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
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
No, actually I can't. Perhaps you can elaborate.
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.
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
I responded to Bob's post.
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
I like pie.
This thread is now about pie.
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.
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.
If you're claiming that consciousness is physical, then you are burden with the task of measuring its physical properties.
Computers do the same and computers are not conscious.
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
Blueberry pie is my favorite.
All in favor say "Aye".
All opposed, GTFO!
The "Ayes" have it!
"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
Ohhhh. Is that pumpkin pie bychance?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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
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
Double post! Sorry.
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.
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.)
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
Seriously, seriously, seriously. Stop feeding the Paisley. This is ridiculous.
"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
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.
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?
To 500!
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!
This pie is in its quantum state. It's everywhere at once.
(Kitty no! That's my pot pie!)
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
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
Goddamn, you guys. Now I'm seriously hungry.
(Okay, that happens every hour, but have mercy!)
Then why the hell did you post a friggin novel in the first place.
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
No, they assume that it is true and then seek to shift the burden of proof upon the dualist.
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
Then why did you post the goddamn topic and write a book on it in the first place.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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.
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!
What exactly is the problem here? Is it pantheism rather than panpsychism? Or, is it something else?
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
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.
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?
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
Cool. I do appreciate a sense of humor. Truly.
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?
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."
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
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
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.