Consciousness Unexplained
Offline 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).
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?"
"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.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline HisWillness wrote:Paisley wrote:Consciousness is the basis for empiricism.But the process of empiricism can be employed by animals that have nothing like what we'd call consciousness, so that can't be true.
Empiricism is based on knowledge gained form EXPERIENCE. Without consciousness, there is no experience. This is not difficult.
Incidentally, I seriously hope you are not attempting to argue that animals are not conscious.
HisWillness wrote:Paisley wrote:Also, all scientific theories are tentative and subject to change. Therefore, scientific knowledge can never qualify as true knowledge or absolute certitude.But other than as a Platonic forms, "true knowledge" and "absolute certitude" do not exist.
I know with absolute certitude that even as I write this statement I am conscious. I am surprised to learn that you do not have this knowledge. You truly have my sympathy.
HisWillness wrote:Paisley wrote:Duality is how we perceive the world (the subject vs. the objective). I never even mentioned the term "soul." I don't have to.Okay, then, "mind". You're suggesting that there is a mind-body duality. Just because we perceive the world in a certain way doesn't mean that our perception is accurate.
Agreed. It doesn't mean our perception is accurate. However, if you believe that our perception is inaccurate, then the onus is on you to prove why it is.
HisWillness wrote:You also don't have to mention the words "soul" or "mind" because they represent a long tradition of Platonic and neo-Platonic thought.Okay. Then we obviously have first-person evidence for the existence of the soul.
HisWillness wrote:Paisley wrote:I don't have to explain consciousness. It is a given. You're the one who is proposing that only the physical is real. Therefore, you have to explain how something that only has an exterior gives rise to an interior.But this "interior" and "exterior" refer to what, then? Is the exterior the body, and the interior something else? Consciousness as an emergent property isn't that much of an intellectual stretch, is it? After all, it deals with known things (the body) and doesn't require any unknown things (the somehow-immaterial mind) to explain it.
The exterior refers to the body and the interior refers to consciousness. And I am sure you know that.
Also, dualism is less of an intellectual stretch than materialism. And I would argue that it is more reasonable to assume that every exterior has an interior than to assume that an interior magically pops out somehow when insentient bits of matter in motion form a certain configuration.
HisWillness wrote:You're saying I have to explain the apparent exterior-interior duality that some people perceive, when I don't even see it that way. The introduction of an extra ingredient (the mind) doesn't solve anything, because it cannot be shown in what way the mind has consciousness, separate from the body.You don't experience the exterior-interior (or subject-object) duality? Would you really have us believe that you don't understand the difference between the term "observer" and "observed?" Puhlease!
Also, I am not adding an "extra ingredient." That I have subjective experience (mind) is simply a fact derived from my own first-person observation. I don't need you to confirm this for me. I know this with absolute certitude. I trust that you have the same experience. If you don't, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
HisWillness wrote:Paisley wrote:I'm saying that the prevailing scientific theory (QM) clearly does not support materialism. Based on QM, there is no absolute determinism, there is no absolute subtance(s), there is no absolute objectivity, and there is no absolute certainty. How does that prove materialism? Answer: It doesn't.For the roughly thousandth time, you're kicking at Descartes, and his 17th century version of materialism, which is obsolete. What's weird about that is that you don't seem to shrink from using his mind-body duality in an attempt to explain consciousness.
Agreed. Cartesian materialism is obsolete. And if you redefine materialism so that it is compatible with immaterialism, then you are simply making my case.
Also, I am not attempting to "explain consciousness." I don't have to. It's a brute fact of existence and I am merely acknowledging it.
Thank you for violating your claim that one does not need to be conscious of something to be conscious - you make the job of debunking your crap easier.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Gah! You're so right, and I always get sucked in!
So do we all, Will. So do we all.
It's never too late to stop... I'm sure most of us have had enough of this circular path we seem to be on.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline Here's the irony, though: I'm typing here to say I agree with you. Yet if I write 'I agree with you,' or something to that effect, I'm defeating my own point. What a pain.
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.
- Login to post comments
Offline Incidentally, I seriously hope you are not attempting to argue that animals are not conscious.
You mean in the sense that when they're awake, they're conscious? Or is everything that's alive conscious? Or just animals?
I know with absolute certitude that even as I write this statement I am conscious. I am surprised to learn that you do not have this knowledge. You truly have my sympathy.
Okay, but you've confused the definition of "conscious" enough times so that you could be saying "alive" in place of "conscious". I agree, I think it's safe to say that you're alive, and you're probably awake as you type.
It doesn't mean our perception is accurate. However, if you believe that our perception [of a mind-body duality] is inaccurate, then the onus is on you to prove why it is.
No it isn't. I point to physical things; demonstrable things; testable things; things we already know exist. Then I base my explanation on them and test that explanation more to make sure it's not wrong. With dualism, you go from statement to conclusion in one step: we perceive a mind, so it must be there. That's ridiculous.
HisWillness wrote:You also don't have to mention the words "soul" or "mind" because they represent a long tradition of Platonic and neo-Platonic thought.
Okay. Then we obviously have first-person evidence for the existence of the soul.
Why, because we read about it in Plato's Phaedo? Because Plato assumed it? Or because we just feel like it's there?
The exterior refers to the body and the interior refers to consciousness. And I am sure you know that.Also, dualism is less of an intellectual stretch than materialism. And I would argue that it is more reasonable to assume that every exterior has an interior than to assume that an interior magically pops out somehow when insentient bits of matter in motion form a certain configuration.
But the interior-exterior analogue is based on a physical object. Yes, physical objects can have interiors and exteriors. That doesn't mean that a physical object like our bodies can produce something immaterial, or be a tuned antenna for something immaterial, or be a vessel for something immaterial, or be animated by something immaterial. You're not making a case for dualism with the interior-exterior argument.
You don't experience the exterior-interior (or subject-object) duality? Would you really have us believe that you don't understand the difference between the term "observer" and "observed?"
But subject-object duality isn't what we're talking about. You're proposing a dualism of mind and body, and as you have not demonstrated an immaterial mind to be necessary to the best explanation, you're floundering around on a tangent.
Also, I am not adding an "extra ingredient." That I have subjective experience (mind) is simply a fact derived from my own first-person observation.
So you reject even the implication that the phenomenon of mind could result from a healthy human brain, purely by virtue of configuration? And this is based on your personal feeling?
Agreed. Cartesian materialism is obsolete. And if you redefine materialism so that it is compatible with immaterialism, then you are simply making my case.
What's "immaterialism"? The physicalist position is that everything supervenes on the physical. That's it. If you're suggesting that everything supervenes on the mental, like Berkeley, then at least we can argue about something. Otherwise, it's just jumping from one of your feelings to the next.
Also, I am not attempting to "explain consciousness." I don't have to. It's a brute fact of existence and I am merely acknowledging it.
You're "acknowleging" it by claiming it has an explanation outside of the physical. We're back to dualism, and your refusal to demonstrate the role of an immaterial mind in consciousness, as opposed to the consciousness as an emergent property of the body.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
We do have massive accumulated evidence of strong correlation both ways between physical brain events and reported subjective experiences - mental 'actions' can be closely correlated with specific changes in brain activity measured by fMRI, and physical/electrical/chemical stimulation of specific parts of the brain can be correlated with a whole range of sensations, some matching sensory experience, others affecting mood, even things like the feeling of experiencing communication with God...
Not proof, of course, but rather strongly suggestive of subjective experience having a very close connection to physical brain events.
Certainly way more than mere assertions....
It is dualism that has little more than assertion, definitely nothing resembling proof.
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
"Will" is both a noun and a verb. Hopefully, that will bring a smile to your face.
Consciousness is the only thing that we can know with absolute certitude. The presumption of dualism is privileged because that is how we actually experience the world. Therefore, the onus is really upon you to prove that it is otherwise. Besides materialists have failed to prove that the physical is actually...well...physical.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yes, it did. It's my best pick up line.
...
Okay, I'm lying. I'd never use that.
I don't see why that's true. That discounts our empirical experience completely.
How exactly do we perceive the world? Are you suggesting that our hypothesis of the soul is correct because of tradition?
Not when a soul is being presented as an explanation, it's not. You're suggesting that a soul helps explain consciousness. Well then, how does a soul have consciousness?
Sorry, maybe I missed something. Are you suggesting that the physical is ill-defined, or that there is no physical, or ... actually, what are you saying?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
'Dualism' is an unjustified presumption, because our personal experience of consciousness tells us little or nothing about the origins of conciousness or how it actually relates to the world we perceive through our senses at other than a very superficial level. Obviously, it is in a different category from physical objects, but that doesn't prove in any way that it is not a physical process of some sort, or a function of a physical process, since even physical processes are in a different category to physical objects.
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
Pardon the thread hijack, but I just wanted to reply to something here.
Ah. That's pretty cool. It took me about five years to get onboard back to get my MA (I finished my first year in the program *tonight*) so I get what you mean. If I seem a bit clumsy during arguments, it's mostly because I'm used to debating fine points of literature, not philosophy or ethics. I essentially take as a given my post-war U.S. liberalism, really. So one really good thing about frustrating debates with theists on the Web (now that I've accepted that the entire enterprise is really just absurdist comedy in its highest form) is that it helps hone my debating skills and points me in the right direction when it comes to sources/ideas of philosophy, logic, ethics, etc.
Uf that's truly the case, then our arguments are at least at equal strength.
However, I have medical evidence on my side as Bob as pointed out while you have woo-woo.
I do believe the theatre major has spanked you again.
"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
You're just making a dumb-ass "materialism of the gaps" argument. And it's not a very informed one.
Thomas Huxley (evolutionary biologist and affectionately known as "Darwin's bulldog" for his militant promotion of Darwin's theory of evolution) argued as early as 1874 that consciousness cannot be explained by natural selection. Why? Because on the materialist view, consciousness is epiphenomenal (the term was actually coined by Huxley) and therefore causally inefficacious.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Going back to old research to prove your point? That'll win you prizes with the woo-woo crowd.
"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
I'm sure we can dig up some old opinions from reputable authorities of the time that demonstrates that the Sun goes around the Earth too...
Are you serious, Paisley???
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
And our first-person perspective provides us with a "massive accumulated evidence of strong correlation" between mental causation and physical effect (e.g. when I will to raise my hand...my hand actually rises!).
Well, I actually have proof of mental causation and physical effect.
Dualism has a privileged status because that is actually how we experience the world (i.e. the subjective and the objective). And until you can somehow disprove that, then you have nothing but mere assertions.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I said "correlation is NOT identification." What this means is that you cannot use a correlation between two things or events (e.g. mental events and brain events) in order to establish that two are identical. So, our arguments are not equally valid. Mine is valid; yours is not.
I see. You were only acting stupid and here I thought you actually were. Now, let's see if you can play act as an intelligent human being. If you can do that and do it convincingly, then you will earn your salt as a real actor.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I wasn't aware that Darwin's theory of evolution has been rendered completely obsolete. If consciousness is epiphenomenal (which it must be on the materialist view), then evolutionary theory cannot account for consciousness. Besides, I have already discussed this subject in another thread. There's no need to rehash it. I have already won this argument.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley, you really don't read well at all do you? Poor thing.
You asserted correlation is not identification. I asserted that cosciousness has biochemical origins.
If we looked at simple assertions, our arguments would be at equal strength.
Unfortunately for you, mine has a bit more backing.
Since you have to resort to ad hom attacks, I guess you're at a loss for a real basis for your argument. Not that you ever had one in the first place.
Do you really believe we've learned nothing since 1874 when Huxley made his claim about consciousness? Perhaps you do if you rely on woo-woo to inform you on how to behave.
"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
Only if your information stops at 1874. Even the wikipedia entry you quote defeats your position.
"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
Which is not in contention. That 'observation' does not tell us anything one way or the other about the underlying processes that give rise to both the sequence of events and the associated subjective experience.
Again not really in contention - the disagreement is over the underlying nature of those phenomena.
Those experiences still do not demonstrate in any way that they do not or cannot arise or 'emerge' from underlying 'naturalistic' processes and structures which we perceive, imperfectly, through our senses. I have repeatedly acknowledged that the subjective and the objective are different categories. There are endless examples of such examples of different categories, even if we restrict ourselves to the purely naturalistic view of the world. It is fundamental to describing and understanding our experience in terms of language and logic. This is not the point at issue with me or Dennett.
For example, the array of discrete small illuminated patches on the screen you are reading this from ('pixels') are in a different category from the patterns in which they are set to display different colors, which are different in kind again to the set of standard symbols which such patterns closely match, which in turn are different in kind to the set of agreed meanings we associate with various sequences of those symbols (letters -> words -> meanings).
So our subjective experience simply proves we have subjective experience. D'uh.
To get anywhere here, we still have to get back to your basic assertion that the subjective cannot 'emerge' from the 'physical', that consciousness/awareness cannot emerge from elements which contain no meaningful trace of such attributes. This is the argument, not that consciousness is a different sort of 'thing' from a physical object or collection of such objects.
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
Sorry, but this diversionary tactic will not work. You orginally argued that the mental is physical based on correlation. And I informed you that correlation is not identification. Also, that "correlation is not identification" is NOT an assertion. It's a logical principle that scientists are obligated to adhere to. So, your argument is NOT valid.
Huxley's argument is as valid today as it was then. On the materialist view, consciousness is an epiphenomenal property and as such is causally inefficacious. Therefore, evolutionary theory cannot explain why consciousness was naturally selected since an epiphenomenal property (by definition) cannot confer any survival benefit. And if you think this argument is not valid, then I will kindly ask you to explain to me how an insentient stimulus-response system (i.e. a robot without consciousness) evolved into a sentient stimulus-response system (i.e. a robot with consciousness).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
That "observation" provides us with first-person evidence of free will. It's indisputable.
Actually, the materialist really does contest this. He argues that there is no free will - that mental events are merely epiphenomenal properties of the phsyical and as such are causally inefficacious. I have first-person evidence that says otherwise. You have nothing.
What do you mean by "emergence?" Is it a sudden emergence or is it a gradual emergence that begins with the first-replicators or macromolecules? The former qualifies as a magical explanation; the latter is seriously flirting with panpsychism.
Dennett's argument either implies panpsychism or eliminative materialism. Those are the only options. And I have cited sources to support this claim while you have simply evaded the issue.
And simply asserting that the mental is physical proves nothing. Dah!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Consciousness is epiphenomenal. That means it is a by-producct of a physical state. That means it was caused by something physical. Your whole argument is shot to hell and the fun part is you did it yourself.
"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
Now we come to lap three.
Wait for it........
Tell me something I already don't know. Evidently, you don't know what the term "causally inefficacious" means. What it means is to be without causal influence. And if consciousness is an epiphenomenon (as materialists claim...and after all...it would have to be a by product of the physical to qualify as a materialist position...this is a given!), then conciousness cannot be explain by natural selection. Why? Because there is no way to account for how something that has no causal influence could confer a survival benefit to a living organism. This was the argument that evolutionary biologist Thomas Huxley (who dubbed the term epiphenomenon) made in 1874. And the argument is as valid today as it was then.
Next time, I suggest you do your homework before declaring victory. This way you would spare yourself the embarrassment of looking like an idiot.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I'm so glad you realize you shot down your argument that consciousness needs a magic man to happen.
As for survival, the only way consciousness doesn't benefit survival is if we use your definition that one need not be aware of something to be aware.
You know, your usual bullshit.
"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
Consciousness is the basis for empiricism. Also, all scientific theories are tentative and subject to change. Therefore, scientific knowledge can never qualify as true knowledge or absolute certitude.
Addendum: It is true that eliminative materialists (e.g. Daniel Dennett) deny the existence of consciousness. However, this does not disqualify my claim. It simply demonstrates the irrationality of some forms of materialism.
Duality is how we perceive the world (the subject vs. the objective). I never even mentioned the term "soul." I don't have to.
I don't have to explain consciousness. It is a given. You're the one who is proposing that only the physical is real. Therefore, you have to explain how something that only has an exterior gives rise to an interior.
I'm saying that the prevailing scientific theory (QM) clearly does not support materialism. Based on QM, there is no absolute determinism, there is no absolute subtance(s), there is no absolute objectivity, and there is no absolute certainty. How does that prove materialism? Answer: It doesn't.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Ugh... wut? Are you claiming that research in 1874 failing to explain consciousness is somehow evidence against my statement that scientific knowledge increases over time? Are you sure you're mentally equipped to discuss this topic.
Since we're quoting wiki here you go
Who's ill informed now?
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
But the process of empiricism can be employed by animals that have nothing like what we'd call consciousness, so that can't be true.
But other than as a Platonic forms, "true knowledge" and "absolute certitude" do not exist.
Okay, then, "mind". You're suggesting that there is a mind-body duality. Just because we perceive the world in a certain way doesn't mean that our perception is accurate.
You also don't have to mention the words "soul" or "mind" because they represent a long tradition of Platonic and neo-Platonic thought.
But this "interior" and "exterior" refer to what, then? Is the exterior the body, and the interior something else? Consciousness as an emergent property isn't that much of an intellectual stretch, is it? After all, it deals with known things (the body) and doesn't require any unknown things (the somehow-immaterial mind) to explain it.
You're saying I have to explain the apparent exterior-interior duality that some people perceive, when I don't even see it that way. The introduction of an extra ingredient (the mind) doesn't solve anything, because it cannot be shown in what way the mind has consciousness, separate from the body.
For the roughly thousandth time, you're kicking at Descartes, and his 17th century version of materialism, which is obsolete. What's weird about that is that you don't seem to shrink from using his mind-body duality in an attempt to explain consciousness.
I agree that absolutes are ridiculous.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
What does this prove? It is simply an assertion that consciousness can be viewed as an "adaptation because it is a trait that increases fitness." What exactly is the trait that increases fitness? And what were the first living organisms to exhibit this trait?
What is consciousness' proximate and ultimate cause? And what are the first living organisms to exhibit this "proximate and ultimate cause?"
There's no scientific definition for consciousness. There is no scientific test for consciousness. Where's the scientific progress in determining what living organisms are and what living organisms are not conscious? Answer: There isn't any.
To reiterate, Huxley's argument is as valid today as it was then. On the materialist view, consciousness is an epiphenomenal property and as such is causally inefficacious. Therefore, evolutionary theory cannot explain why consciousness was naturally selected since an epiphenomenal property (by definition) cannot confer any survival benefit. And if you think this argument is not valid, then I will kindly ask you to explain to me how an insentient stimulus-response system (i.e. a robot without consciousness) evolved into a sentient stimulus-response system (i.e. a robot with consciousness).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Gah! You're so right, and I always get sucked in!
So do we all, Will. So do we all.
Empiricism is based on knowledge gained form EXPERIENCE. Without consciousness, there is no experience. This is not difficult.
Incidentally, I seriously hope you are not attempting to argue that animals are not conscious.
I know with absolute certitude that even as I write this statement I am conscious. I am surprised to learn that you do not have this knowledge. You truly have my sympathy.
Agreed. It doesn't mean our perception is accurate. However, if you believe that our perception is inaccurate, then the onus is on you to prove why it is.
Okay. Then we obviously have first-person evidence for the existence of the soul.
The exterior refers to the body and the interior refers to consciousness. And I am sure you know that.
Also, dualism is less of an intellectual stretch than materialism. And I would argue that it is more reasonable to assume that every exterior has an interior than to assume that an interior magically pops out somehow when insentient bits of matter in motion form a certain configuration.
You don't experience the exterior-interior (or subject-object) duality? Would you really have us believe that you don't understand the difference between the term "observer" and "observed?" Puhlease!
Also, I am not adding an "extra ingredient." That I have subjective experience (mind) is simply a fact derived from my own first-person observation. I don't need you to confirm this for me. I know this with absolute certitude. I trust that you have the same experience. If you don't, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Agreed. Cartesian materialism is obsolete. And if you redefine materialism so that it is compatible with immaterialism, then you are simply making my case.
Also, I am not attempting to "explain consciousness." I don't have to. It's a brute fact of existence and I am merely acknowledging it.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead