics of it's components (ie: color, smell, state of matter, shape, ductility, hardness, etc). This is one of the most basic concepts of emergence and if you don't understand this then you're not worth anyone's time. There's absolutely nothing evasive about it and the brute fact of it is in front of your face every day.

Compounds forming together to perform functions that no atom or small molecule could do by itself (ie: a motor protein. plastics/rubbers, and even DNA).

A small set of neurons working together that tell a small organism to respond to primitive stimuli (very deterministic I might add)(such as heat/cold, pain, light etc.).

Large sets of these nuerons in larger organisms that give it the ability to store memories, respond to stimuli and predict future events before they occur (ie what will happen if I fall off of this tree again or what will happen if I drop this uncracked nut from a tree)(could go on forever with these types of examples).

 

There's virtually no end to the examples one could give of emergence. I could go on forever with more examples and things like feedback systems also being a form of emergence but I'm sure he's heard it all before and simply doesn't care.

Oh, but will Paisly argue that none of these are conscious and contradict what he's said in previous posts?

 

One thing I think Dennett was right to point out was how no one has actually proven how QM could lead to the conclusion that you could have done otherwise. You still have absolutely no control over how the electrons flop around in any specific atom in your brain. It's funny how this new-age mysticism garbage gets passed around for decades before it's finally corrected.

 

To me the question of whether one could have done otherwise is pointless unless you're some sort of god that can experience two or more realities at once (or more than one moment in THIS reality at one time.) . People who obsess over this question have some serious ego issues imo and constantly overstep what the empircal evidence actually shows. 


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
What parts of consciousness

What parts of consciousness do you think are not part of the brain?

We have memories, but you can take head trama to remove those... It would appear to be part of the brain.

We have emotions, but medication can affect our mood and some surpress deep sorrow... It would appear to be part of the brain.

We have decision making, which is taking our past memories + emotional state + current event = next decision.

 

Is there something I am missing about conciousness?

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
It's obvious that none of

It's obvious that none of you watched the video.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Yet again

We all know that Paisley does not care for actual scientific information or explanations, as he himself has stated that he only cares for his OWN opinion and definitions. This leads nowhere because he is incapable of grasping the subject properly, as the subject clearly defies his own world view and as such even though there maybe scientific information/evidence in the book it defies his own world view and therefore is not REAL science to paisley. Remember people this is the person that believes that first person experience right out beats any other observation/explanation/test or scientific information that is opposite of his world view. Paisley's opinion, not fact, not evidence, is what matters to him, and any scientific information or scientist that agrees with him or his world view is correct. But all others are wrong and don't know shit.

Another useless thread from Paisley.

 

[Edit: spelling errors]


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3633
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:It's obvious

JillSwift wrote:

It's obvious that none of you watched the video.

   Bada-bing ! ( insert sound effect rim shot )  Hee, hee !

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I propose we boycott all

I propose we boycott all Paisley threads until he answers the thousands of responses he's ignored in the dozens of other threads he's spawned.

Caution: Do not feed the Paisley.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:I propose we

natural wrote:

I propose we boycott all Paisley threads until he answers the thousands of responses he's ignored in the dozens of other threads he's spawned.

Caution: Do not feed the Paisley.

My thoughts exactly.

These threads have gone way past a joke...

I've even tackled him before on Dennett, going to the trouble of scanning in a chunk of text from one of Dennett's books to show he misrepresented Dennett's ideas.

He either ignores, misreads, or makes some total non-sequitur one-liner in response.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion, I very much

Di66en6ion, I very much agree.

Along with the related point that complex structure can actually arise from simpler, given a flow of energy through the system.

Throw in 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' (another of Dennett's books, about the basic algorithm of natural selection), and we see that the conclusion is: No God Required.

It really is a 'no-brainer', as good a description of Paisley as any...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Zymotic wrote:Paisley

Zymotic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. 

I'm not a neuroscientist, and I don't know shit about consciousness, but I'm guessing that the line you're drawing between sentience and insentience is completely arbitrary.

Quite the contrary. I'm not drawing any arbitrary line. I believe in a conscious universe. And since materialists on this forum have scoffed at such an idea, then I believe that I am in my epistemic jurisdiction to ask where and when they draw the line between sentience and insentience. It's a fair question. I expect an honest reply.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Zymotic

Paisley wrote:

Zymotic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. 

I'm not a neuroscientist, and I don't know shit about consciousness, but I'm guessing that the line you're drawing between sentience and insentience is completely arbitrary.

Quite the contrary. I'm not drawing any arbitrary line. I believe in a conscious universe. And since materialists on this forum have scoffed at such an idea, then I believe that I am in my epistemic jurisdiction to ask where and when they draw the line between sentience and insentience. It's a fair question. I expect an honest reply.

Oh, please.

You believe in a conscious universe. The line you draw as to what defines consciousness, however, jumps around like it's being drawn by a guy with the DTs in the middle of an earthquake.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Zymotic

Paisley wrote:

Zymotic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. 

I'm not a neuroscientist, and I don't know shit about consciousness, but I'm guessing that the line you're drawing between sentience and insentience is completely arbitrary.

Quite the contrary. I'm not drawing any arbitrary line. I believe in a conscious universe. And since materialists on this forum have scoffed at such an idea, then I believe that I am in my epistemic jurisdiction to ask where and when they draw the line between sentience and insentience. It's a fair question. I expect an honest reply.

Somewhere between a Paisley and regular people, perhaps?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I have asked

Paisley wrote:

I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion.

And we have repeatedly answered you. Basically you are admitting that this is a repeat thread. But this time you throw in some stuff from Dennett. Stuff that we have already been over with you.

I'm going to stick with what I told you last time you brought this up: thinking brains are analogous to computers. No single transitor computes. No single neuron thinks (which is just our way of processing information). But get enough transistors together to make a proper system and computing will arise from it. How did we leap from a transistor that can not compute anything to a network of transistors that can compute? Well, I suppose that computing is an emergent property of computers. No single component in a computer can compute. But all of them together can. Just like the way that no single neuron can process information by itself. But a network of them can. That is how sentience arises from insentient matter. No atom in your brain can think, no molecule in you brain can think, no neuron in you brain can think. But your brain can think. Just like how no atom in your computer computes and no transistor in your computer computes. But your computer computes.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: Give up,

BobSpence1 wrote:
 Give up, Paisley, you have demonstrated over and over again that you are incapable of grasping the ideas of someone like Daniel Dennett, whether because of your deep, ingrained, obsolete, presuppositions, or an inadequate grasp of logic and modern approaches to understanding the world, or both.

I am capable of grasping the idea that ad hominem attacks do not qualify as counterarguments. It would appear that you cannot.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I doubt I will bother yet again to hash through yet another series of fruitless exchanges trying to get some genuine new insights into your thick skull. 

You are not intellectually worthy to lick Dennett's boots. Not that I agree with every word he utters or writes, but he has provided me with so many really illuminating insights, that I can can only shake my head sadly at your pathetic attempts to disparage his ideas.

You score points in a debate by actually making one. If you think I have in some way misrepresented Dennett's views, then I suggest you make some kind of logical rebuttal. Flinging ad hominem attacks will not impress me.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Before you make any obvious assertions about me slavishly following Dennett's ideas, gaining an insight from someone else's account is equivalent to them opening a door on the world which I had not realized was there, rather than just taking on board one of their theories. Once I realize there is this fresh way of looking at a subject, and I find it works for me, it becomes part of my own conceptual tool-set.

I don't have to assert that you slavishly follow Dennett's ideas. Your reponse makes this fact abundantly clear.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:U R

Kevin R Brown wrote:
U R WINNAR!!!
 

Great victory is yours, Paisley; you're officially the greatest mind on the face of the internet in matters of neurological science, and have trumped those evil, damnable atheists are their ridiculous 'millions of years old Earth' hypothesis!

Now go run along and tell all of your friends what a genius you are and be sure to make yourself a replica Nobel Prize in shop class to put on top of your dresser.

I'm still eargerly awaiting for the day when you actually respond to the subject matter at hand.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I think Paisley may be

 I think Paisley may be what I call a 'hyper-materialist'- rather than understand that certain referents are truly 'immaterial', whether 'low-level' things such as energy states, and high-level processes such as consciousness, these things are thought of special kinds of 'stuff' or 'force', analogous to physical matter, energy and forces. Much as living matter was once thought to to contain something called 'elan vital', that 'organic' matter was composed of stuff distinct from 'inorganic' matter, heat was a flow of 'phlogiston', human 'souls' are composed of 'ectoplasm', or some other meta-substance, which allows them to be thought of as distinct from 'ordinary' matter.

This would justify the idea that no degree of 'mere' complexity of structure composed of ordinary matter could possibly create or give rise to the special stuff of consciousness, or any other related phenomena. 

So in his own befuddled way, he is more of a materialist than myself, in that he can't seem to grasp or accept that it is particular categories of complex physical structure and processes involving complex interactions between simpler physical entities such as neurons comprising such structures that give rise to these 'higher level' phenomena, rather than some special meta-physical version of ordinary material stuff or energy.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. The standard response is: "Consciousness is an emergent property." But this isn't really a scientific theory or a materialistic explanation. It's simply an evasive tactic. I would simply prefer the honest reply: "I don't know how. My belief in materialism is ultimately based on a faith commitment."

You know what's unbelievable? You. Your "honest reply" is a non-sequitur. Ignorance does not imply faith (though I see how you could make the mistake).

But the point is that you and your ilk are refusing to acknowledge ignorance on the subject of consciousness.

HisWillness wrote:
You consistently fail to describe the spiritual world that you hold responsible for consciousness, life, and the universe, but decide that it's correct because the materialist position is wrong. You're right because we're wrong.

How you imagine that a description of emergent properties is an "evasive tactic" instead of an explanation is beyond me.

This is not enitrely true. If you had actually made the effort to read beyond the first paragraph in the OP, then you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of making such an uninformed comment. In the future, I suggest that you first get your facts straight before you decide to opine.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
spike.barnett wrote:

FUCK!

Here we go again...

   ( long sigh ) ..it's like watching a comedian who still expects to get a laugh after telling an audience the same joke over and over and over. 

But this doesn't explain why you keep coming back for more.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:
FUCK!

Here we go again...

I can only hope that a day will soon arrive when you decide to dispense with your snide, drive-by comments and  invest in the necessary mental capital in order to craft a well thought-out argument. Until then, you will not be worthy of my precious time.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3633
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: But this

Paisley wrote:

 

But this doesn't explain why you keep coming back for more.

   Strange, for someone who claims to have no time to waste on "drive by" comments you sure seem to waste a lot of time replying to them.

  ( ...should I anticipate a further reply from you or would that waste your "precious time" ? )

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:spike.barnett

Paisley wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:
FUCK!

Here we go again...

I can only hope that a day will soon arrive when you decide to dispense with your snide, drive-by comments and  invest in the necessary mental capital in order to craft a well thought-out argument. Until then, you will not be worthy of my precious time.

And yet here you are yourself, coming back for more.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote:One thing I

Di66en6ion wrote:
One thing I think Dennett was right to point out was how no one has actually proven how QM could lead to the conclusion that you could have done otherwise. You still have absolutely no control over how the electrons flop around in any specific atom in your brain. It's funny how this new-age mysticism garbage gets passed around for decades before it's finally corrected.

Evidently, Daniel Dennett has not avail himself of the quantum mind theories that are currently being proposed. Stuart Hameroff (who is collaborating with noted mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose) explains how their quantum mind theory accounts for free will.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/presentations/whatisconsciousness.html

Also, I would like to point out the fact that many of the leading figures in quantum physics are participating or have participated in the spreading of this so-called quantum mysticism.

Di66en6ion wrote:
To me the question of whether one could have done otherwise is pointless unless you're some sort of god that can experience two or more realities at once (or more than one moment in THIS reality at one time.) . People who obsess over this question have some serious ego issues imo and constantly overstep what the empircal evidence actually shows.

Actually, I believe these (parallel universes/parallel selves) are the implications of the "many worlds/many minds" interpretation of QM.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:What parts of

Magus wrote:
What parts of consciousness do you think are not part of the brain?

We have memories, but you can take head trama to remove those... It would appear to be part of the brain.

We have emotions, but medication can affect our mood and some surpress deep sorrow... It would appear to be part of the brain.

We have decision making, which is taking our past memories + emotional state + current event = next decision.

 

Is there something I am missing about conciousness?

Yes, there is. You have failed to establish that consciousness (which has no physical properties) is material. In fact, if it had been established, then Daniel Dennett would not have had to exerted so much mental energy on spurious arguments in a vain attempt to explain consciousness away.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:It's obvious

JillSwift wrote:
It's obvious that none of you watched the video.

There was no video in the OP.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:
 Paisley's opinion, not fact, not evidence, is what matters to him, and any scientific information or scientist that agrees with him or his world view is correct. But all others are wrong and don't know shit.

I think I actually made a compelling argument in the OP that Daniel Dennett unwittingly made a case for panpsychism. I don't have to invoke philosophers or scientists who share my view when those who supposedly espouse an alternative view are making my case.

Please note that no one here has challenge me on this point. Of course, this may simply be due to the distinct possibility that they did not bother to read beyond the first paragraph in the OP.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
 Paisley's opinion, not fact, not evidence, is what matters to him, and any scientific information or scientist that agrees with him or his world view is correct. But all others are wrong and don't know shit.

I think I actually made a compelling argument in the OP that Daniel Dennett unwittingly made a case for panpsychism. I don't have to invoke philosophers or scientists who share my view when those who supposedly espouse an alternative view are making my case.

Please note that no one here has challenge me on this point. Of course, this may simply be due to the distinct possibility that they did not bother to read beyond the first paragraph in the OP.

No probably no one has read anything really because it's the same rehashed crap that's been refuted so many times that you still refuse to even bother understanding why most of your opinions are misguided and for the most part incorrect, especially when it come to terminology/definitions, oh that and you tend to dodge a lot of questions and evidence contrary to your world views, as such everyone is tired of dealing with your crap.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:I propose we

natural wrote:
I propose we boycott all Paisley threads until he answers the thousands of responses he's ignored in the dozens of other threads he's spawned.

Caution: Do not feed the Paisley.

Tell the truth. You simply want to boycott my threads because you seek to censor my views. It's understandable. After all, I'm dismantling atheistic materialism and you feel threatened. This is to be expected. However, think of the ramifications. Engaging in such a tactic will only destroy whatever credibility this particular forum has left in proclaiming its loyal members as free thinkers. You have no right to proclaim yourself as a free thinker if you have to invoke the thought-police in order to insulate your cherished worldview from an opposing viewpoint.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
 Paisley's opinion, not fact, not evidence, is what matters to him, and any scientific information or scientist that agrees with him or his world view is correct. But all others are wrong and don't know shit.

I think I actually made a compelling argument in the OP that Daniel Dennett unwittingly made a case for panpsychism. I don't have to invoke philosophers or scientists who share my view when those who supposedly espouse an alternative view are making my case.

Please note that no one here has challenge me on this point. Of course, this may simply be due to the distinct possibility that they did not bother to read beyond the first paragraph in the OP.

or that you haven't made a point that hasn't been beaten into the ground...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Zymotic

Paisley wrote:

Zymotic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. 

I'm not a neuroscientist, and I don't know shit about consciousness, but I'm guessing that the line you're drawing between sentience and insentience is completely arbitrary.

Quite the contrary. I'm not drawing any arbitrary line. I believe in a conscious universe. And since materialists on this forum have scoffed at such an idea, then I believe that I am in my epistemic jurisdiction to ask where and when they draw the line between sentience and insentience. It's a fair question. I expect an honest reply.

Yet you have never ever ever EVER shown that the conscious universe exists outside of the material universe, shit you have ZERO evidence of an immaterial universe that can exists without the material universe. How about this one Paisley, YOU SHOW THE EVIDENCE of your world view, a simple thing really, something you AVOID AT ALL COSTS AT DOING.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:These

BobSpence1 wrote:
These threads have gone way past a joke...

It's only a joke because, as usual, you didn't bother to actually read the OP.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I've even tackled him before on Dennett, going to the trouble of scanning in a chunk of text from one of Dennett's books to show he misrepresented Dennett's ideas.

He either ignores, misreads, or makes some total non-sequitur one-liner in response.

How have I misrespresented Dennett's ideas? Please give me one example.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Quite the contrary. I'm not drawing any arbitrary line. I believe in a conscious universe. And since materialists on this forum have scoffed at such an idea, then I believe that I am in my epistemic jurisdiction to ask where and when they draw the line between sentience and insentience. It's a fair question. I expect an honest reply.

Oh, please.

You believe in a conscious universe. The line you draw as to what defines consciousness, however, jumps around like it's being drawn by a guy with the DTs in the middle of an earthquake.

Did you bother to actually read the OP? If you had, then you would have learned that Daniel Dennett has unwittingly argued for my view, namely panpsychism. Also, others on this forum have unwittingly argued for this view when they make statements such as "I believe that consciousness is a continuum." (No doubt they were influenced by the writings of Dennett!)

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:You have

Paisley wrote:

You have failed to establish that consciousness (which has no physical properties) is material. 

To use interweb speak to describe this: LOLWAT?

Consciousness has NO physical properties? Are you sure of that? Here I was thinking (with my physical brain) that my consciousness was purely physical. "Consciousness" is the action of a kind of physical system. How is that not purely physical? Hell, consciousness IS a physical property.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Quite the contrary. I'm not drawing any arbitrary line. I believe in a conscious universe. And since materialists on this forum have scoffed at such an idea, then I believe that I am in my epistemic jurisdiction to ask where and when they draw the line between sentience and insentience. It's a fair question. I expect an honest reply.

Somewhere between a Paisley and regular people, perhaps?

This is your typical snide reply. And I know that it is just an evasive tactic. Why can't you simply answer the question?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Paisley

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:

I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion.

And we have repeatedly answered you. Basically you are admitting that this is a repeat thread. But this time you throw in some stuff from Dennett. Stuff that we have already been over with you.

In the OP of this thread, I am not really asking you or any other materialist on this forum to explain to me how consciousness emerges from insentient electrochemical processes. I am simply presenting Daniel Dennett's explanation. Now, if you actually want to particpate in this discussion, then I suggest you go back and actually read the OP.

Jormungander wrote:
I'm going to stick with what I told you last time you brought this up: thinking brains are analogous to computers. .

Daniel Dennett ascribed sentience to the first-replicators in the primordial soup. IOW, consciousness does not require a brain.  I suggest you go back and do your homework. Read the OP of this thread before posting!

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Quite the contrary. I'm not drawing any arbitrary line. I believe in a conscious universe. And since materialists on this forum have scoffed at such an idea, then I believe that I am in my epistemic jurisdiction to ask where and when they draw the line between sentience and insentience. It's a fair question. I expect an honest reply.

Oh, please.

You believe in a conscious universe. The line you draw as to what defines consciousness, however, jumps around like it's being drawn by a guy with the DTs in the middle of an earthquake.

Did you bother to actually read the OP? If you had, then you would have learned that Daniel Dennett has unwittingly argued for my view, namely panpsychism. Also, others on this forum have unwittingly argued for this view when they make statements such as "I believe that consciousness is a continuum." (No doubt they were influenced by the writings of Dennett!)

Why would I need to read the OP (I did btw) to argue with you and your tactics?

Dennett may believe consciousness is a continuum - you simply redefine the term each time you presebt a definition that gets refuted.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:JillSwift

Paisley wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

It's obvious that none of you watched the video.

There was no video in the OP.

*Facepalm*

Paisley wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

FUCK!

Here we go again...

I can only hope that a day will soon arrive when you decide to dispense with your snide, drive-by comments and  invest in the necessary mental capital in order to craft a well thought-out argument. Until then, you will not be worthy of my precious time.

When you present an argument worth responding to I will. Until then you'll just have to endure my snide comments. Fair enough?

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I think

BobSpence1 wrote:
I think Paisley may be what I call a 'hyper-materialist'- rather than understand that certain referents are truly 'immaterial', whether 'low-level' things such as energy states, and high-level processes such as consciousness, these things are thought of special kinds of 'stuff' or 'force', analogous to physical matter, energy and forces.

I have stated the first day that I posted on this forum that I subscribe to panentheism (which is basically a combination of pantheism and classical theism). This probably explains why the powers that be on this forum decided to label me with the "Theist" avatar.

Also, I have stated that I subscribe to panpsychism/idealism. Anyone who confuses this with materialism is simply demonstrating that he or she is philosophically illiterate.

BobSpence1 wrote:
 Much as living matter was once thought to to contain something called 'elan vital', that 'organic' matter was composed of stuff distinct from 'inorganic' matter, heat was a flow of 'phlogiston', human 'souls' are composed of 'ectoplasm', or some other meta-substance, which allows them to be thought of as distinct from 'ordinary' matter.

Here's the bottom line. Daniel Dennett ascribed sentience to the first replicators in the primordial soup. I have argued in the OP that this is flirting dangerously close with panpsychism. This is where I will play like political commentator Bill O'Reilly. What say you?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Yes, there is.

Paisley wrote:

Yes, there is. You have failed to establish that consciousness (which has no physical properties) is material. In fact, if it had been established, then Daniel Dennett would not have had to exerted so much mental energy on spurious arguments in a vain attempt to explain consciousness away.

Actually, it's you that's failed to establish that consciousness has no physical properties. You've asserted that it doesn't, but it sure appears to have physical properties, in the same way the a computer program has physical properties.

You have a very bad intellectual habit of asserting what is, and what isn't. You seem to think you know what materialism can and can't do; and when you are proven wrong, you ignore it. This case is no different.

This is no different from my post concerning quarks and leptons comprising me. You certainly couldn't account for how quarks and leptons make up me, if all you were doing was looking at the properties of quarks and leptons. Just because you are unable to go from "insentient bits of matter" to consciousness does not mean consciousness isn't absolutely attributable to instentient bits of matter. All you are doing is trumpeting your own ignorance and lack of imagination.

Also: dualism has no wothwhile epistemology.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:This is where

Paisley wrote:

This is where I will play like political commentator Bill O'Reilly. What say you?

I say that is very apt. Very apt indeed.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:In the OP of

Paisley wrote:

In the OP of this thread, I am not really asking you or any other materialist on this forum to explain to me how consciousness emerges from insentient electrochemical processes. I am simply presenting Daniel Dennett's explanation. Now, if you actually want to participate in this discussion, then I suggest you go back and actually read the OP.

Why would anyone want to bother to participate really, we just need to do what we are doing, because if your past actions are true (which EVERY thread you start has shown) you will ignore any evidence contrary to your world view or that actually shows the error of your thinking, your definition/terminology, or your OP. You will dismiss everyone as ad hominem (which most aren't but at this point why not since you really rather dismiss everything anyways) attacks or that they haven't presented actual evidence or a proper explanation, or that it isn't enough for you, or you going to give us a definition of something but make it really really vague (consciousness = Consciousness awareness is the classic stupid definition you gave without further defining awareness or consciousness at this point, and I even gave you tons and tons of definitions for consciousness and awareness and you couldn't even pick one to properly debate with).

So why should anyone (I suspect more than 2 people have read the OP myself included) bother with actually debating with you with anything? You evade, dismiss any and all evidence no matter how strong it actually contradicts your world views, change definition of words, change the what you want as evidence or as an opposing view, you refuse to understand the errors of your thinking, refuse to properly debate, shit at this point it's just a massive joke that you have made yourself into. Even people that have shown to understand quantum mechanics better than you and you still claim they don't understand quatum mechanics, emergent properties is another issue altogether. What have you presented that the consciousness can and does exist without any physical properties? You have yet to present a single piece of evidence. Your opinions DO NOT COUNT AS EVIDENCE, they mean jack shit in the real world.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
geirj wrote:And yet here you

geirj wrote:
And yet here you are yourself, coming back for more.

Yes. Truth calls me to dispel ignorance.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Paisley

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I think I actually made a compelling argument in the OP that Daniel Dennett unwittingly made a case for panpsychism. I don't have to invoke philosophers or scientists who share my view when those who supposedly espouse an alternative view are making my case.

Please note that no one here has challenge me on this point. Of course, this may simply be due to the distinct possibility that they did not bother to read beyond the first paragraph in the OP.

No probably no one has read anything.

Enough said.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I think I actually made a compelling argument in the OP that Daniel Dennett unwittingly made a case for panpsychism. I don't have to invoke philosophers or scientists who share my view when those who supposedly espouse an alternative view are making my case.

Please note that no one here has challenge me on this point. Of course, this may simply be due to the distinct possibility that they did not bother to read beyond the first paragraph in the OP.

or that you haven't made a point that hasn't been beaten into the ground...

But unless you have read Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained," then you probably aren't in a position to respond to the argument I made in the OP.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I think I actually made a compelling argument in the OP that Daniel Dennett unwittingly made a case for panpsychism. I don't have to invoke philosophers or scientists who share my view when those who supposedly espouse an alternative view are making my case.

Please note that no one here has challenge me on this point. Of course, this may simply be due to the distinct possibility that they did not bother to read beyond the first paragraph in the OP.

No probably no one has read anything.

Enough said.

Yeah we have collectively decided to act like you, just ignore everything you say and dismiss it all as you do to every counter argument we make to you. Why bother reading right paisley, shit it works for you, all we need to present is our opinions which in your world trump evidence right.