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
Why do I have to show that the conscious universe exists outside of the material universe? The OUTSIDE is the physical. The INSIDE is the mental.
Also, the purpose of this thread is not to present evidence of a conscious universe. The purpose of this thread is to show that Daniel Dennett has unwittingly made the argument for me. LOL
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Science has no psychometer to measure consciousness. If you think it does, then please present this forum with the evidence for the instrument's existence.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Show me that consciousness exists without the brain. A very simple request. With scientific evidence show me the consciousness exists without the material or phsycial world with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, this is required when your trying to dismiss scientific evidence that contradicts your world view. Very simple thing that is required from you, that's it that's all.
Thanks for the condescending (and completely wrong) breakdown of Dennett's point. You have, as usual, completely missed the point.
The problem faced by any self-replicating entity that is in competition for resources will always be to "recognize and act on the reasons that their very existence brought into existence." This is self-evident. There would be no tussle over resources if life didn't need those resources to exist. The very nature of natural selection (one of the driving forces of evolution) is that those best-adapted to win the struggle over resources will in fact win the resources, on average.
This is strictly materialistic, and describes the basis of consciousness, without ascribing consciousness to the first replicators. He is merely stating the roots of consciousness lies with the external forces driving those first repicators. He's saying the problem and the solution of consciousness is found in the exact same place, the need of life to find resources necessary to propogate. The philosohical oddity is that this necessity is borne of the fundamental nature of life. I felt that Dennett was admiring the symmetry of the need and the solution, both intrinsic in the exact same source: life itself.
How you can turn this into some sort of support of panpsychism is beyond me. I suspect you are one of those people who own only a hammer, and see everything as a nail. In any case, I'm not surprised you found Dennett tedious. That happens when you don't fucking get what you're reading.
"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
That is a simple misreading of what was explicitly described earlier in that chapter (I have the book in front of me as I type, I read it it originally some time ago), under the heading "Scene One: The Birth of Boundaries and Reasons". Please read it. I am a bit busy at the moment to scan or type in the full text, but he is in no way assigning them sentience. He does use terms like 'interests', in the sense that
"if these simple replicators are to survive and replicate, thus persisting in the face of increasing entropy, their environment must meet certain conditions: conditions conducive to replication must be present or at least frequent."
His whole narrative there is to describe how he sees 'interests', 'reasons', and 'consciousness' progressively arising from a world that was totally devoid of such things (IOW a world totally at odds with panpsychism) where
"Nothing had a purpose. .... there was no teleology in the world at all".
The thing is , you do this misreading of things all the time, apparently unconsciously, automatically interpreting the text in accordance with your preconceptions, ie , you aren't even aware of how you are driven by your particular presuppositions to read both our responses and the writings of these texts in this distorted and shallow way.
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
Now I need to read Dennett to call you on your MO? I'm not arguing with him and others have already taken you apart on your misinterpretation. why do I need to reinvent the wheel?
"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
Same reason I'm supposed to I guess...
It's called basic debate etiquette. If you're simply hell-bent on just driving by and making snide remarks, then you can expect your posts to be summarily dismissed. I will accord your posts the same respect that you accord mine.
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.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You obviously don't have the intellectual wherewithal to make an actual argument. Fair enough?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I have not failed anything. I am simply asking what is it you think this non physical thing does. How does it add to making decisions? You have not established what this conciousness does.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
I call bullshit.
This has nothing at all to do with pantheism, panpsychism, god, atheism, or anything else. It's a description of an attribute of consciousness -- that consciousness is not a binary state.
This sophistry is beneath you.
"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
Seriously people, stop feeding the Paisley.
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.
On the other hand, Evan Harris Walker's quantum mind theory actually does predict values.
By the way, would you have us believe that a computer program is really conscious. If not, then your analogy is not apt.
And you are trumpeting your ignorance as real knowledge.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
What ever you want to believe. That's what it comes down to for you anyway. You believe what you want, regardless of how it compares to observed reality.
The offer still stands though. If you should happen to present an argument of merit, then and only then, will I validate said argument with a counter argument. Provided I disagree that is.
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
It's obvious no one has really read and understood the OP. This is obvious as no one agrees with Paisley. This is self evident as were anyone to agree with Paisley, that would prove that person had read the OP in its entirety and understood it. Q.E.D.
"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
And why should you or anyone else expect me to respond to your posts if you are not willing to read the OP and make a relevant point?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I really REALLY try. It's like a train wreck. You don't want to stare, but you can't look away.
In all seriousness, that's why I make "snide" comments rather than engage him in actual discussion. Open discussion would only serve encourage his ramblings, as if to say they were reasonable.
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
I am asking you to simply stay on topic and respond to the OP. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't participate in this thread.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Is this satire? I actually can't tell...
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
It's JillSwift talking about Paisley. Of course it's satire.
OK. I actually don't have a problem with his bashing of the book. What I take issue with is the primary perception bullshit at the bottom of the OP.
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
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...."
Yup. That's the part. Now that the cat is out of the bag, I wonder if I'll have to justify my position to him.
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
"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
FTW!!!1!!
I was actually going to say something to that effect but I forgot.
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 I am participating in the thread, I am however just skipping the most of the mundane stuff, like presenting a counter argument to your statement and just going ahead and asking you for the umptenth time to present evdience of the immaterial existing without the material, in other words how consciouness exists without the brain. 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. So why go with the tedious parts and just skip it all to this point in which we ask you to present you evidence, to which you can then abandon the thread, so that you can start yet another thread on consciousness and how materialists are wrong.
A fundamental lesson I extract from what we have learnt about the nature of reality via the scientific method, is that there is likely just one ultimate 'stuff' which makes up all of reality at the most fundamental level.
What makes differences in entities is their structure, the way the common fundamental 'stuff' is arranged and distributed and moves.
An example of how science has lead us in this direction, by completely reversing an intuitive theory of the composition of physical reality, involved the early idea of everything being made up of admixtures of four 'elements', Earth, Air, Water, and Fire.
Whereas we now know that those 'elements' are all made of ultimately the same stuff, namely atoms, out of a selection of less than 100 varieties, each of which are, in turn composed different combinations of 4 different subatomic particles, which seem to be made of other smaller particles, etc., although we strongly suspect that this hierarchy does not extend indefinitely.
In fact, we can have examples of a solid, a liquid, a gas, and even an intensely hot plasma, matching these classic four 'elements', composed of just one type of molecule, such as water. EDIT: corrected atom to molecule, thanks Nigel.
It is difference in structure and organization and dynamic behavior which determines what category of entity we perceive. So 'emergence', which has composite entities, at every level of complexity, possessing attributes which are not meaningfully assignable to their component parts, is the fundamental truth which we can derive from science.
As we go up the hierarchy of organization, from quarks and leptons, to atoms, to molecules, to complex structures of molecules, and so on, the modes of collective behavior possible grow in variety and complexity far faster than exponentially. There really seems no inherent limit to this kind of hierarchy. One branch of this tree is of much interest to us, that leading to living organisms, and in another branch of this to intelligent life-forms.
To postulate consciousness as being some fundamental thing in itself is ultimately incoherent, and flies in the face of the nature of the examples of consciousness we actually observe. 'Higher level' versions of consciousness seem to be consistently associated with more complex structures and organization of the elements of brain tissue. Disruption of different parts of that structure have fairly consistent and major effects on the consciousness experienced by the subject affected.
To the best of my knowledge, having read half-a-dozen or so of Dennett's books, is broadly consistent with his views.
Just my 2 Australian cents worth...
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
There's no instrument to measure "logic," either. What's your point?
It is a perfectly apt analogy. I'm not equating their level of information processing ability. I'm equating their "physicalness." But again, you miss the point.
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.
"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
Another bit of priceless Paisley.
Puts up a bunch of stuff to show that he's looked at a book just enough to misread it and adds a conclusion pulled from his keester. When his conclusion is disputed, he says "Well, take it up with the author because they agree with me"
"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
Water is an atom?
Sorry. I just wanted to call it out before Paisley did, because he'll underline it, make some sort dismissive comment, and ignore the rest of your post, just like he always does.
"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
Yet I notice out of his profile that he has no expertise in neuroscience and from what I understand gets most of his criticism from that very field. I've seen/heard about this man's research before as well. The crux of his arguments relying on microtubules; which to date he has still not set up experiments to falsify/strengthen his "theories". I'm wouldn't dismiss something like this out of hand but the guy really needs to get some experiments and data going, it's been over a decade and he still doesn't have much to show for it.
The basis for most of what Hameroff tries to argue for is tied to his knowledge of anesthesia. I actually found this article referencing solitons to be incredibly more interesting and has more information to boot!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_model
Most of that highlighted stuff is gibberish that neither this man or anyone knows 'coherently'. He's giving attributes to what consciousness is when he himself admits that he's not sure what it is. I'd be interested to know what this man's definition of "consciousness" is.
I've always looked at time flow as simply a problem of entropy, not something subjective; unless of course you just want to claim that everything is subjective, which it technicially is.
Actually the thing I find funny about this is that you constantly assault these forums with your strawman versions of materialism and then post links to people who are attempting to solve very large problems through materialistic (I'd use the term 'scientific' loosely in this specific case) methods. I've come across people like you before; you cherry pick any scientific data that sounds like it'll fit in with the argument at hand so you think you can prove a point.
Yes, and I was stating that either way, with the brains we have, it IS impossible to tell the difference between what your versions of a deterministic universe vs. one with free will would be like. All of your arguments rest on the assumption that you could have done otherwise. Yet to this date, no one or anything has proven that one could experience more than one choice at a time. In a way it's the same joke with religion, you'll never know till it's too late (as in you're dead and can't tell anyone).
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.
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.
Sounds like you're making the very mistake the student makes in: http://www.rationalresponders.com/debunking_an_urban_legend_evil_is_a_lack_of_something
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.
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.
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.
Here's the story on the definition of "Consciousness".
It's not only been denied, by the Behaviorists. A more popular group in the late 1970's, but it CONTINUES to be a
"moving target".
That is, as scientists learn more about what animals understand, the definition of consiousness, by those people that define it, has remained a "moving target", continually changing to never be wrong, and to always distinguis humans from other animals.
The last defition of "Consciousness" which was extensively discussed in a Nova Science series, was provided about 5 years ago.
As a psychology major (long ago), I've found the case for the definition of "consciousness", when comparing Chimps to humans, to be sufficiently obscure as to obfuscate a comprehensible definition of "consciousness" of ANY VALUE to scientists / behaviorists (i.e. that that study animal and human behavior).
This is irrelevant to the subject matter as presented in the OP.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The key term in the definition is "DEGREES." It's not a difference in definition, but one of degrees. IOW, if there is a degree of conscious experience, then there is conscious experience! So, yes, consciousness is indeed a binary state.
Now, when the late physicist David Bohm stated that "even an electron has a rudimentary mental pole, represented mathematically by the quantum potential,"*he was not implying that the mentality of an electron is the same as that of a human being. However, he was arguing that an electron has a mental aspect! This is panpsychism.
* (source: pg. 387 "The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory" by David Bohm and B.J. Hiley)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Just FYI. The evolution of higher states of consciousness is compatible with panpsychism. Also, the particular form of panpsychism I am referring to is the one which was espoused by A. N. Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's colleague).
To begin with, I think it is important to determine what Dennett's vested interests are in writing "Consciousness Explained." (You cast aspersions upon my presuppostions. I think that it is only fair that I should be afforded the same luxury).
Early in the book, Dennett states that "dualism is to be avoided at all costs." (pg. 37) Why? Because dualism is deemed to be antiscientific. And then he goes on to say that "dualism wallows in mystery" and "accepting dualism is giving up." (pg. 37)
Interestingly enough, there is a footnote at the bottom of the page acknowledging that John Eccles did craft a dualistic theory of mind and brain. But Dennett simply brushed the theory off. However, how can Dennett honestly say dualism is "antiscientific" and "giving up" when arguably the foremost neuroscientist in the 20th century was actually a dualist?
I found the answer to this question at the end of the book when I discovered Dennett's vested interests - his involvement with AI (artificial intelligence). "Dualism is giving up" because if dualism is true then the idea that it is possible to create a computer or robot that actually has conscious experience is nothing more than a fantasy. Therefore, "dualism is to be avoided at all costs."
Below are quotes from Daniel Dennett's book entitled "Kinds of Minds." I wished I had purchased this one instead of "Consciousness Explained." It would have saved me a lot of precious time. Also, it is a more recent publication.
Here, Dennett basically says that human beings are robots because "we are made of robots" and descended from the original robots - the self-replicating molecular systems in the primordial soup. Also note that he states that robots can exhibit consciousness. Why? Because we are robots and we have consciousness.
In the next excerpt, he states his hypothesis of consciousness or sentience. The implication is crystal clear. The simplest and most "robotic" (i.e. the self-replicating macromolecules in the primordial soup) are sentient.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Just have some fucking pity on me, because my narcolepsy kicks in after reading the first half of any of your typical thread-posts for the better part of a day.
Could you attempt to limit your posts (for brain damaged folks like me), to less than 50,000 words?
Alternatively, I'd be willing to read your thread-post novels at a flat rate of $125.00 USD per hour, plus expenses for a 50 ton truck of ground coffee beens.
*sigh*
That's all well and good, but that's not the argument to which I'm responding. Here, let me jog your memory:
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?
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.
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.
"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
Considering the argument you made in the OP has no relation to what Dennett wrote, I suspect that's a moot point.
"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
"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
I watched it.
I was particularly impressed by Paisley's dress style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T-AYKo_ygk
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
"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
It's not real ermine. It's panpsychic.
"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
The pansychic pantisocratic part of panpsychosis which leads to such panjandrumite pansophy as Paisley often pans us with in his own panmictic way is alas incurable. Unfortunately no panacea exists for those little "storms in a pannikin" which he pathologically pants.
Hence the unseasonal ermine, I guess.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
"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
Really I was sure that when you say it isn't a physical thing you know what it was. Since I have already pointed out what parts of our experiences are part of the brain, it would see you don't have anything left to argue about. I was hoping you could give me some information as to why you think there is something else to add to the equation. This is relevant because you are trying to make the mind out to more than what I have stated, yet you have not provided what more it could be.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
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.
I don't think pantheism is "sexed-up atheism" either. I think it's polytheism for people who ran out of names to give to all their gods.
"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 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?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
And I have also encountered individuals like you who confuse "scientific materialism" with the scientific method. They're not the same. Materialism is a metaphysical position, not a scientifically established fact.
If you argue that it is impossible to tell the difference, then you would have to logically conclude that both options are equally valid or probable.
Be that as it may, what does this have to do with the subject matter of this thread?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead