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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:Oh, the

crazymonkie wrote:
Oh, the part that starts "If we assume consciousness is fundamental..."? 

Yeah, I've got a problem with that too. Mainly because it's THE FUCKING THING WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT. It's sort of like if someone were to debate with, say, a Baptist Christian, whose argument for ID starts, "Now if we assume the God of the Bible is true, and that the Genesis account is literal...."

Materialists make a similar assumption. They assume that their metaphysical position is true.

"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
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Space-time-mass-energy is a continuum. If you argue that consciousness is a continuum, then you have just argued for pantheism. This is not "sexed-up" atheism. It's a God-belief. And it undergirds every mystical tradition known to humankind.

See how you said, outright, that if consciousness is a continuum, then pantheism is true? Do you, perhaps, see how I might take exception to that argument?

No, actually I can't. Perhaps you can elaborate.

nigelTheBold wrote:
And no, consciousness is not a binary state. A binary state is the answer to "does this object have consciousness?" This is like pregnancy: "Are you pregnant?" results in a binary answer. "How far along are you?" is a continuum.

So, calling consciousness a continuum is saying, "If an entity possesses consciousness (a binary proposition), then its level of consciousness may be determined using the Paisley autopsychograph."

That's really all I was saying. I was just correcting your attempt to shove a statement where it doesn't belong.

I fail to see your point. Something can both have a binary state and be part of continuum. In fact, it would appear that you have just argued the point with pregnancy. If you argue that consciousness is a continuum and that the first replicators were sentient, then you are flirting dangerously close with pantheism or panpsychism. Now, what exactly are you objecting to here?

And yes consciousness is a binary state. Either the light is on or it is not.

nigelTheBold wrote:
As for the rest: prove that mysticism has anything at all to do with the real world, and I might take the rest seriously. Until then, this is all just amusing speculation.

Whatever point you are seeking to make here is irrelevant. I was simply stating that there is a direct relationship between the pantheistic notion that consciousness is fundamental and mysticism. 

"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: I mean

latincanuck wrote:
I mean lets admit it Bob has presented how you completely misunderstand Dennett and I know you will dismiss Bob's response, and simply continue on your path of ignorance.

I responded to Bob's post. 

latincanuck wrote:
So why go with the tedious parts and just skip it all to this point in which we ask you to present you evidence.

This is how it works. I make an argument in the OP. You respond to that argument and then I respond to your response. If you want to debate a different subject, then I suggest you start your own thread. I promise that I will not attempt to hijack your thread.

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


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:D

I like pie.

 

This thread is now about pie.


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

Di66en6ion 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.

Although I have not read the book in question I am somewhat familiar with Dennett's ideas. I'm pretty sure you simply took it out of context once again.

Well, if you can't back it up, then I guess it's mere assertion. That being said, I will grant you that Dennett's book is subject to various interpretations. But I have made this point in the OP. The other interpretation is that Dennett is denying the very existence of consciousness itself. In fact, this is what prominent philosophers (e.g. Chalmers and Nagel) have argued.  This is why he has been identified as an eliminative materialist in the academic community. And it is also the reason why his ideas are dismissed by fellow materialist philosophers such as John Searle.

Di66en6ion wrote:
When Dennett mentioned any sort of 'continium' of conciousness he was referring to the building blocks that lead up the scale from the most primitive life/biological micromolecular machinery to the complete human 'thinking' being. It's somewhat analogous to saying the more neurons you have the smarter you are because your brain can perform more functions at once(even though this isn't completely true for humans due to many factors like pruning, neurogenesis and development). It takes much more molecular machinery to operate a human's brain than it does a mouse. The molecular machinery itself isn't capable of doing anything we'd describe as conscious but the trillions upon trillions of components of the human brain and the thinking mind that comes out of that IS the emergent property.

Life only comes from life. The same is true for consciousness. Computers process information. Computers are not conscious. The level of complexity is not a factor. 

Di66en6ion wrote:
Paisley wrote:
There is no scientific instrument or means to measure the so-called physical properties of consciousness. If there are, then please provide me with the evidence.
 

Assigning secondary properties to consciousness and then saying we have no way of measuring it. Try measuring any secondary property and see if it makes sense to even ask to measure it.  The things we feel are an amalgamation of experiences that we express with a lot of secondary properties.

If you're claiming that consciousness is physical, then you are burden with the task of measuring its physical properties.

Di66en6ion wrote:
Besides this point there are a few aspects to consciousness that ARE measurable such as one's ability to memorize/recall facts/events/details and even the ability to navigate one's surroundings under varying circumstances (loss of senses or sense manipulation). There are varying forms of IQ tests out there that do so. They all basically do one thing in common; measure your ability to internalize, manipulate, navigate, and communicate information through your senses.

Computers do the same and computers are not conscious.

Di66en6ion wrote:
Just because we can't measure something like "fear" doesn't mean we can't scan people's brains and see what part of the brain is responsible for it, what chemicals are released, and what triggers it at varying degrees.

But it does mean that you cannot measure consciousness. Of course, you can infer it. We can infer many things.

 

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


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
This thread is now about pies

Blueberry pie is my favorite.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I like

ClockCat wrote:

I like pie.

 

This thread is now about pie.

I second this motion.

All in favor say "Aye".

All opposed, GTFO!

The "Ayes" have it!

 

P I E !

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
This thread is now about pies

JillSwift wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

I like pie.

 

This thread is now about pie.

I second this motion.

All in favor say "Aye".

All opposed, GTFO!

The "Ayes" have it!

 

P I E !

 

 

Ohhhh. Is that pumpkin pie bychance?

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Life only

Paisley wrote:

Life only comes from life. The same is true for consciousness. Computers process information. Computers are not conscious. The level of complexity is not a factor. 

Could you please show us how consciousness comes from consciousness and that it cannot be an emergent property of the brain or are you saying that consciousness comes from life?. Oh and more than just your opinion please. As well could you properly define consciousness that you are describing here, and conscious aware isnt' a proper definition of cousciousness.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Ohhhh. Is

ClockCat wrote:
Ohhhh. Is that pumpkin pie bychance?
Of course. It is among the best pies ever.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:ClockCat

JillSwift wrote:

ClockCat wrote:
Ohhhh. Is that pumpkin pie bychance?
Of course. It is among the best pies ever.

 

 

 

 

Mmm.

 

I think I prefer Key Lime though over pumpkin. But pumpkin is still a good pie.

 

I remember trying pumpkin coffee at starbucks. It tasted a lot like chai.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Life only

Paisley wrote:

Life only comes from life. The same is true for consciousness.

There is no evidence to support these statements.

Treating such things as fundamental essences like that allows no explanation for their origin.

Whereas treating them as what they are, ie processes, which only require the right underlying structure and organization to allow them to be manifest, provides a framework for explaining their emergence.

Quote:

Computers process information. Computers are not conscious. The level of complexity is not a factor. 

It most certainly is. You require the appropriate structure, so not every structure of equivalent complexity to the brain would be expected to be conscious, any more than every piece of electronic equipment with similar complexity to my computer can run Photoshop or surf the Web.

These concepts are so basic and fundamental, only somehow either mentally impaired, under- or mis-educated, or blinded by preconceptions as you appear to be could fail to see this.

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


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

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
And you are trumpeting your ignorance as  real knowledge.

How juvenile. "Well, you're double." What are we, six?

No. I trumpet my ignorance as ignorance. I see only one person here making assertions about things of which we are all ignorant. Making assertions, and having them knocked down. Remember "Materialism cannot account for nonlocality?" That was a hoot.

You're making the assertion that consciousness (which has no measurable physical property) is physical. And you're presenting this assertion as scientific knowledge. The truth is that you don't know. Therefore, you are trumpeting ignorance as real knowledge.

And yes, materialism cannot for nonlocality. And if you think it can, then please explain to me how the spin state of one member of a pair of entangled subatomic particles changes instantaneously whenver the other member is measured?

You obviously didn't read the link. Therefore, I don't have to respond.

"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:nigelTheBold

Double post! Sorry.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
again sasay

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

See how you said, outright, that if consciousness is a continuum, then pantheism is true? Do you, perhaps, see how I might take exception to that argument?

No, actually I can't. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Okay, here's the elaboration: you seem to be unable to comprehend the simple definition of "continuum." I thought I was debating with someone with intelligence. I'm sorry I was wrong.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
And no, consciousness is not a binary state. A binary state is the answer to "does this object have consciousness?" This is like pregnancy: "Are you pregnant?" results in a binary answer. "How far along are you?" is a continuum.

So, calling consciousness a continuum is saying, "If an entity possesses consciousness (a binary proposition), then its level of consciousness may be determined using the Paisley autopsychograph."

That's really all I was saying. I was just correcting your attempt to shove a statement where it doesn't belong.

I fail to see your point. Something can both have a binary state and be part of continuum. In fact, it would appear that you have just argued the point with pregnancy. If you argue that consciousness is a continuum and that the first replicators were sentient, then you are flirting dangerously close with pantheism or panpsychism. Now, what exactly are you objecting to here?

And yes consciousness is a binary state. Either the light is on or it is not.

You are funny. I don't think you intend to be funny, but you are.

You are claiming there is no difference between broad daylight, late twilight, and a lightless cave. That's just fuckin' funny. Stupid, and funny. And you still haven't demonstrated how being a continuum implies pantheism. Which just makes you a bad debator. Or a master bator. (Hah! Now I'm six.)

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
As for the rest: prove that mysticism has anything at all to do with the real world, and I might take the rest seriously. Until then, this is all just amusing speculation.

Whatever point you are seeking to make here is irrelevant. I was simply stating that there is a direct relationship between the pantheistic notion that consciousness is fundamental and mysticism. 

Hah! Nice dodge. Not quite sufficient to avoid the question, but a nice dodge. My point was: the only epistemology that works (science) says the ball is in your court. You are talking all kinds of mysticism, and backing it up with QM, saying that mysticism supports QM, and QM supports mysticism. That's a circular argument (your favorite kind). So, I ask again: demonstrate how mysticism has any congruence whatsoever with the real world. Otherwise, you're just masturbating to your favorite dualistic fantasy.

"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


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Seriously, seriously,

Seriously, seriously, seriously. Stop feeding the Paisley. This is ridiculous.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Seriously,

natural wrote:

Seriously, seriously, seriously. Stop feeding the Paisley. This is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, there's cherry pie with a lattice top and a scoop of vanilla ice cream. Yes, there is that.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Pantheism is not Atheism, as

Pantheism is not Atheism, as you said.

Pantheists do not consider themselves as believers in polytheism. Instead, they are monotheistic, with an understanding that everything is god, as opposed to everything being a god.

For example, Pantheists are known to say "Nature is my God"
or "Everything around us is God", less popular would be a
Pantheist saying "God is everything around us", although they'd be happy to revise that somewhat to: "God can be evidenced in everything around us". --- Granted it seems a bit more radical, but to a Pantheist, it's considered P.C.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:This thread

Paisley wrote:

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).

Paisley, I don't have all day, nor the inclination to read a fucking book post unless you pay me.

Given that, I've nothing else to say about whatever you intended folks to spend an enourmous amount of time to read.

I'd be happy to respond to a Topic which is posted by the author in less than 50,000 words.

Do you think you can get to your point without me having to press the Page Down key a few hundred times to read the Topic you'd like to discuss?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
To 500!   

To 500!

 

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:natural

JillSwift wrote:

natural wrote:

Seriously, seriously, seriously. Stop feeding the Paisley. This is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, there's cherry pie with a lattice top and a scoop of vanilla ice cream. Yes, there is that.

By all means, let them eat pie!

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!


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Quantum pie

Quantum pie

This pie is in its quantum state. It's everywhere at once.

(Kitty no! That's my pot pie!)


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

Paisley wrote:

Materialists make a similar assumption. They assume that their metaphysical position is true.

No, they argue that their position is true, and that's a different thing altogether.

If I were to say, "it's obvious that there's a material world", you probably wouldn't have a difficulty with that. I think that's trivial. Whether that material world is an illusion, or whether it's attached to a dualist's supernatural world isn't even discussed yet. Can we go with the assumption that you believe that there's a material world?

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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Seriously,

natural wrote:

Seriously, seriously, seriously. Stop feeding the Paisley. This is ridiculous.

You have a point.

Also, that chocolate cheesecake looks really delicious.

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
Goddamn, you guys. Now I'm

Goddamn, you guys. Now I'm seriously hungry.

(Okay, that happens every hour, but have mercy!)


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:...unless you

Paisley wrote:
...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.

Then why the hell did you post a friggin novel in the first place.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Goddamn,

HisWillness wrote:
Goddamn, you guys. Now I'm seriously hungry.

(Okay, that happens every hour, but have mercy!)

The Panda says no mercy for unbelievers, so take this moosey-man:

Behold! CRUMBLE-TOP MINCE PIES!

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


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

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Materialists make a similar assumption. They assume that their metaphysical position is true.

No, they argue that their position is true, and that's a different thing altogether.

No, they assume that it is true and then seek to shift the burden of proof upon the dualist.

HisWillness wrote:
If I were to say, "it's obvious that there's a material world", you probably wouldn't have a difficulty with that. I think that's trivial. Whether that material world is an illusion, or whether it's attached to a dualist's supernatural world isn't even discussed yet. Can we go with the assumption that you believe that there's a material world?

Can we go with the assumption that you believe that there's a spiritual world?

You want to argue that only the physical is real, when we clearly experience duality (the mental or subjective vs. the physical or objective).  So, why should materialism be granted this primary assumption status over dualism? I would argue that the starting point should be dualism, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the back of the materialist.

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


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

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.

Then why did you post the goddamn topic and write a book on it in the first place.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:crazymonkie

Paisley wrote:

crazymonkie wrote:
Oh, the part that starts "If we assume consciousness is fundamental..."? 

Yeah, I've got a problem with that too. Mainly because it's THE FUCKING THING WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT. It's sort of like if someone were to debate with, say, a Baptist Christian, whose argument for ID starts, "Now if we assume the God of the Bible is true, and that the Genesis account is literal...."

Materialists make a similar assumption. They assume that their metaphysical position is true.

Which is an incredibly banal point.

Everyone assumes their position is true. That's what it means to have a position.

What is your point??

People vary in the certainty they attach to their position, and the way they arrive at their beliefs. 

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


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Paisley's point is: Paisley

Paisley's point is: Paisley is right.

 

Though again: The issue here is that he's assuming the conclusion of his argument is true.

And then saying "Oh yeah? So what- materialists do the same thing."

Problem being: We can see and experience and measure the physical world. We've got more or less objective tools to measure things like matter/energy, light, etc. Can't do that with a spiritual world.

But hey, keep waiting Paisley. Maybe someday it'll happen.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:You want to

Paisley wrote:

You want to argue that only the physical is real, when we clearly experience duality (the mental or subjective vs. the physical or objective).

The Teacher asked the student how he knew the answer was correct. "I feel it is so, Teacher," replied the student.

"Ah," said the Teacher. He then said, "You know, I had a heart attack last week."

Shocked by this news, the student exclaimed, "Teacher! I see you are healthy at the moment, but that is terrible news. What happened?"

The Teacher replied, "I felt pains in my body, and numbness in my arms. I felt I was on the verge of death, the pain was so great. I rushed to the hospital,  whereupon the doctors discovered that it was not a heart attack, but a case of terrible indigestion."

"I am glad for that," said the relieved student, to which the Teacher responded, "What? You are glad I had a heart attack?"

And thus was the student enlightened.

"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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:HisWillness

Paisley wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Materialists make a similar assumption. They assume that their metaphysical position is true.

No, they argue that their position is true, and that's a different thing altogether.

No, they assume that it is true and then seek to shift the burden of proof upon the dualist.

HisWillness wrote:
If I were to say, "it's obvious that there's a material world", you probably wouldn't have a difficulty with that. I think that's trivial. Whether that material world is an illusion, or whether it's attached to a dualist's supernatural world isn't even discussed yet. Can we go with the assumption that you believe that there's a material world?

Can we go with the assumption that you believe that there's a spiritual world?

You want to argue that only the physical is real, when we clearly experience duality (the mental or subjective vs. the physical or objective).  So, why should materialism be granted this primary assumption status over dualism? I would argue that the starting point should be dualism, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the back of the materialist.

And the dualist comes in with his/her preuppositions and claims there's evidence to support them. When asked to show that evidence, the dualist falls back to the position of "Oh, it's invisible evidence. Science doesn't have anyway to really measure it yet. But it's there - honest and for true!"

Paisley, if you really wanted to show that mental properties are proof of duality, wouldn't you have to show that these properties exist without a brain generating them?

The reason why the proof isn't on the materialist is because the materialist has...material. You are trying to define duality as materialism+ but you're missing the + component.

"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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:

crazymonkie wrote:
Oh, the part that starts "If we assume consciousness is fundamental..."? 

Yeah, I've got a problem with that too. Mainly because it's THE FUCKING THING WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT. It's sort of like if someone were to debate with, say, a Baptist Christian, whose argument for ID starts, "Now if we assume the God of the Bible is true, and that the Genesis account is literal...."

Materialists make a similar assumption. They assume that their metaphysical position is true.

Which is an incredibly banal point.

Everyone assumes their position is true. That's what it means to have a position.

What is your point??

What's my point? That "everyone assumes their position is true." I suggest next time you first determine the context in which I made a post before you decide to respond to it. This would be beneficial for all parties concerned.

What's the conext? I made the post in response to a comment that a forum member had with a statement that I made in the OP - namely, "If we assume that consciousness is fundamental..." He was arguing that the assumption is something that I am supposed to prove.  But I wasn't necessarily trying to prove the assumption. I was simply asking the reader to assume "for sake of argument." This is implied by the first word in my statement - "If." 
 

"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
treat2 wrote: Paisley, I

treat2 wrote:
Paisley, I don't have all day, nor the inclination to read a fucking book post unless you pay me.

Participating in this thread is not mandatory. If you sincerely believe that the OP is entirely too long, then don't participate. It's that simple.

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:

crazymonkie wrote:
Oh, the part that starts "If we assume consciousness is fundamental..."? 

Yeah, I've got a problem with that too. Mainly because it's THE FUCKING THING WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT. It's sort of like if someone were to debate with, say, a Baptist Christian, whose argument for ID starts, "Now if we assume the God of the Bible is true, and that the Genesis account is literal...."

Materialists make a similar assumption. They assume that their metaphysical position is true.

Which is an incredibly banal point.

Everyone assumes their position is true. That's what it means to have a position.

What is your point??

What's my point? That "everyone assumes their position is true." I suggest next time you first determine the context in which I made a post before you decide to respond to it. This would be beneficial for all parties concerned.

What's the conext? I made the post in response to a comment that a forum member had with a statement that I made in the OP - namely, "If we assume that consciousness is fundamental..." He was arguing that the assumption is something that I am supposed to prove.  But I wasn't necessarily trying to prove the assumption. I was simply asking the reader to assume "for sake of argument." This is implied by the first word in my statement - "If." 
 

Your statement is still banal in any context. It did not address the point, which was about circularity, which your comment did not reference in any sense.

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
latincanuck wrote:Paisley

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Life only comes from life. The same is true for consciousness. Computers process information. Computers are not conscious. The level of complexity is not a factor.

Could you please show us how consciousness comes from consciousness and that it cannot be an emergent property of the brain or are you saying that consciousness comes from life?. Oh and more than just your opinion please.

You want a third-person explanation for what is only a first-person phenomena. I can't accomplish that feat. All I can do is argue that if we assume that all life has some level of sentience or awareness, then it logically follows that consciousness can only come from consciousness because life can only come from life and the two are intertwined. And the idea that a lifeless electronic computer can somehow generate an inner experience if only we could endow it with more sophisticated hardware and software is seriously misguided.

latincanuck wrote:
[As well could you properly define consciousness that you are describing here, and conscious aware isnt' a proper definition of cousciousness.

What aspect of "awareness" do you not understand? And I'm not being facetious. Seriously, I don't know how I can possibly define it in more simpler terms.

"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
BobSpence1 wrote:Your

BobSpence1 wrote:
Your statement is still banal in any context. It did not address the point, which was about circularity, which your comment did not reference in any sense.

Yeah, what's the circular argument?

"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:First of all,

jcgadfly wrote:
First of all, I'm not debating you - I was simply reminding everyone to be on guard for your usual crap. Turns out it was unnecessary as the people here saw through you a while ago.

Agreed. You can't debate when you have no argument.

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Your statement is still banal in any context. It did not address the point, which was about circularity, which your comment did not reference in any sense.

Yeah, what's the circular argument?

You said  "He was arguing that the assumption is something that I am supposed to prove". That is circularity, ie, basing a proof to any extent on the assumption of the truth of what you are trying to prove. 

I am not making any judgement on the truth of any of the assumptions or assertions involved, or even whether the other person was accurately describing your argument, just that circularity was clearly the issue.

Paisley, are you really this dense, or are you playing some obscure game?

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


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


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

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
No, actually I can't. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Okay, here's the elaboration: you seem to be unable to comprehend the simple definition of "continuum." I thought I was debating with someone with intelligence. I'm sorry I was wrong.

I guess I didn't pass the "Turing Test." Had I actually fooled you into believing that I was a conscious intelligent being, then I would in fact be one.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I fail to see your point. Something can both have a binary state and be part of continuum. In fact, it would appear that you have just argued the point with pregnancy. If you argue that consciousness is a continuum and that the first replicators were sentient, then you are flirting dangerously close with pantheism or panpsychism. Now, what exactly are you objecting to here?

And yes consciousness is a binary state. Either the light is on or it is not.

You are funny. I don't think you intend to be funny, but you are.

You are claiming there is no difference between broad daylight, late twilight, and a lightless cave. That's just fuckin' funny. Stupid, and funny.

Perhaps I will employ language that you actually understand. If there is one FUCKING photon, then there's light. Whether you can detect it or not is really irrelevant. Of course, if there are billions and billions of photons (as Carl Sagan would say), then I guess the light is slightly more powerful.

However, I do understand why you are struggling to grasp this simple concept. Although the lights may be on in your particular case, clearly, no one is FUCKING home!

nigelTheBold wrote:
And you still haven't demonstrated how being a continuum implies pantheism. Which just makes you a bad debator. Or a master bator. (Hah! Now I'm six.)

What exactly is the problem here? Is it pantheism rather than panpsychism? Or, is it something else?

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Whatever point you are seeking to make here is irrelevant. I was simply stating that there is a direct relationship between the pantheistic notion that consciousness is fundamental and mysticism. 

Hah! Nice dodge. Not quite sufficient to avoid the question, but a nice dodge. My point was: the only epistemology that works (science) says the ball is in your court. You are talking all kinds of mysticism, and backing it up with QM, saying that mysticism supports QM, and QM supports mysticism. That's a circular argument (your favorite kind). So, I ask again: demonstrate how mysticism has any congruence whatsoever with the real world. Otherwise, you're just masturbating to your favorite dualistic fantasy.

But I am not arguing for mysticism in this thread. I simply stated that if you argue that conciousness is a continuum (which Dennett apparently has), then you are arguing for pantheism (or panpsychism). And pantheism provides the foundation for mysticism (as well as psi phenomena).

Also, I'm not arguing in this thread  that  there is direct relationship between consciousness and quantum theory. I still affirm that there is and that this a valid interpretation of QM. But that is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is Daniel Dennett's theory of consciousness (or lack thereof).

"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: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:You want a

Paisley wrote:

You want a third-person explanation for what is only a first-person phenomena. I can't accomplish that feat. All I can do is argue that if we assume that all life has some level of sentience or awareness, then it logically follows that consciousness can only come from consciousness because life can only come from life and the two are intertwined. And the idea that a lifeless electronic computer can somehow generate an inner experience if only we could endow it with more sophisticated hardware and software is seriously misguided.

What I want you to do, is some how provide the evidence that consciousness is not part of the brain, not part of life, that it is somehow separate as you keep on claiming, as consciousness does not logically come from consciousness. please show me that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain.

Paisley wrote:

What aspect of "awareness" do you not understand? And I'm not being facetious. Seriously, I don't know how I can possibly define it in more simpler terms.

Yet again you fail at this whole debate thing don't you.

Here let me define consciousness and awareness so that you can see what I mean and how I define consciousness and awareness, this is what I have asked you to do yet you fail to grasp it.

Consciousness: the capability to be aware of yourself, your situation, to be able to to perceive physical facts and mental concepts. e.g. to be able to play out hypothetical situations based on real world knowledge. As well as a sense of time, the capability to set things in a loose temporal order and think in an abstract future.

Awareness: to have knowledge, or to have perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event

Now as you can see, you now understand how I am using the word consciousness and awareness, where we have no concept of how you are using the term consciousness because conscious aware doesn't actual mean anything, it doesn't define HOW you are using the terminology. This way I can state, from how I have defined consciousness and awareness, that molecules, viruses, bacteria are not conscious, even though they are alive. With the way you define it, it is so vague that you keep on changed what you deem conscious is to fit your view, even when you are proved wrong you can state that it is not what you mean, but being intellectually ignorant, either willfully or not, you avoid defining what the heck your mean when you say consciousness.

Is what I ask so hard for you to do? Or are you unable to properly defend your definition of consciousness? Is it possible that your definition of consciousness is left in a vague term because you will actually have to debate it, and possibly show your ignorance?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Dennett assigns no more than

Dennett assigns no more than the most elementary precursors of consciousness to  the first 'replicators', with a rough 'continuum' of progressive emergence of identifiable aspects of what we would recognize as full-blown consciousness from that point to our current human version. It in no way implies it is present in any degree whatsoever in any sense to entities not in the line of development from some point after the first replicators to current conscious species. He is quite specific about that, as I have shown by direct quotes.

A continuum of some attribute does not imply everything has that attribute in some non-zero degree. It merely allows that some attribute can be present at any level between zero and some maximum value in some category or set of entities. 

 

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


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

Paisley wrote:

I guess I didn't pass the "Turing Test." Had I actually fooled you into believing that I was a conscious intelligent being, then I would in fact be one.

Cool. I do appreciate a sense of humor. Truly.

Quote:
I fail to see your point. Something can both have a binary state and be part of continuum. In fact, it would appear that you have just argued the point with pregnancy. If you argue that consciousness is a continuum and that the first replicators were sentient, Perhaps I will employ language that you actually understand. If there is one FUCKING photon, then there's light. Whether you can detect it or not is really irrelevant. Of course, if there are billions and billions of photons (as Carl Sagan would say), then I guess the light is slightly more powerful.

However, I do understand why you are struggling to grasp this simple concept. Although the lights may be on in your particular case, clearly, no one is FUCKING home!

You still don't get the word "continuum," unfortunately. As I said, the presence of light is a binary proposition. That's what you're saying, and I agree. However, light itself is a continuum, which is why we distinguish between plentiful light (such as broad daylight) and twilight.

You are trying to argue that the binary proposition (whether or not light is present) is the same as the intensity of the light. This is simply not so, no matter how much you resort to cursing.

EDIT addendum: Simple question for you, Paisley: Is the intensity of light measured in a continuum, or is it binary?

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
And you still haven't demonstrated how being a continuum implies pantheism. Which just makes you a bad debator. Or a master bator. (Hah! Now I'm six.)

What exactly is the problem here? Is it pantheism rather than panpsychism? Or, is it something else?

Either. I don't care. Consciousness being a continuum doesn't imply pan-anything. All it states is that conscioussness exists with gradients. You are the one stating it impies something else. And you still have done nothing but make a bald-faced assertion.

This is why Dennett is so adamant against dualism: it allows the person holding the dualist view to make stupid assertions with neither logic nor evidence for support. It, like theism in general, allows one to bypass critical thinking and go straight to, "The mind does it."

Quote:

But I am not arguing for mysticism in this thread. I simply stated that if you argue that conciousness is a continuum (which Dennett apparently has), then you are arguing for pantheism (or panpsychism). And pantheism provides the foundation for mysticism (as well as psi phenomena).

Also, I'm not arguing in this thread  that  there is direct relationship between consciousness and quantum theory. I still affirm that there is and that this a valid interpretation of QM. But that is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is Daniel Dennett's theory of consciousness (or lack thereof).

Okay, this is where your argument makes no sense to me. I'll accept that I'm attacking strawmen with the QM and mysticism; let's stick with the "consciousness as a continuum implies panpsychism or pantheism, whichever Paisley prefers."

How does "conscioussness as a continuum" imply panpsychism or pantheism, whichever Paisley prefers? What's the logical connection?

"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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
First of all, I'm not debating you - I was simply reminding everyone to be on guard for your usual crap. Turns out it was unnecessary as the people here saw through you a while ago.

Agreed. You can't debate when you have no argument.

Funny - neither do you. Assertions you have out the yinyang. Arguments, not a one.

As I said, your usual crap. I'm still waiting on you to show me a mental concept that exists independently of a brain.

Or is that more "invisible evidence"

"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


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
He can't show you from a

He can't show you from a third-person perspective.

You'll just have to believe him based on someone else's first-person perspective that he's relating to you. So I guess second-person perspectives are acceptable evidence, but it breaks down with third-person.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.